It’s Barrett....(Democrat Hysteria Game Thread)

Houhusky said:

@creepycoug can you link to any important Lagoa decisions specifically regarding the 1st, 2nd, 4th, or her general view on constitutional jurisprudence?

The only thing I saw that might indicate she would have what Trump supporters or Republicans would desire is she didn't recuse herself when democrats asked her and upheld the ruling that required re-enfranchised felons to pay all financial obligations before being allowed to vote.

Seems kind of thin... idk

Honestly I can't without going and looking for it. Sounds like Barrett has a more distinct track record on those issues, which I would expect as a disciple of Scalia.

That said, I had never heard of either of them before this nomination round. I had heard of Kavanaugh before his appointment, probably because he was on the DC Circuit COA and I'd heard of Gorsuch before he was appointed but I don't recall in what context.

I know next to nothing about Lagoa other than her bio. Desantis is a pretty conservative guy so she'd have had to have passed his test before apppointing her to the FSC. I guess one other knock on her is that she's only been on the federal COA for a short tim, and that credential is probably more powerful than state supreme court experience for a SCTOUS appointment. And her Fla. SC stint was also short-lived. So she doesn't have a long track record on the bench.

OTOH, she was in private practice and spent time as a federal prosecutor.

OTOH, she wasn't a law clerk at the SCOTUS, which is a credential a lot of appointees have and Barrett has that.

OTOH, she's a Federalist Society chicka, so you know she has the textualist and originalist goods.

IDK, looks like he made the right choice and it's not like he's going to lose Florida for passing on Lagoa or anything.

I really have no dog in this hunt, except that my irrational fears about people who spend too much time looking at the sky for answers is well documented here in the Tug, and so irrationally I'd prefer to have somebody on the court who is conservative but who doesn't look for reasons to bring it to work. Barrett seems a little more religiously kooky, but then again, don't ever underestimate a Cuban woman's Catholicism. They bring that shit hard and heavy in Hialeah. Trust me; I know.

I find that I like looking at Barrett. So there's that.

WestlinnDuck said:

"I pointed out that both candidates present academic deficiencies relative to the "typical" appointee, which would include Kavy. And they do. Otherwise, this is a political dog and pony show like it always is." In a lot of respects a Harvard or Yale law degree seems at times to be a POS degree. The intellectual culture is largely monoclonal and lacks any commitment to intellectual diversity and rigorous examination of the actual written law and facts. The fact that a poorly educated barry ended up as editor of the Harvard Law review says it all. When your Constitutional analysis is based on feelings rather that the actual written Constitutional document then your Ivy league degree is worthless. If you "feel" that a movie critical of a presidential candidate is not protected by the 1A then once again, your law degree is worthless.

There are incredibly smart people coming out of Harvard and Yale law. Some like Ted Cruz make it through and can actually read and understand the law. Others, like RBG and Kagan and Sotomayor aren't fit to be dog catcher. When someone feels that Sotomayor, who won't protect the first and second amendment, but deserves to be on the Court because she is a wise latina, then that person has some serious academic deficiencies. If ypu feel someone should be judged based on the color of their skin and sex, rather than the strength of their character then why bother with requiring a serious academic career.

So, what academic deficiency does ACB have? Honest question.

There's a lot of crazy categorical non-sense in the first paragraph of your post, and so I'll take a pass on that one. If it makes you feel good to say I'm scared, then sure, I'm scared.

As to your question, I think I've already covered it. She went to a law school that only recently cracked the top 30 and is MUCH MUCH easier to get into than the schools SCOTUS appointees tend to come from. That applies to justices from one end of the political spectrum to the other. She also attended Rhodes College. My position on small liberal arts colleges being the gold standard for undergraduate eduction is clear and consistent. So it's not that. But among that cohort of schools, Rhodes is not elite at all and is never mentioned as a "small ivy" or any other distinction of note. Admission rate is somewhere close to 50% and their test score numbers are not super high (or low).

You may scoff at this, but the fact is the competition in her undergrad and law school was signficantly less rigorous than it would be at H, Y or S, or a bunch of other schools for that matter. Lagoa was worse undergrad (FIU) and better law school (Columbia). Not a knock on her intellectual ability, which I can't possibly know. My guess, though, is that even a devout Catholic would choose a number of schools before Notre Dame if they were options, and even if it had to be Catholic, then Georgetown is the choice if you have it. She may not be a great standardized test taker. IDK.

creepycoug said:

WestlinnDuck said:

So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.

I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.

We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.

You forgot that you also lie and love to be lied to and that if we scratch you that we will, in fact, reveal a fascist. Otherwise you nailed it.