I went to a talk with Justice Sotomayor and she spoke VERY highly of Justice Thomas. Its not impossible to disagree with someone and still respect each other.
True. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a true friend with Antonio Scalia. In fact, the reality of the SCOTUS is that the justices tend to agree on much more than they disagree. By one count, Justice Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsberg voted the same on 87% of cases. It's just a handful of the most divisive issues/cases in which justices tend to have any real disagreements and in which the media focuses upon.
She is still a traitor. She violates the separation of powers with nearly every opinion she writes and vote she casts. She may be polite, but she’s still a threat to the country.
Plus it's in all their best interests to be cordial and respectful toward one another. It's easier to sway a friend to your POV than it is with someone who despises you.
It is good to hear about the synergy amongst the justices! They do get along well; it reminds me of what justice Scalia stated at one point, "I DON'T ATTACK PEOPLE, I ATTACK IDEAS".
But you do realize that if you attack good ideas or defend bad ones, you may well end up hurting people. And, of course, Scalia cannot have been stupid enough to believe that he was operating in the realm of ideas. A law is not the same kind of text a novel is. Scalia's statement sounds philosophical, but it really isn't.
@@alfredlutz7258But the point is that debate is really the only means by which people can convince others regarding which ideas are good and which are bad when there is disagreement.
@@brandonchamberland2046 Sure. My point simply is that it is also clear that certain ideas are attacks on people. Sometimes that's obvious, so Scalia's point, which claims that the two can be separated, is simply sloppy thinking.
@@claudiolordino2192 I don't have anything to get over. I simply made a point. You could have responded to my point, but you didn't. Instead, presumably because you don't have an argument, you attack me. That's fine, but it's not particularly edifying.
I know it is hard to believe but the Justices get along well and respect each other. We know from the beautiful relationship between Justices Ginsburg and Scalia that two can travel the same path, be of different minds and still care and respect each other deeply. Learn from their example. A society of respect and civility is worth keeping.
I think it was Scalia who pointed out that those 8 people you serve on the court with are your coworkers.....for the rest of your life, essentially. So you'd better learn to get along with them.
For me to respect someone, they first have to BE respectable. Do you "respect" the quisling traitor John Roberts, with his smirking, "It's a ta-ax..."? I sure as HELL don't. "Judges" have NO judgement, and NO honor, whatsoever.
Glad to hear that there is still a place in this country where people can disagree on politics, viewpoints and policy can still get along and treat each other respectfully!
@@jayadams2771 Not sure what you mean? Whose "forcing" anything? I just thought that it was refreshing to hear that a left leaning judge can work with a right leaning judge (or vice versa), continue to maintain their professional viewpoints and opinions, but not hate each other re: non-work related things. That used to be the norm . . . it's getting harder and harder to find these days.
@@jayadams2771 You have the right to vote. Democracy is about voting according to your beliefs. Laws are based on beliefs. "Do not murder." is a belief based on the idea that life is good and sacred.
Since she wasn't asked anything by the Rs and refused to answer anything by the Ds what notes did she need? (Perhaps a list of the rights protected by the first amendment?)
@@csm92459 You just described every Democrat that has appeared before the House and all the nominees for court positions. They can't even, or won't, answer what is a woman.
@@csm92459 you obviously didn’t watch the hearings. You just heard the alphabet MSM’s talking points and ran with it without actually putting in the work yourself by actually listening to them. You would have seen her site case after case and talk about many topics without hesitation. It wasn’t any of this, “thank you senator for that question” 🐂💩
They follow the Constitution, except for Thomas who asked only one question in all the time he has been in court and offered an opinion without any reference to law and the Constitution.
They do follow the constitution, but where a private contract is in place with the feds, a judge cannot interfere. That`s the difference between "The United States," and "The United States of America," only one of them has a constitution, and the other is a private corporation. Try reading the constitution, it tells you, The United States Constitution. Antonin Gregory Scalia, former associate justice of the supreme court of the United States (1986 - 2016), told a Senate hearing, "The constitution simple doesn`t apply in their courts," and no one asked a follow-up question and asked him why? It doesn`t apply where there's a private contract in place, so, the real question is who owns the corporation "The United States of America"? It`s registered on the stock exchange, it has a D-U-N-S number, go see it for yourself, in every library, there are copies of D&B (Dun and Bradstreet) who issue them D-U-N-S number.
The way the question was asked, and in the setting it was asked, and the context under which it was asked, made giving an answer impossible. Which is why it was asked in the first place. Blackburn (although I'm sure she was dictated to by Cruz) wanted to catch her in an answer that could be used against her in any cases with a transgendered person. (Which is why I don't think one of the senators has answered it when asked.) But I will ask you--"what is a woman?" Make certain you cover all biological, social, and legal aspects in less than 10 words please.
The trick is not answering the questions. The trick is providing answers that the whole world agrees with. Anyone who thinks they know what a woman is or when life begins does not understand the world they are stumbling around in.
You can’t arrive at the level they have without having your entire worldview challenged from every angle for many years. They understand the various sides of issues from a depth of perspective few get to. And they may have strong convictions but I’m sure they sincerely “get” that the other side’s perspectives are reasonable and have solid grounding so they don’t just dismiss the other side of the ideological spectrum as evil like pundits and politicians do.
