As to your and Titchou’s point, did you take issue with Elena Kagan’s lack of experience on the bench?

As in she had none.

Is Opus Dei the one Mel Gibson and his dad are in?

As for People of Praise, mixing Pentecostalism and Catholicism sounds to me like putting ketchup on a banana split.

Rightfully so, but Elena Kagan had was the Dean of Harvard Law School for a decade at the time of her nomination and the deans of over one-third of the country's law schools, 69 people in total, endorsed the nomination in an open letter.

As for ACB, I'm waiting on that letter of support.

To be completely candid, I said basically this same thought to mr. honeychile earlier today. Good call!

The KD chapter at Rhodes didn't know what Amy Coney's political leanings were when they extended a bid and, a few weeks or months later, initiated her. At that age her political leanings were most likely still being formed. (Sure, rush conversation has changed over the years but I rather doubt that her political views came up.)

I object to her nomination is first and foremost the Republican hypocrisy of pushing it forward NOW in contrast to the Republican stonewall of Merrick Garland's nomination four years ago. Sure, we understand why McConnell acted that way then and why he and his cronies are acting that way now.

I also object to ACB's nomination because I don't think she has enough experience. It's a very Trump-typical appointment: pick someone who looks right and ram the nomination through, whether that person if fully qualified or not.

And, yes, of course I object to ACB's nomination because I don't want a 6-3 conservative anti-choice, anti-universal-health-care, etc., etc. Supreme Court.

I quickly scrolled through this thread -- don't know how many have observed that Christine Blasey Ford is also a Kappa Delta.

Lots of off-topic back and forth was deleted. Please return to topic.

Original comment deleted to respect Kevin's above message

Thank you Kevin for encouraging civility. I do just want to reiterate my point that I want us to engage in a dialogue. I too worry about reproductive rights, but I have faith that the legislative branch (at both the state and federal level should it come to that) won’t allow that to happen. I have not seen any indication that ACB will legislate from the bench any more than any other member of the Court.

I have to say that I disagree with Ronaldo on the composition of the Court. I had hoped that RBG would have had the foresight to step down during Obama’s term. Not to be indelicate, but she has been less than the picture of health for roughly a decade. Anyway, I like the idea that the Court has a 4-5 split at any given time.

Again, I would like to reiterate my points that facts are not offensive (ex: it is offensive to some/most of us that the Kardashians are role models to young women, but my telling you that and backing it up with evidence is not, nor is presenting evidence to the contrary).

I'm not sure if Mel and his father are members but for a time, former Justice Scalia attended services at an Opus Dei "chuch". Probably scared the Roman Catholic out of him and he ran.

BTW...love the anology.

I don't plan to edit or delete anything because thankfully, this entire post was on topic. To be clear, what I will delete without hesitation are posts spent entirely attacking other posters. Attack the subject matter which you disagree with to your heart's content.

I have no agenda. I'm just trying to call balls and strikes here.

Well. This election cycle is certainly reminding me that bad faith arguments aren't worth my time.

This.

This is really about the GOP wanting a 6-3 majority and that they are going to do their damnedest to achieve it. Right and wrong do not matter in politics. Winning is what matters. All of this silly bullshit moralizing about "How Lincoln didn't appoint a justice in an election year" and about Merrick Garland's failed nomination is nonsense. The GOP has the means an opportunity for a huge win. I don't like it. I don't think a supermajority on the Court is going to be a good thing for either side in the long run. If PP v Casey was really overturned, and reality sets in for a lot of women, I think the backlash will be massive for the GOP. Similarly, if you take away expanded Medicare for millions of people, there's going to be a massive political price for that. I am not sure why the GOP wants to achieve either of those results because either result for the GOP is simply an exercise in self-immolation.

I would similarly have no problem if the Court was to be expanded if the Dems win the Presidency and both houses. One raw exercise of power invites the next one and that'll continue until we have a 3rd party or until we have a failed Republic.

I just fell virtually in love with you!

So your response is that the Dems did it first and that justifies equal retribution. Okay. I guess that's fair. It's a bit juvenile--and "He hit me first" in the schoolyard nowadays still results in both students going home. It's regrettable that option is not really available.

And if that continues, absent intervention, that'll spell the end of the significance of being a Senator rather than a Representative and we'll have a "judicial" body consisting of 30 some-odd justices acting as essentially a super-legislature. I don't want that. I would hope no one wants that. I would hope one side would pump the brakes, but everyone is so cynical, that they rightly or wrongly believe that one side pumping the breaks would simply invite the other side taking full advantage of that situation.

I'm not sure there are really any true originalists on the Court or whether there ever have been. Off of the top of my head, Scalia had a rather expansive interpretation of the interstate commerce clause when it came to finding federal jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause exists to regulate marijuana grown entirely within a State using only implements from within the State. I've found "originalist" judges are often using originalist arguments to complete the mental gymnastics necessary to obtain a certain result, e.g., reading the Second Amendment's clause regarding "a well-regulated militia" to essentially be without meaning or importance in interpreting the right to bear arms.

I used to think I was an originalist. Then I went to law school and saw how inconsistently the philosophy was applied. And now I'm a lawyer who uses whatever argument to advance my cause which I think has a chance at working. Was I to serve on the bench, I would aspire to originalism, but recognize it's a much more squishy proposition than anyone wants to admit considering the Bill of Rights contains that whole 9th Amendment thing.