Octopus Overlords

$iljanus wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:18 pm As entertaining as Sen. Whitehouse's X-Files info dump was, I'm pretty impressed by Sen. Klobuchar's actual questioning of Judge Barrett.

Barrett wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel in 2019 that upheld the dismissal of a workplace discrimination lawsuit by Terry Smith, a Black Illinois transportation employee who sued after he was fired. Smith’s claims included that he was called a racial slur by supervisor Lloyd Colbert.

“The n-word is an egregious racial epithet,” Barrett wrote in Smith v. Illinois Department of Transportation. “That said, Smith can’t win simply by proving that the word was uttered. He must also demonstrate that Colbert’s use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment.”

malchior wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:49 pm Just catching up - so a potential Supreme Court justice thinks the peaceful transfer of power is a 'political issue' that she shouldn't touch. I don't know about that...

malchior wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:31 am WTF. What constitutes a hostile workplace then? Does the guy need to hit him with his car while calling him the N-word?

But then again this is a sham anyway.

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:01 amShe's more of a red flag to me than Kavanaugh, and that's saying something.

In 1995, Justice Elena Kagan, then a young law professor, wrote a law review article calling Supreme Court confirmation hearings “a vapid and hollow charade.”

“The safest and surest route to the prize,” she wrote, “lay in alternating platitudinous statement and judicious silence.”

Judge Amy Coney Barrett expertly followed that playbook at her confirmation hearings on Tuesday, in her first day of answering questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Speaking without notes, she gave sure-footed accounts of Supreme Court precedents and then, almost without exception, declined to say whether the decisions were correct.

Judge Barrett was patient, calm, a little stern and sometimes surprisingly terse when she spoke about the law, easily parrying most questions from the Democratic senators who tried to put her on the spot.

Judge Barrett also cited the so-called Ginsburg rule, named for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last month and whose seat Judge Barrett hopes to assume. Justice Ginsburg was nominated by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

At her confirmation hearing in 1993, Justice Ginsburg distilled the responsibilities of nominees into a pithy phrase: “no hints, no forecasts, no previews.”

Judge Barrett said she would adopt the same stance. “That had been the practice of nominees before her, but everybody calls it the Ginsburg rule because she stated it so concisely, and it has been the practice of every nominee since,” she said.

Little Raven wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:19 am A nuanced look at the hearings from the Times.

malchior wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:26 am

Little Raven wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:19 am A nuanced look at the hearings from the Times.

So to sum it up - beyond the raw power politics that threaten to shatter the legitimacy of the court - she was stoic enough for the cameras. Terrific.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:28 am

malchior wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:26 am

Little Raven wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:19 am A nuanced look at the hearings from the Times.

So to sum it up - beyond the raw power politics that threaten to shatter the legitimacy of the court - she was stoic enough for the cameras. Terrific.

This is part of why I think the right move was to boycott the hearings. It's mostly playing on the GOP's turf.

Little Raven wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:19 am A nuanced look at the hearings from the Times.

In 1995, Justice Elena Kagan, then a young law professor, wrote a law review article calling Supreme Court confirmation hearings “a vapid and hollow charade.”

“The safest and surest route to the prize,” she wrote, “lay in alternating platitudinous statement and judicious silence.”

Judge Amy Coney Barrett expertly followed that playbook at her confirmation hearings on Tuesday, in her first day of answering questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Speaking without notes, she gave sure-footed accounts of Supreme Court precedents and then, almost without exception, declined to say whether the decisions were correct.

Judge Barrett was patient, calm, a little stern and sometimes surprisingly terse when she spoke about the law, easily parrying most questions from the Democratic senators who tried to put her on the spot.

She is doing exactly what you are supposed to do during these hearings. Which is absolutely inane, true....but Kagan did it, Sotomayor did it, basically EVERYONE since Bork has done it....because it's what you have to do. Hell, it's called the Ginsburg rule for a reason.

Judge Barrett also cited the so-called Ginsburg rule, named for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last month and whose seat Judge Barrett hopes to assume. Justice Ginsburg was nominated by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

At her confirmation hearing in 1993, Justice Ginsburg distilled the responsibilities of nominees into a pithy phrase: “no hints, no forecasts, no previews.”

Judge Barrett said she would adopt the same stance. “That had been the practice of nominees before her, but everybody calls it the Ginsburg rule because she stated it so concisely, and it has been the practice of every nominee since,” she said.

Of course, none of this should be a surprise. If you're a good enough lawyer to be considered for nomination to the Supreme Court, you're probably a good enough lawyer to avoid making any major mistakes in front of a committee.

$iljanus wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:35 amI understand the rationale behind this principle and could understand her judicial “jujitsu” in answering many of the questions. But the transfer of power and protection from intimidation at the polls are two things I thought that should transcend politics since they distinguish a functioning democracy from a totalitarian state.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:59 am

malchior wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:31 am WTF. What constitutes a hostile workplace then? Does the guy need to hit him with his car while calling him the N-word?