Having not to campaign for "re-election" is what I feel is what separates a Justice from a politician. The latter has to see which way the political wind is blowing and "go with it," which sickens me, the only caveat being if their constituency is so mired in ideology they're dug in like an Alabama tick. See McConnel, Manchin, Pelosi, Swalwell, and Marjory Taylor Greene. There's plenty more, but you get the jist.
@@matthewpicard3976 I don't have a problem with politicians having a POV as long as it doesn't change. But trust me the Justices don't all get along they are just being professional that's all, they are just as partisan as everyone else.
No the Justices are just as partisan as everyone else, they just have to be more professional because of the work they are doing. They have to always appear to be neutral but they if face aren't, they NEVER really have been. Don't be so naive.
I tend to think that teaching little kids that there is no such thing as boys and girls is nothing but EVIL. Let them figure this stuff out when they get older if they want to be freaky.
She sat like a mute icicle during her hearings. She's been placed. We just need to pack the court so her voice is rendered mute again. I remember there was a question she couldn't answer. She famously couldn't ENUMERATE THE RIGHTS AFFORDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. SHE COULDN'T REMEMBER OUR RIGHT TO REDRESS OF OUR GRIEVANCES. Well--nothing concerning about that little Freudian slip--huh?
@@colinericburriss So your point is that Democrats didn't ask Barrett stupid questions? Review Barrett's answer to the question regarding the First Amendment. One would think someone applying for a job defending the US Constitution would know the First Amendment inside and out. Then review her answers to the questions about her position on abortion. She was just as evasive on the subject of abortion as Jackson was on the subject of gender. BTW, I approve of Barrett's response to the latter. The Democrats were trying to trap her into making a political statement, the same way that the Republicans were trying to trap Jackson. Judges should only have positions on the rule-of-law, not the politics hovering around the rule-of-law.
@@TheZeppelin14 - “I don’t think the core case, Roe’s core holding that women have a right to an abortion, I don’t think that would change." - Then voted to overturn Roe.
@@bearsmartdurango You're only proving part of her answer. This is what she said: Barrett said she would “follow the law of stare decisis” and respect for court precedents if abortion-related cases came before her, but neither she nor Kavanaugh expressly said they would not vote to overturn Roe.
@@bearsmartdurango Under questioning from Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Barrett said she did not consider Roe v. Wade to be a “super precedent,” at least not according to her definition of it as “cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. “And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category,” Barrett said. “And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively, it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling.”
I have a lot of respect for these Justices. I listen to the SCOTUS Audi podcasts, the arguments are often articulate and probing, in the spirit of appropriately interpreting the law. While some cases can be quite controversial and culture testing, they are professional in the execution of their duties.
The Court remains a source of intellect and decency in our country. I hope it can be an example to the rest of government and society on what to evolve to and leave behind the decay in our civility and discourse as citizens.
We seem to have forgotten that rule we learned at a very young age. There are TWO sides to every story. One side seems determined to shut down the other side of the story. Personally, I welcome a very diverse group of friends with varying opinions. I find that is not always reciprocated.
Amy violating the legal principles of common law when she enforced the views of her backers over the law. Plus she lied at her confirmation hearings. The will of the people was ignored.
Just because there are two sides doesn't mean they are equal. Don't be BBC giving the same airtime to a Nobel winning Economist and some crackpot Brexiteer.
Even Your Enemy will "Publicly" Act to be your Friend .. But will Stab You from the Shadows with First Chance. It is NOT What People Say to Your Face . It is What They Say About you After you have Left the Room.
I think it is so important to fight for Our Civil Society. You want to follow your beliefs, reject intimidation, bullying etc, but as much as possible, we need to go the extra mile on behalf of civility.
Our society and politicians especially included would be well served to not only follow this example but to lead by showing civility in public. It wouldn't make "good press" or "good TV " but our world would be a much kinder place for everyone.
What kind of example did she set? Perjury? She lied under oath saying roe v Wade was settled law and then, without any new evidence, helped to overturn it. But yeah, she set a good example of what this court has come to
@@terrencecitywide There's nothing comfortable about getting old. I'm still not sure if your friend or foe or just trolling. You seem to feel older people are selfish and self absorbed. Peace and comfort should be the concern at any age. Most older people are more thoughtful of others, especially our children, grandchildren, and friends. My wife and I will go out of our way to love and care for others, even ones we don't like. People are basically bad and it takes effort to be otherwise. When your days are short your priorities change. There's no guarantee for tomorrow for anyone. I hope things are well for you.
Thankfully, the top lawyers in the country are able to debate and disagree with each other but know that’s it’s not personal and based on the merits of the arguments….all of America and social media should take heed heh
"Merit of argument" and then they just vote along party lines. Even when they swore to the Senate that they wouldn't overturn that law! Freakin' weasels knew exactly what they were doing!
When you watch videos of how the Supreme Court Justices interact with each other they are almost always positive in nature. Based on what I've seen and read I believe that (on average) Justices work in a fair and impartial manner while still retaining their personal bias's. This is what makes the recent leaks so egregious. While civility is being upheld, non-politicization is not. It's okay to have personal views which can be supported by law but "leaking" is subverting the process.
