Amy Coney-Barrett | Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Marcosdeto said:
one senator today IIRC said that Trump appointed over 100 lower court judges, non of them were black and only 20 percent weren't white -i guess latinos and asians-.
But seriously, judges work with the laws that the legislature provides, and for what i see some state legislatures have very shit laws
Click to expand...
These are the federal judge appointees that are at the circuit court & appeals court levels and, yes, they mostly fit a very defined aesthetic, unfortunately (not to mention that some are woefully under qualified for such positions).

Most all state judges are appointed by governors, committees, or are voted in (IIRC).
 
calodo2003 said:
These are the federal judge appointees that are at the circuit court & appeals court levels and, yes, they mostly fit a very defined aesthetic, unfortunately (not to mention that some are woefully under qualified for such positions).

Most all state judges are appointed by governors, committees, or are voted in (IIRC).
Click to expand...
I understand that, in argentina we replicate the USA judicial system. Our constitution follows very much, yours
 
calodo2003 said:
When did come into play? For how long as your judicial system mirrored ours?
Click to expand...
Our constitution was written in 1853, and we adopted the from the USA the three branches of goverment.
The dual judicial system -federal and state-
And both senators and deputies
We also used to have -till 1994- an electoral college, and we miss it
 
I did a quick search on the following, but could not find any answers:

Has there ever been a modern SCOTUS nominee who has not taken a case to trial? Or, on a more specific note, has there ever been a SCOTUS nominee ever that has allowed the testimony of a hypnotized witness to stand?
 
calodo2003 said:
I did a quick search on the following, but could not find any answers:

Has there ever been a modern SCOTUS nominee who has not taken a case to trial? Or, on a more specific note, has there ever been a SCOTUS nominee ever that has allowed the testimony of a hypnotized witness to stand?
Click to expand...
Wait what? :lol:
 
Ubik said:
No idea how common that is but seems pretty wild, doubly so as the fact he was hypnotised wasn't revealed. Lifetime appointment - sorted.
Click to expand...
Only witness too, apparently.

I am no lawyer / never been to law school, but I don’t think I have ever heard of a trial of this nature hinge on the testimony of someone who was under hypnosis.
 
Marcosdeto said:
One thing that amazes me is the importance that the judges have in the USA. In Argentina most people have no idea who are the SC judges.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine it is the same in most countries. I only knew the name of one of the ones in the UK, and that was last year due to Boris proroguing parliament. It went to the Supreme Court, Lady Hale (President at the time) announced the verdict wearing a spider brooch which made the headlines of the papers. She's no longer on the Court.
 
Damien said:
I'd imagine it is the same in most countries. I only knew the name of one of the ones in the UK, and that was last year due to Boris proroguing parliament. It went to the Supreme Court, Lady Hale (President at the time) announced the verdict wearing a spider brooch which made the headlines of the papers. She's no longer on the Court.
Click to expand...
that should be the normal in every civilized country
 
These things tend to balance out. Once it becomes clear that Amy/Alito/Thomas are willing to pass some serious shite, one of Gorsuch or Kavanaugh will join Roberts in dissenting. Just like Kennedy, Souter, Stevens all did at some point in their tenure. These days the younger justices will all know folk who have had abortions, are gay etc. Maybe not Amy because it's quite clear she's deeply religious and a bit messed-up.

Not that it's all great. Citizen's United won't be getting looked at again for a very long time. Maybe in some ways that's even more troubling than civil liberties.
 
Damien said:
I'd imagine it is the same in most countries. I only knew the name of one of the ones in the UK, and that was last year due to Boris proroguing parliament. It went to the Supreme Court, Lady Hale (President at the time) announced the verdict wearing a spider brooch which made the headlines of the papers. She's no longer on the Court.
Click to expand...
Why is she no longer on the court, do y’all have term limits on serving in your SC?
 
calodo2003 said:
Why is she no longer on the court, do y’all have term limits on serving in your SC?
Click to expand...
75 is the mandatory retirement age for judges appointed before 1995. I think after then it was changed to 70 and there was a consultation this year on whether it should be increased to 72 or 75. Weirdly, the consultation ended today... freaky.

All but one of the 12 judges are 62 or older, with the youngest being 58.
 


I knew that Obama (and Biden) went out of his way to endorse Feinstein in her election against a progressive Democrat (this was the general, no fear of a conservative beating the progressive afterwards).

What I didn't know is that Bernie (or anyone else, really) did not endorse the challenger, which really reflects badly.
 
She seems very much despicable. Unfortunately, also quite competent and smart. The female Scalia (as has been called from others).
 
She reminds me of a middle-aged Amanda Knox.
 
People may not like her politics, But she comes across as unusually intelligent and competent by the standards of US politics. She isn't even 85, which is nothing short of jaw dropping.

The idea of political courts still makes my skin crawl. Deciding vitally important court cases via party political appointments is a terrible system.
 
Last edited:
Tiber said:
People may not like her politics, But she comes across as unusually intelligent and competent by the standards of US politics. She isn't even 85, which is nothing short of jaw dropping.

The idea of political courts still makes my skin crawl Deciding court cases via political appointments is a terrible system.
Click to expand...
She’s let hypnosis stand as testimony & basically ruled in favor of a rapist’s employer. She falls well outside of the competency required for a SCOTUS judge.

Is she more competent than a typical politician? That’s a different debate.
 
calodo2003 said:
She’s let hypnosis stand as testimony & basically ruled in favor of a rapist’s employer. She falls well outside of the competency required for a SCOTUS judge.

Is she more competent than a typical politician? That’s a different debate.
Click to expand...
Have you read the full judgement and the opinions she wrote while pronouncing the judgement or are you saying that stuff based on the news sources, news media or twitter?

I think when it comes to judgements from any judges of district court, federal courts and specially Supreme Courts, it is good to read into the full opinion if you have the time. Or at least into the summary of the judgement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.