"You [N-Word]! I want to create a hostile work environment for you by saying the slur that I just said!"

Under questioning by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), Amy Coney Barrett is unable to name the five freedoms protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

stessier wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:33 pm Popehat's take is illuminating.

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:41 pmWhen softball questions backfire.

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:41 pm When softball questions backfire.

Under questioning by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), Amy Coney Barrett is unable to name the five freedoms protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:41 pm When softball questions backfire.

Under questioning by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), Amy Coney Barrett is unable to name the five freedoms protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Graham, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump, began another day of hearings by defending Barrett's refusal to address a number of critical issues from the previous day.

"One of the reasons you can't tell us how you would rule is because there's active litigation coming to the court," Graham said. "And one of the reasons you can say with confidence that you think Brown v. Board of Education is super-precedent is that you're not aware of any effort to go back to the good old days of segregation by a legislative body. Is that correct?"

"That is correct," Barrett responded. "I've also said in lectures that Brown was correct as an original matter, and that is the kind of thing — since I've said that in writing — that I can say before the committee."
...

Isgrimnur wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 8:32 pm Salon

Graham, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump, began another day of hearings by defending Barrett's refusal to address a number of critical issues from the previous day.

"One of the reasons you can't tell us how you would rule is because there's active litigation coming to the court," Graham said. "And one of the reasons you can say with confidence that you think Brown v. Board of Education is super-precedent is that you're not aware of any effort to go back to the good old days of segregation by a legislative body. Is that correct?"

"That is correct," Barrett responded. "I've also said in lectures that Brown was correct as an original matter, and that is the kind of thing — since I've said that in writing — that I can say before the committee."
...

Isgrimnur wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:20 pm There's a time and a place for sarcasm. I would suggest that this is neither.

I care about everybody. If you’re a young African American, an immigrant, you can go anywhere in the state, you just need to be conservative not liberal

Isgrimnur wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:24 pm This being days after:

I care about everybody. If you’re a young African American, an immigrant, you can go anywhere in the state, you just need to be conservative not liberal

is not a good look.

malchior wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:31 am WTF. What constitutes a hostile workplace then? Does the guy need to hit him with his car while calling him the N-word?

Grifman wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:45 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:31 am WTF. What constitutes a hostile workplace then? Does the guy need to hit him with his car while calling him the N-word?

The guy was already in the process of being fired at the time when that term was used. The person that called him a n***** was black himself. The court was unanimous that discrimination played no role in his firing.

Grifman wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:45 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:31 am WTF. What constitutes a hostile workplace then? Does the guy need to hit him with his car while calling him the N-word?

The guy was already in the process of being fired at the time when that term was used. The person that called him a n***** was black himself. The court was unanimous that discrimination played no role in his firing.

Kurth wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 12:43 am

Grifman wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:45 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:31 am WTF. What constitutes a hostile workplace then? Does the guy need to hit him with his car while calling him the N-word?

The guy was already in the process of being fired at the time when that term was used. The person that called him a n***** was black himself. The court was unanimous that discrimination played no role in his firing.

You and your facts! Next you're going to tell me that McDonalds deserved to get tagged with a $2.9M damages award when some lady spilled a hot cup of coffee on herself.

Spoiler:

Yes. It clearly did.

Smoove_B wrote:Prediction: 100% of sitting GOP Senators vote "yes" to confirm. They're all in too deep now; better to stay in the good graces of the party than try to game the voting public. Also, F all the GOP Senators. I look forward to seeing them retired.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:47 am I think Collins votes no just because she thinks it'll play better in her election fight and, of course, she knows her vote won't make a difference.

Sen. Lindsey Graham on Wednesday clarified that he was being sarcastic when he referred to the “good old days of segregation” and blasted his opponent for seeking to capitalize on the comments.

During a recess in the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Graham (R-S.C.) insisted to reporters that his comments were made in jest and accused Jaime Harrison of launching a disingenuous attack.

“It was with deep sarcasm that I suggested that some legislative body would want to yearn for the good old days of segregationism,” the senator said. “The point that I’m trying to make, there’s nobody in America in the legislative arena wanting to take us back to that dark period in American history and for my opponent to suggest that says far more about him than me.”

“I want to make sure that everybody in my state moves forward,” he told reporters, emphasizing that nearly a third of his constituents are Black. “And in terms of that statement, it blows my mind that any rational person could believe that about me.”
...
Graham cast Harrison’s attack as below the belt, asserting that “this is not a game we’re playing here with the people of South Carolina.” And while he pointed out that “there are plenty of differences between my opponent and myself,” Graham called Harrison’s criticism “not worthy of the times in which we live” and “not worthy of an assault on me.”

He concluded: “I want to assure the people of South Carolina that statement was made with dripping sarcasm."