@@ketokarbs3671 We are? I'm not disappointed by her in the least. Maybe the sharpest legal mind of the bunch. You stop talking on my behalf. I can speak just fine and dandy all by meself, I is!
The “experience” thing is so laughable. Both sides use that as an excuse way too much. She was on the circuit courts for a few years as a judge. That’s pretty good. But it really doesn’t matter. The Supreme Court is an important job, but it’s not a “hard” job. If you are a good lawyer, you can easily do that job. Elena Kagan, for example, was never a judge. But she’s probably the best of all the liberal justices in recent memory.
It's blatantly obvious that the current Roberts Court is deeply corrupted and has lost all legitimacy - not only because of its decision to steamroll our constitution and throw out every precedent it comes across - but because of how the bench has been stacked by the extremist wing of the Republican Party. McConnell and the GOP Senate's refusal to take action on President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 wasn't unprecedented - but we haven't seen an action like that since the decades immediately preceding the Civil War. The vacancy created by Scalia's death lasted more than a year, resulting in four 4-4 decisions, two of which were in major cases. McConnell and the GOP Senate then abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court confirmations, allowing the nominations of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett to advance to the Senate floor for a final vote without having to first clear the long-standing 60-vote procedural hurdle. All three were confirmed with fewer than 60 votes. In fact, so were Thomas and Alito. The five far-right justices who now hold the majority are the only justices confirmed since the 1950s with fewer than 60 votes. Not only were G, K, B confirmed by the skin of their teeth, they were nominated by a president who lost the popular vote (twice) and were confirmed by senators who represent 40 million fewer people than the justices who opposed their confirmation. Now remember that Gorsuch is occupying a seat stolen from Obama and Barrett is occupying a seat stolen from Biden. Even before they've rendered a single decision, how could anyone possibly expect the public to view this Court as legitimate? But the Court doesn't care. The only thing those partisan hacks understand is power - just like the politicians who put them on the bench. The Court receives over 7,000 case petitions each term and only reviews about 70 - the cases concerning abortion, religion in schools, gun control, EPA regulations, affirmative action, LGBT rights - these cases didn't just happen to land in the Court's lap - the Court chose them. Alito & Co. are drunk with power and they're using it to overturn as many of the precedents they don't like as possible - precedents set by their predecessors who, unlike them, were nominated by more than three Republican presidents and confirmed with bipartisan votes in the Senate and very little opposition. Take Dobbs for example. The Court has rendered SIXTEEN affirmative abortion decisions between 1973 and 2020 - FIFTEEN justices, mostly GOP nominees btw, stand behind those decisions - and these five partisan puppets, two of which have almost no prior judicial experience (T:
And I especially love the non-corrupt process that brought her there. No dark money, no secret Federalist society shenanigans, no lying during her confirmation hearings about Roe v Wade being settled law, and no inconsistency by the Senate with respect to confirming justices days before a presidential election. On a pristine foundation like that, I'm sure we can look forward to only good things from her in the future. If you're a religious Catholic fundamentalist like she is, of course.
Never been a fan of Sotomayor(so,?). Glad to hear ACB speak of Sotomayor’s kindness and thoughtfulness Of course you will never hear of this in the general media.
This woman is human; but she exemplifies what an educated jurist should be. Ms. Conney Barret is the woman I wish my daughters to be come. I know she will serve with honor and distinction. I pray Our Mother, Matre Dei holds her in Her loving arms always.
I don’t want my daughter to have a bunch of children… I want her to be educated good citizen responsible of her uterus that is what I want for my daughter 😊
She is everything wrong with America. Subservient to her husband. Religion over legal precident. Installed illeaglly in the court by a slush fund cabal of lame duck republicans. You are aiming low.
Personally ACB was over zealous in her quest for the position of SCJ. She was confirmed after people had voted, she could have said "We should wait until after the election".
i don’t see how it’s fair to let her be appointed in the way she was in a midterm. if a democratic justice was up for that opportunity the right would flip out.
I hope/pray that she has an influence on the liberal justices such that they use only the Constitution and Bill of Rights to make decisions. I also hope/pray that citizens of America come to realize the Constitution and Bill of Rights is there for our protection from corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.
In this jaded, media-driven world, it genuinely delights me to know that you can disagree wholeheartedly on issues and still be civil - and even friends - with those holding opposing views. We are ALL Americans! 🇺🇸
I may not agree 100 percent with views of certain justices on either side of the ideological spectrum, but the level of respect they have for one another is just admirable. Although judges can be political, they are certainly not politicians.
Such a great appointment. Glad to have her voice on the Supreme Court. But then, we need voices which represent the wide variety of the American people. So I do not condemn the Biden administration for focusing on other voices. That's the process.
Dumbell. All Supreme Court Judges are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not to represent the "variety" of the American people, or the people at all. The Constitution, not the people, not the country, not the land, nor anything else, only the Constitution. Dumbell.
We do not need a variety of voices to represent different people. Justice is blind, a judge's job is to ensure that the laws are being followed as they are written. No one's experiences or traits should have any effect on how the law is applied.
I went to a talk with Justice Sotomayor and she spoke VERY highly of Justice Thomas. Its not impossible to disagree with someone and still respect each other.
True. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a true friend with Antonio Scalia. In fact, the reality of the SCOTUS is that the justices tend to agree on much more than they disagree. By one count, Justice Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsberg voted the same on 87% of cases. It's just a handful of the most divisive issues/cases in which justices tend to have any real disagreements and in which the media focuses upon.
She is still a traitor. She violates the separation of powers with nearly every opinion she writes and vote she casts. She may be polite, but she’s still a threat to the country.
@@ccchhhrrriiisss100 heck they went to the opera so often, someone made an opera about them
It is with the Biden Adminstration. They are all snakes, degenerates and just plain corrupt.
Plus it's in all their best interests to be cordial and respectful toward one another. It's easier to sway a friend to your POV than it is with someone who despises you.
It is good to hear about the synergy amongst the justices! They do get along well; it reminds me of what justice Scalia stated at one point, "I DON'T ATTACK PEOPLE, I ATTACK IDEAS".
But you do realize that if you attack good ideas or defend bad ones, you may well end up hurting people. And, of course, Scalia cannot have been stupid enough to believe that he was operating in the realm of ideas. A law is not the same kind of text a novel is. Scalia's statement sounds philosophical, but it really isn't.
@@alfredlutz7258But the point is that debate is really the only means by which people can convince others regarding which ideas are good and which are bad when there is disagreement.
@@alfredlutz7258 People will always get hurt no matter what is said, that's life, get over it.
@@brandonchamberland2046 Sure. My point simply is that it is also clear that certain ideas are attacks on people. Sometimes that's obvious, so Scalia's point, which claims that the two can be separated, is simply sloppy thinking.
@@claudiolordino2192 I don't have anything to get over. I simply made a point. You could have responded to my point, but you didn't. Instead, presumably because you don't have an argument, you attack me. That's fine, but it's not particularly edifying.
I know it is hard to believe but the Justices get along well and respect each other. We know from the beautiful relationship between Justices Ginsburg and Scalia that two can travel the same path, be of different minds and still care and respect each other deeply. Learn from their example. A society of respect and civility is worth keeping.
Wish that is what they teach in schools instead of "drama with cancel culture".
I think it was Scalia who pointed out that those 8 people you serve on the court with are your coworkers.....for the rest of your life, essentially. So you'd better learn to get along with them.
I think Ginsburg and Scalia were the exception and not the rule.
They even ate family meals together.
For me to respect someone, they first have to BE respectable. Do you "respect" the quisling traitor John Roberts, with his smirking, "It's a ta-ax..."? I sure as HELL don't. "Judges" have NO judgement, and NO honor, whatsoever.
Glad to hear that there is still a place in this country where people can disagree on politics, viewpoints and policy can still get along and treat each other respectfully!
If only the right-wing justices actually respected precedent and the Constitution.
You think forcing your theocratic beliefs on people is treating them respectfully.
@@jayadams2771 Not sure what you mean? Whose "forcing" anything? I just thought that it was refreshing to hear that a left leaning judge can work with a right leaning judge (or vice versa), continue to maintain their professional viewpoints and opinions, but not hate each other re: non-work related things. That used to be the norm . . . it's getting harder and harder to find these days.
It's only the media that will have you believe that you cannot have a disagreement with someone and still become friends.
@@jayadams2771 You have the right to vote. Democracy is about voting according to your beliefs. Laws are based on beliefs. "Do not murder." is a belief based on the idea that life is good and sacred.
She answered the question, wow, no word salad.
Do you not recognize softball questions from a TV anchor, not a journalist
I bet she knows what a woman is too.
@@knemetnejat1 are you mentally impaired
She is brilliant. Did you see when she held up her notes..... totally blank, and answered everything
Since she wasn't asked anything by the Rs and refused to answer anything by the Ds what notes did she need? (Perhaps a list of the rights protected by the first amendment?)
@@csm92459 You just described every Democrat that has appeared before the House and all the nominees for court positions.
They can't even, or won't, answer what is a woman.
@@csm92459 you obviously didn’t watch the hearings. You just heard the alphabet MSM’s talking points and ran with it without actually putting in the work yourself by actually listening to them.
You would have seen her site case after case and talk about many topics without hesitation. It wasn’t any of this, “thank you senator for that question” 🐂💩
She couldn’t answer directly to the questions being asked.
@@MissJade805 She answered every question,she just refused to commit to recusing herself from cases about abortion and LGBTQ.
All we want is for ACB and all Justices to follow THE CONSTITUTION!!
And accept that the Supreme Court is not a division of the Republican Party
@@bobarmstrong4403 Hope springs eternal Bob but I think long term we'll find her rulings have been bought and paid for.
They follow the Constitution, except for Thomas who asked only one question in all the time he has been in court and offered an opinion without any reference to law and the Constitution.
They do follow the constitution, but where a private contract is in place with the feds, a judge cannot interfere.
That`s the difference between "The United States," and "The United States of America," only one of them has a constitution, and the other is a private corporation.
Try reading the constitution, it tells you, The United States Constitution.
Antonin Gregory Scalia, former associate justice of the supreme court of the United States (1986 - 2016), told a Senate hearing, "The constitution simple doesn`t apply in their courts," and no one asked a follow-up question and asked him why?
It doesn`t apply where there's a private contract in place, so, the real question is who owns the corporation "The United States of America"?
