I think Repubs care more about competency than Dems, but I certainly care most about ideology - but that ideology is "fealty to the Constitution and laws as originally written & intended" and I would take a marginally competent justice with that ideology over a supremely competent ideological squish (CJ Roberts, Souter, Kennedy, etc.).
Not sure if caring for the Constitution is the same as caring for an ideology. The Founding Fathers have based the Constitution of the United States on logic, fairness and moral principles. Sure, we could consider Constitutionalism purely an ideology, but I see it this way: WE, THE PEOPLE... endowed with unalienable rights, fully in charge within the framework of the Republic is a superior way of coexistence. That's why the United States is the best country in the world.
Again, I think this is mixing up competency with ideology. Of course they're competent - they've made it to the top of their profession without use/benefit of affirmative action (compare: Sotomayor). But their ideology is not strict constructionism - so they are free to use the "living Constitution" fallacy to chase after their other ideological goals.
They're competent - they just have a different definition / understanding of what it means to "interpret" the Constitution. Look up Jeff Goldstein / Protein Wisdom - he explains this stuff thoroughly.
I think I follow what you're saying, and from your perspective I think it's a fair statement (and fyi, I agree with what I think is your position - that the true and correct and only legitimate definition of judicial interpretation is originalist intent / strict constructionism - and if you don't follow that, you are, by defenition, not a "competent" judge).
But I'm speaking from taking a step back and trying to assess both sides from the perspective of a disinterested observer (and so maybe giving the opposing position more credit than is due) - and from that position, I'm talking about what I see as being two common and very distinct judicial philosophies that I'm calling "strict constructionism" and "living Constitution". From that perspective, there are "competent practitioners" in each camp. But I can see how from the perspective of someone firmly inside one camp, anyone in the other camp would appear to be an incompetent and/or an ideologue.
He's running against MJ Hegar who is a Democrat female Afghan vet. I live in his district. Hegar has been advertising heavily. I hope I'm wrong but I have a feeling his seat is about to go to a democrat.
I may be misunderstanding what you're saying, but he's US Senate, so his district is the entire state of Tx.
Texas Tribune article a few days ago said latest University of Texas / Texas Tribune poll had Cornyn up by 8 points, which is right in line with generic party affiliation for congressional races.
District probably wasn't the best term to use. Anyways, I hope he wins. I'm just worried a lot of people will flock to Hegar solely based on her ads. She touts her service record constantly, shot down in helicopter, shows herself riding motorcycle, etc. Tries to act the badass and make Cornyn look old and washed up.
Well, here's hoping it's a landslide and the red wave washes Cornyn in with Trump - until we can primary Cornyn for someone more solid next time 'round.
Hegar is a racist who gleefully admits in her campaign ads that she tried to kill innocent brown people, in the same way Texans hunt hogs from helicopters. Her black primary opponent all but called her a racist:
Me too. And with that ability and a dollar in hand I can buy a cup of coffee. I certainly hope that when it comes down to actual rulings she won't just rely on her memory but will actually re-read and study the precedents.
It's a good thing I'm not a Democrat Senator, I would have destroyed her on that.
But I'm not, and they're all functionally retarded, so it's all good.
I loved her response because it was so literal, as a clear-headed supreme court justice should be. Many of us would have said 'nope'. She answered it 100% accurately.
That was a nice move Cornyn.
I still don't trust you and look forward to you being primaried by someone less establishment.
Still was a nice and clever move. Shows that Republicans nominate based on competency whereas Democrats nominate based on ideology.
I think Repubs care more about competency than Dems, but I certainly care most about ideology - but that ideology is "fealty to the Constitution and laws as originally written & intended" and I would take a marginally competent justice with that ideology over a supremely competent ideological squish (CJ Roberts, Souter, Kennedy, etc.).
Not sure if caring for the Constitution is the same as caring for an ideology. The Founding Fathers have based the Constitution of the United States on logic, fairness and moral principles. Sure, we could consider Constitutionalism purely an ideology, but I see it this way: WE, THE PEOPLE... endowed with unalienable rights, fully in charge within the framework of the Republic is a superior way of coexistence. That's why the United States is the best country in the world.
Again, I think this is mixing up competency with ideology. Of course they're competent - they've made it to the top of their profession without use/benefit of affirmative action (compare: Sotomayor). But their ideology is not strict constructionism - so they are free to use the "living Constitution" fallacy to chase after their other ideological goals.
They're competent - they just have a different definition / understanding of what it means to "interpret" the Constitution. Look up Jeff Goldstein / Protein Wisdom - he explains this stuff thoroughly.
