Yes. She will be the next judge unless something really material emerges interim.
Amy Coney-Barrett | Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
- Thread starter Ubik
- Start date
It doesn't matter if she wrote a full opinion empathizing with the victim if she ruled on the side of the rapist though
Well, pretty obviously I haven’t read into the summaries or the full judgement as haven’t 99% of the American public, but the simple rulings alone lead me to believe that she is not competent to serve on the SC. I do typically do some quick digging to see if other sources are saying the same thing, but I’m not applying the same research method that I did in college for this as I don’t have the same amount of time or resources. I also don’t read into the minutae of what the scientists & doctors are saying about covid, but when I see a credible source present a finding by the scientists or doctors & I can corroborate it somewhat, I will tend to take their word for it.
That is why you should at least read the judgement or a tleast the story. It was an appeals case by the County against fine given by the lower court.
The Rapist's punishment (the prison guard in this case) was upheld by the Appeals Court (Judge Amy in this case).
You can make a case that the county should be punished too. In that case, you will have to go deep into cases like that. But in no way did the rapist go unpunished.
Never said that the rapist didn’t get adequately punished, I disagreed with her decision on the employer.
This was a classic case of to what an employer is liable (to jail time or big fine) to a crime of his employee in the company premise.
But in another case, later that year or the next year. She (Judge Amy and the bench) also held Polk County (the employer again this time) liable this time the rapist guard raped several people and not just the rapist.
Fair enough, i'm no lawyer or research scholar or an expert either and my background not related to either.
But a simple reading of the article itself (by that twitter post) is very easy and simple. And on reading it, we find that the judgement given (by ACB and co) in two rape cases whether the Counties (employers) for the crime of the prison guards (employees) inside jails were different. In one case was the employer not liable but in the other held liable.
Apologies if I have derailed the thread.
Don’t think you have at all derailed the thread.
Knowing a bit about the system Clarke was running there is probably swaying my thoughts on the matter, but it’s difficult for me to believe that in a heavily surveilled environment like a jail or prison, a guard could repeatedly rape an inmate & the prison authorities not know. I was not aware of the second judgement, hopefully the prison system there was penalized appropriately. I just disagree with the initial ruling that removed any punitive measures on the prison and/or Clarke (who is a loathsome cnut).
Hopefully I won’t disagree with any of ACB’s decisions as a SCOTUS justice, but I feel that I may not be too keen on her first couple of them!
I hope you won't be. But in case the decision is not to your liking, at least the logic, principles and law behind the decisions will be sound/nuanced and appreciable.
It seems there is essentially no controversies regarding her qualities or her past judgements. It is just that the political climate of the US is so polarised and politicised + election year and that permeates to every parts of the US.
(I'm not American, just very interested in everything US and my own country)
She is the smartest and most tactical (like Ginsberg) with her answers from the Senate hearings I've watched so far - of Scalia, Ginsberg, Thomas, Kagan and the epic Kavanaugh hearings.
And Good Luck for your Presidential elections.
I’d quibble only over the ‘smart’ description but fully agree with the most tactical nominee. I just have a feeling that her early decisions will be a tad unpalatable.
Thanks for the well wishes on the election. They can’t get here soon enough!
Edit - Didn’t notice the ‘no controversies’ part at first, there are definitely some that cause worry.
Last edited:
What? There is plenty of that.
in argentina the court rule would have been the same
employers can't be held accountable by the crimes purposely committed by his employees
if it's an accident, yes, but if the crime is in purpose, no
as an example: you have a truck and hire a driver. If he has an accident and someone dies, then the employer has to pay, in fact there are, of course, insurances for that kind of behaviors
but if the driver uses the truck, even when he is working, to kill someone he hates, on purpose, then the employer isn't accountable for that
Even in civil court (or whatever the similar is in ARG if there is one)? There would be no recourse against the company through a civil trial?