It`s registered on the stock exchange, it has a D-U-N-S number, go see it for yourself, in every library, there are copies of D&B (Dun and Bradstreet) who issue them D-U-N-S number.
@@bobarmstrong4403 or the democratic party
It is encouraging to hear that Justice Sotomayor was helpful. I wish that Congress knew how to be professional and collegial.
One side was.. but the left acted like children during Kavanagh and like blatant racist during Thomas conformation..
Sotomayor is a clown. Listening to her opinions on covid was like listening to biden incoherently ramble made up "facts"
Justice Sotomayor goes up a little notch in my book after hearing this.
She can be all "hopeful" she wants, that won't bring Roe v Wade back!
She’s great and so glad she’s SCOTUS
No, she's not. She has no use for freedom.
Eye roll
I was fooled by her
She's a GOP political operative to overturn women's rights. Fucking wake up to reality
@@ketokarbs3671 you were fooled by Sesame Street
@@robertdigby4504 😂
Well with everything going on in this country this certainly was refreshing to hear.
I’m sure , if asked she would know what a woman is or when life begins❣️
Why don't YOU answer each of those questions for us?
Liberalism..home of hypocrisy
@@mudfossilstudent9510 Conservatism ... home of stupidity.
The way the question was asked, and in the setting it was asked, and the context under which it was asked, made giving an answer impossible. Which is why it was asked in the first place. Blackburn (although I'm sure she was dictated to by Cruz) wanted to catch her in an answer that could be used against her in any cases with a transgendered person. (Which is why I don't think one of the senators has answered it when asked.)
But I will ask you--"what is a woman?" Make certain you cover all biological, social, and legal aspects in less than 10 words please.
The trick is not answering the questions. The trick is providing answers that the whole world agrees with. Anyone who thinks they know what a woman is or when life begins does not understand the world they are stumbling around in.
You can’t arrive at the level they have without having your entire worldview challenged from every angle for many years. They understand the various sides of issues from a depth of perspective few get to. And they may have strong convictions but I’m sure they sincerely “get” that the other side’s perspectives are reasonable and have solid grounding so they don’t just dismiss the other side of the ideological spectrum as evil like pundits and politicians do.
I would disagree with ACB. I feel she has very little judge experience and was/is pretty unqualified for the Supreme court.
Having not to campaign for "re-election" is what I feel is what separates a Justice from a politician. The latter has to see which way the political wind is blowing and "go with it," which sickens me, the only caveat being if their constituency is so mired in ideology they're dug in like an Alabama tick. See McConnel, Manchin, Pelosi, Swalwell, and Marjory Taylor Greene. There's plenty more, but you get the jist.
@@matthewpicard3976 I don't have a problem with politicians having a POV
as long as it doesn't change. But trust me the Justices don't all get along
they are just being professional that's all, they are just as partisan as everyone else.
No the Justices are just as partisan as everyone else, they just have to be more
professional because of the work they are doing. They have to always appear to
be neutral but they if face aren't, they NEVER really have been. Don't be so naive.
I tend to think that teaching little kids that there is no such thing as boys and girls is nothing but EVIL. Let them figure this stuff out when they get older if they want to be freaky.
Wow she answered the question straight up,almost unseen 👏😂
Very happy to hear there is one place left for respectful discourse.
Pray Thomas takes Jackson under his wing.
He might turn her towards being conservative.
I truly doubt this. The "left" is pretty solid in the view that a "real" black person can't be a conservative. But where there is life, there is hope.
Ha! Pray ... sheesh.
Don’t hold your breathing…Jackson is too radical, she is an extremist hard core left wing. 😢
@@angelamcdermott8907 Wow, you're so delusional!
Hopefully he can tell her what a woman is
she knows how to answer questions, unlike our most recent.
She sat like a mute icicle during her hearings. She's been placed. We just need to pack the court so her voice is rendered mute again.
I remember there was a question she couldn't answer. She famously couldn't ENUMERATE THE RIGHTS AFFORDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. SHE COULDN'T REMEMBER OUR RIGHT TO REDRESS OF OUR GRIEVANCES. Well--nothing concerning about that little Freudian slip--huh?
why would you like Amy muted?, @@csm92459
You apparently did not see her confirmation hearings...
was Amy asked to define a woman, @@almosthuman1398
@@colinericburriss So your point is that Democrats didn't ask Barrett stupid questions?
Review Barrett's answer to the question regarding the First Amendment. One would think someone applying for a job defending the US Constitution would know the First Amendment inside and out.
Then review her answers to the questions about her position on abortion. She was just as evasive on the subject of abortion as Jackson was on the subject of gender.
BTW, I approve of Barrett's response to the latter. The Democrats were trying to trap her into making a political statement, the same way that the Republicans were trying to trap Jackson. Judges should only have positions on the rule-of-law, not the politics hovering around the rule-of-law.
She's a ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ not a self promoter , just a regular person.....
Really phenomenal to see!
We need a lot more of this.
Keeping rump away will help.
Thank goodness.
My jury is still out on her.
Interesting. Why?
100% AGREE!
@@deesport4824 Me too.
But I bet that you LOVE the Pedophile-adoring token Jumanji Jackson-Browne, don't you?