I think I follow what you're saying, and from your perspective I think it's a fair statement (and fyi, I agree with what I think is your position - that the true and correct and only legitimate definition of judicial interpretation is originalist intent / strict constructionism - and if you don't follow that, you are, by defenition, not a "competent" judge).
But I'm speaking from taking a step back and trying to assess both sides from the perspective of a disinterested observer (and so maybe giving the opposing position more credit than is due) - and from that position, I'm talking about what I see as being two common and very distinct judicial philosophies that I'm calling "strict constructionism" and "living Constitution". From that perspective, there are "competent practitioners" in each camp. But I can see how from the perspective of someone firmly inside one camp, anyone in the other camp would appear to be an incompetent and/or an ideologue.
That was a cold shot. Good job by Sen. Cornyn.
Cornyn is your typical Bush era Texas RINO.
Voted for wars and big business bailouts when given the chance.
The only MAGA canidate is Hidden Hand Cruz that I know of, and deep down I still don't trust him.
He's running against MJ Hegar who is a Democrat female Afghan vet. I live in his district. Hegar has been advertising heavily. I hope I'm wrong but I have a feeling his seat is about to go to a democrat.
I may be misunderstanding what you're saying, but he's US Senate, so his district is the entire state of Tx. Texas Tribune article a few days ago said latest University of Texas / Texas Tribune poll had Cornyn up by 8 points, which is right in line with generic party affiliation for congressional races.
District probably wasn't the best term to use. Anyways, I hope he wins. I'm just worried a lot of people will flock to Hegar solely based on her ads. She touts her service record constantly, shot down in helicopter, shows herself riding motorcycle, etc. Tries to act the badass and make Cornyn look old and washed up.
Well, here's hoping it's a landslide and the red wave washes Cornyn in with Trump - until we can primary Cornyn for someone more solid next time 'round.
Hegar is a racist who gleefully admits in her campaign ads that she tried to kill innocent brown people, in the same way Texans hunt hogs from helicopters. Her black primary opponent all but called her a racist:
https://www.statesman.com/news/20201013/cornyn-ad-uses-westrsquos-words-to-hurt-hegar-with-black-voters
I was just thinking the exact same thought.
"That's impressive!"
I see this phrase being used here quite a bit in the future...
It has been in use here for years....
Refresher
........╚⊙ ⊙╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
IMPRESSIVE LENGTH!
As quick as lightning, just like the
tarantulaswamp it'skillingdraining,I would have gone for commie it's killing, but this is fine too
Pretty cool huh.
Kayleigh is all 'bitch dont make me reach for this folder, you know I will!'
ACB is all 'pfft notes, I can derive legal outcomes by extrapolating from constitutionalist principles in real-time.. now watch what I do to Brennan!'
I believe she recently had her first
Which means Kayleigh will only get more formidable as she couples motherhood with press secretary...
KM is witty and ultra-organized.
ACB is a genius with an incredible memory.
Both are incredibly impressive human beings. I'm glad KM is on our side and that ACB is a solid constitutional judge.
CNN - "ACB steals US Senate notepad and should be disqualified!"
CNN - "ACB refuses to use constitution in response to legal questioning"
My brain processes minutia very well and I have a good memory. It is a nice party trick for sure.
My brain is like a steel trap. Left set outside in northern michigan back in 1890 and left untouched.
LOL RIP
Me too. And with that ability and a dollar in hand I can buy a cup of coffee. I certainly hope that when it comes down to actual rulings she won't just rely on her memory but will actually re-read and study the precedents.
It's a good thing I'm not a Democrat Senator, I would have destroyed her on that.
But I'm not, and they're all functionally retarded, so it's all good.
"Amy Coney Barrett has a very good memory. Here's why that's bad." - CNN Probably
Look at that subtle off-white coloring. The tasteful thickness of it. Oh my God, it even has a letterhead.
Ha, this reminds me of the business card scene in American Psycho.
Amy Boney Barrett
lol
HOLY HELL, I was hoping to see a clip of this and was not disappointed.
One for the ages
Mama bear is sassy.
Fuckin piened!
I'll be damned shes impressive. I envy people with photographic memory
She seems impressive. Definitely a model wife.
Actually she wasn't telling the truth. She actually wrote down "eat a bowl of dicks you commies" with invisible ink.
And she learned about the invisible ink from Dwight schrute.
Damn!
Cornhole is a Texas rino so fhim
She's a stone-cold fox too.... damn
Leettt the memes Begin !!!!!
Memes will be made! Go forth!
I loved her response because it was so literal, as a clear-headed supreme court justice should be. Many of us would have said 'nope'. She answered it 100% accurately.
My favorite moment so far.
This poor woman. Imagine being so intelligent and being subjected to a trail by clowns.
You can tell that celebration of her years of hard work almost toppled her over but she stayed cool.