no, the argentina law states that the employers are responsible for the acts of their dependants when they are doing their job
and by "then doing their job" is doing what they are paid for
rapping or murdering are not part of their job
of course if there's gross negligence by the employer, then, yes, he will be held accountable, like the catholic church with their priests that were moved from one place to another knowing they were raping choir boys
Is there a civil court system in ARG?
yes, there is
as i told you some time ago, we follow the american system in many aspects
but our laws are gathered in codes unlike you that follow the precedent system
Was not aware that the same judicial system existed to that depth.
it is, and the civil code of Luisiana is a precedent of the argentinian civil code
no kidding
edit. 3 years ago we made a huge civil reform, but the luisiana code base is still there
Not poking fun or criticizing here, do you mean the state of Louisiana?
Last edited:
the state of Louisiana
as i said, is a precedent, it was used by the argentinian coder and is the source of numerous rules
Louisiana, if i'm not mistaken, had the french civil code as a precedent
I believe you are correct.
Republican Lisa Murkowski blasted as a ‘liar’ for supporting Amy Coney Barrett after she said she wouldn’t
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/10/re...-she-said-she-wouldnt/#comments_section_start
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/10/re...-she-said-she-wouldnt/#comments_section_start
We possibly will. He's my pick for Attorney General.
Oh, Those Establishment Democrats and their pointless resistance.
Democrats planning 30-hour 'digital filibuster' to try to stop Amy Coney Barrett being confirmed
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ilibuster-b1314584.html?utm_source=reddit.com
Democrats planning 30-hour 'digital filibuster' to try to stop Amy Coney Barrett being confirmed
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ilibuster-b1314584.html?utm_source=reddit.com
That is correct. Only state that does this. I covered Louisiana as a sales rep for a while and doing business there was weird and corrupt as hell.
Is ACB going to be confirmed today? the senate is in session
i'm watching CSPAN2 on youtube
i'm watching CSPAN2 on youtube
Most likely.
thank you
This may just be naivety, but if it were me - and if I believed as strongly in the SC as anyone who is aiming to one day serve on it should - I would tell them to wait til after the election.
She's going to be on SCOTUS - so good for her and all - but in just about every history book now written with a giant f*cking asterix next to her name, and her every opinion is going to be taken as a joke because of how she was put onto the court. It's going to entirely undermine any serious law making she wants to do.
Now maybe that's okay because she's had some chats with the big man himself via Mike Pence's personal line, but outside of that it just seems crazy to me.
She's going to be on SCOTUS - so good for her and all - but in just about every history book now written with a giant f*cking asterix next to her name, and her every opinion is going to be taken as a joke because of how she was put onto the court. It's going to entirely undermine any serious law making she wants to do.
Now maybe that's okay because she's had some chats with the big man himself via Mike Pence's personal line, but outside of that it just seems crazy to me.
The context of her nomination will be forgotten in less than a year.
Republicans cited Bork! 
they can hold a grudge
they can hold a grudgeYeah, nobody will remember.
And she isn't even the first or only conservative judge in the court, why would there be an asterix to her name?
And she isn't even the first or only conservative judge in the court, why would there be an asterix to her name?
I don't get the Democrats argument that ACB will vote this or that. Probably she will, that's why the republicans are endorsing her
Charles Schumer talks like the guest to the hunted mansion in disney world
It's done deal. This will ensure Trump legacy lives for long even if he loses the election.
I’m not so sure about that. If she becomes the catalyst for the expansion of the SC then this sham of a confirmation will live on for quite a while.
With her confirmation conservatives will have a 2/3’a majority in a country that is at best 50/50, but closer to 60/40 in the other direction. This leads to a court that is not in mind with the beliefs of the country.
I want to be a USA Senator
is the secret for eternal life, fosho
is the secret for eternal life, fosho
It's not like she's be doing that unilaterally. She's just part of a cog of other conservative judges. The swing vote of Roberts would make more noise than hers imo.
Because she has only been a judge for about 5 minutes before being made a supreme court judge perhaps? It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.