Because she LIED to the Senate to overturn Roe v Wade? Oh, that's antient history. Nobody remembers that anymore 😊
Love.never.ends
Constitution &law
In.AMERICA
ACB!!!!! Woot woot!!!!
She’s under qualified and never should have been appointed
Why do you hate women who are smart and moral
That is nice when colleagues are collegial.
GOD BLESS this Lady we need to pray for her and the others on a day to day basis.
Glad she's there!
She is a religious cult member along with her husband…read about her…frightening…
I love that they got Steve Martin to do this interview.
Humble, clear and just.
Humble, clear, just and a liar.
@@bearsmartdurango Liar about what exactly?
@@TheZeppelin14 - “I don’t think the core case, Roe’s core holding that women have a right to an abortion, I don’t think that would change." - Then voted to overturn Roe.
@@bearsmartdurango You're only proving part of her answer. This is what she said:
Barrett said she would “follow the law of stare decisis” and respect for court precedents if abortion-related cases came before her, but neither she nor Kavanaugh expressly said they would not vote to overturn Roe.
@@bearsmartdurango Under questioning from Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Barrett said she did not consider Roe v. Wade to be a “super precedent,” at least not according to her definition of it as “cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. “And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category,” Barrett said. “And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively, it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling.”
She is a proper judge! Her questions, points, rebukes all base on the law not the politics, she proved herself to be a true scotus member
I have a lot of respect for these Justices. I listen to the SCOTUS Audi podcasts, the arguments are often articulate and probing, in the spirit of appropriately interpreting the law. While some cases can be quite controversial and culture testing, they are professional in the execution of their duties.
Lots of Class ! 👍
THANK YOU ACB!!! Please keep fighting for whats right!!!
The Court remains a source of intellect and decency in our country. I hope it can be an example to the rest of government and society on what to evolve to and leave behind the decay in our civility and discourse as citizens.
We seem to have forgotten that rule we learned at a very young age. There are TWO sides to every story. One side seems determined to shut down the other side of the story. Personally, I welcome a very diverse group of friends with varying opinions. I find that is not always reciprocated.
Amy violating the legal principles of common law when she enforced the views of her backers over the law. Plus she lied at her confirmation hearings. The will of the people was ignored.
I am very glad to shut down conservative religious crazies who have utterly ignored the separation of Church and State.
Just because there are two sides doesn't mean they are equal. Don't be BBC giving the same airtime to a Nobel winning Economist and some crackpot Brexiteer.
Good to hear.
Even Your Enemy will "Publicly" Act to be your Friend ..
But will Stab You from the Shadows
with First Chance.
It is NOT What People Say to Your Face .
It is What They Say About you
After you have Left the Room.
These are Supreme Court Justices. They don’t gossip and spread rumors. Anything they have to say about each other is very, very private.
God Bless and Protect our Awesome Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Just seeing this short clip makes me feel better about the future of the S court.
I have lost respect for all three branches of the government. This Republic will not stand for long.
I love her voice.
Me too.
Unfortunately she lost her voice when she tried to name all five freedoms protected by the first amendment during her confirmation hearing
@@T00THY_0RiFiCE you know cause you had the list in front of you huh?
Her mind is even better.
It's abrasive.
Good class.
Feeding the TH-cam algorithm. Informative video. Thanks.
bwaaahaaa 😂
I think it is so important to fight for Our Civil Society. You want to follow your beliefs, reject intimidation, bullying etc, but as much as possible, we need to go the extra mile on behalf of civility.
The same Soto that can’t tell true fact from politically motivated stances
Her name is Sotomayor. There is no Soto on the Supreme Court.
@@knemetnejat1 and your point Is?
@@timothyhannahan4135 You understand the point that she was making, so don’t act like a complete idiot.
Her name is Sonia Sotomayor from the Bronx you better bow your head to her!
@@timothyhannahan4135 He has none he just trolls all the comments embarrassing himself
Our society and politicians especially included would be well served to not only follow this example but to lead by showing civility in public. It wouldn't make "good press" or "good TV " but our world would be a much kinder place for everyone.
Politicians are a different breed than others; some "God complex type docs come close.
But politicians are a horse of a different color.
What kind of example did she set? Perjury? She lied under oath saying roe v Wade was settled law and then, without any new evidence, helped to overturn it. But yeah, she set a good example of what this court has come to
You know what's not civil? LYING to the Senate to throw millions of people under the bus. Sorry but actions speak louder than words!
I don't envy anyone that has to deal with people and issues. My wife and I are happily retired and are very private.
I bet the funerals are paid for. No issues then!
@@terrencecitywide Just curious what you mean by funerals are paid for? Sometimes I'm a little dence. Merry Christmas.
@@rickhale4348 comfortable old people pay for their funerals in advance. Stick your comment
@@terrencecitywide There's nothing comfortable about getting old. I'm still not sure if your friend or foe or just trolling. You seem to feel older people are selfish and self absorbed. Peace and comfort should be the concern at any age. Most older people are more thoughtful of others, especially our children, grandchildren, and friends. My wife and I will go out of our way to love and care for others, even ones we don't like. People are basically bad and it takes effort to be otherwise. When your days are short your priorities change. There's no guarantee for tomorrow for anyone. I hope things are well for you.
@@rickhale4348 the man said…..
Her husband is a very fortunate man, that's all I can say...
Thankfully, the top lawyers in the country are able to debate and disagree with each other but know that’s it’s not personal and based on the merits of the arguments….all of America and social media should take heed heh
"Merit of argument" and then they just vote along party lines. Even when they swore to the Senate that they wouldn't overturn that law! Freakin' weasels knew exactly what they were doing!
Not gonna listen to that liar, ever.
So you never listen to Obana and Brandon?
When you watch videos of how the Supreme Court Justices interact with each other they are almost always positive in nature. Based on what I've seen and read I believe that (on average) Justices work in a fair and impartial manner while still retaining their personal bias's. This is what makes the recent leaks so egregious. While civility is being upheld, non-politicization is not. It's okay to have personal views which can be supported by law but "leaking" is subverting the process.
You know what else is subverting the process? Lying to the Senate about a key court case to secure appointment!
Very smart lady.
Thank you Mr. Trump
Sarcasm???
Patriots are so disappointed with her
Sad she doesn't LUV the constitution the way she says
@@ketokarbs3671 I agree
I sure Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell recommended her to President Trump.
@@miawarren8735 all you warren"s must have SHALLOW MINDS.
@@ketokarbs3671 We are? I'm not disappointed by her in the least. Maybe the sharpest legal mind of the bunch. You stop talking on my behalf. I can speak just fine and dandy all by meself, I is!
she reacted like most people who would prefer someone who had at least some experience
That would have excluded her
The “experience” thing is so laughable. Both sides use that as an excuse way too much. She was on the circuit courts for a few years as a judge. That’s pretty good. But it really doesn’t matter. The Supreme Court is an important job, but it’s not a “hard” job. If you are a good lawyer, you can easily do that job. Elena Kagan, for example, was never a judge. But she’s probably the best of all the liberal justices in recent memory.
@@davidkast3587 Kagan is not that good
Like the last actual unqualified justice?? Amy is highly qualified the last lady couldn't even define what a woman is.
@@csm92459 are you high??
Even the jUSTICE'S OF SUPREME COURT WHINE THESE DAYS ABOUT HOW TOUGH THEY HAVE IT. WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT. YOU DON'T KNOW TOUGH LADY
Good point, but lose the all caps thing as it distracts from the credibility of your point.
@@williamrgutrich7694 I IDENTIFY AS CAPS LOCK, AND MY PRONOUNS ARE CTRL ALT DEL.
Give her a break. She was answering a question! And, she at least answers the question!
?
Still cannot believe they replaced RBG with her, such a tragedy.
Replacing a fool with a true justice is great
A flawed per for a moral person is fantastic.
We are Blessed to have this fine lady in our court system. God Bless her on this journey, she will help us all. Justice Prevails
It's blatantly obvious that the current Roberts Court is deeply corrupted and has lost all legitimacy - not only because of its decision to steamroll our constitution and throw out every precedent it comes across - but because of how the bench has been stacked by the extremist wing of the Republican Party.
McConnell and the GOP Senate's refusal to take action on President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 wasn't unprecedented - but we haven't seen an action like that since the decades immediately preceding the Civil War. The vacancy created by Scalia's death lasted more than a year, resulting in four 4-4 decisions, two of which were in major cases.
McConnell and the GOP Senate then abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court confirmations, allowing the nominations of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett to advance to the Senate floor for a final vote without having to first clear the long-standing 60-vote procedural hurdle.
All three were confirmed with fewer than 60 votes. In fact, so were Thomas and Alito. The five far-right justices who now hold the majority are the only justices confirmed since the 1950s with fewer than 60 votes. Not only were G, K, B confirmed by the skin of their teeth, they were nominated by a president who lost the popular vote (twice) and were confirmed by senators who represent 40 million fewer people than the justices who opposed their confirmation.
Now remember that Gorsuch is occupying a seat stolen from Obama and Barrett is occupying a seat stolen from Biden. Even before they've rendered a single decision, how could anyone possibly expect the public to view this Court as legitimate?
But the Court doesn't care. The only thing those partisan hacks understand is power - just like the politicians who put them on the bench. The Court receives over 7,000 case petitions each term and only reviews about 70 - the cases concerning abortion, religion in schools, gun control, EPA regulations, affirmative action, LGBT rights - these cases didn't just happen to land in the Court's lap - the Court chose them. Alito & Co. are drunk with power and they're using it to overturn as many of the precedents they don't like as possible - precedents set by their predecessors who, unlike them, were nominated by more than three Republican presidents and confirmed with bipartisan votes in the Senate and very little opposition.
Take Dobbs for example. The Court has rendered SIXTEEN affirmative abortion decisions between 1973 and 2020 - FIFTEEN justices, mostly GOP nominees btw, stand behind those decisions - and these five partisan puppets, two of which have almost no prior judicial experience (T:
Pssssst, you forgot to mention the constitution.
which god?
And I especially love the non-corrupt process that brought her there. No dark money, no secret Federalist society shenanigans, no lying during her confirmation hearings about Roe v Wade being settled law, and no inconsistency by the Senate with respect to confirming justices days before a presidential election. On a pristine foundation like that, I'm sure we can look forward to only good things from her in the future. If you're a religious Catholic fundamentalist like she is, of course.
@@krisweaver7524 The only God in heaven
This is awesome
Liberal judges being supportive of conservative, what a concept
That’s how work gets done.
And see how well that went?
This is beautiful
She’s doing a grand job too👏👏👏❤️🇺🇸
Beautiful!
An outstanding woman and American.
She lied during her confirmation hearings.
Wow! Good for her! 👏🏻😁
Stay strong Amy. Your friends from Indiana
Say what you want about Trump, but he did pick 3x very qualified justices for the court.
Brought our the trolls I see. Show some respect and you might get some back
I think, your Court, is absolutely, Unreal, in what you are ambitioning to accomplish, on TV.
Thurgood Marshall was apparently disgusted by the way Robert Bork was treated during his nomination hearing.
Bork was a horrible nominee.
@@pc4764 why?
Good to Hear! Stacking the Court, not Necessary.
Class Act.
A Beautiful Mind ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
ACB is a big disappointment for the Republican party and American Republican voters.
Never been a fan of Sotomayor(so,?). Glad to hear ACB speak of Sotomayor’s kindness and thoughtfulness
Of course you will never hear of this in the general media.
This woman is human; but she exemplifies what an educated jurist should be. Ms. Conney Barret is the woman I wish my daughters to be come. I know she will serve with honor and distinction. I pray Our Mother, Matre Dei holds her in Her loving arms always.
I don’t want my daughter to have a bunch of children… I want her to be educated good citizen responsible of her uterus that is what I want for my daughter 😊
She is everything wrong with America. Subservient to her husband. Religion over legal precident. Installed illeaglly in the court by a slush fund cabal of lame duck republicans.
You are aiming low.
@@elbacar4838 Parents should want their children to be happy whether they want no kids or eight kids. Children & grand babies are blessings
I hope you don't want your daughters to grow up to be theocratic bigot forcing other people to live by their fantastical beliefs.
@@jayadams2771 I surely won't teach them to grow up to be a soulless baby killer who doesn't know what a woman is
This channel is so right leaning
Amy Coney Barrett is a bright light in a very dark world!
Personally ACB was over zealous in her quest for the position of SCJ. She was confirmed after people had voted, she could have said "We should wait until after the election".
A lie
God bless you Amy Barrett and Jesus love you in the mighty name of Jesus Amen .
i don’t see how it’s fair to let her be appointed in the way she was in a midterm. if a democratic justice was up for that opportunity the right would flip out.
Rules were followed
I hope/pray that she has an influence on the liberal justices such that they use only the Constitution and Bill of Rights to make decisions.
I also hope/pray that citizens of America come to realize the Constitution and Bill of Rights is there for our protection from corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.
Like trump!!
@@djmdallas72 TDS??
You do realize that it was Trump who recently called for suspending the Constitution right?
@@NavDDG54 bless your heart
Brilliant lady.
Now that’s a judge.
Why do Catholics and Christians get a pass for all the horrible things done under its name?
Who says they do more than others?
She lied about Roe in her confirmation hearing. So did Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.
In this jaded, media-driven world, it genuinely delights me to know that you can disagree wholeheartedly on issues and still be civil - and even friends - with those holding opposing views. We are ALL Americans! 🇺🇸
God knows PERIOD
This woman never even tried a case. She is unqualified to be on the SCOTUS.
Deer lefty, an absolute liar but I don’t expect anything other than that from a lefty
@@whousa642 Yes, agreed. She is an absolute LIAR!
@@Roxy11515 Deer Lefty, you can not be that dense but you are.
Judge Amy Cony Barrett is PURE CLASS!!
An amazing woman.
It was a Blur after the Gen in the Basement with the whole Crew
🤔
To what are you referring? Your sentence only has meaning to initiates.
That's funny & possibly true.
I may not agree 100 percent with views of certain justices on either side of the ideological spectrum, but the level of respect they have for one another is just admirable. Although judges can be political, they are certainly not politicians.
Such a great appointment. Glad to have her voice on the Supreme Court. But then, we need voices which represent the wide variety of the American people. So I do not condemn the Biden administration for focusing on other voices. That's the process.
Dumbell. All Supreme Court Judges are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not to represent the "variety" of the American people, or the people at all. The Constitution, not the people, not the country, not the land, nor anything else, only the Constitution. Dumbell.
We do not need a variety of voices to represent different people. Justice is blind, a judge's job is to ensure that the laws are being followed as they are written. No one's experiences or traits should have any effect on how the law is applied.
I think ACB was one of President Trump's worst decisions.
why
🎵"Smiling Faces, Smiling Faces,Sometimes they don't tell the Truth!"🎶 Liars Gonna Lie!
Pathetic to listen to an unqualified Justice ! 1:56
ACB on a different level than SS. ACB knows that men can't can't get pregnant
The world will not know true peace until the last lawyer is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
So you are a murderer!
GEE, ANYONE SEEN OR HEARD FROM SOTOMAYOR IN THE LAST MONTH OR SO? HMMM .. GITMO'D?
We can all pray.
She's busy taking care of those 100k kids in the hospital on ventilators.
Really nice to hear. How do we convince the Legislative Branch to behave similarly?