What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

What's the difference between you saying reversing certain precedents would be inconcievable and Supreme Court nominee saying reversing certain precedents would be inconceivable?

I'm not really saying that reversing certain precedents would be inconceivable; that is my characterization of Gerhardt's descriptive argument about super-precedents which I don't necessarily agree with.  The past 4 years have reminded us in America that the scope of what is politically conceivable is broader than previously assumed.

That's why I think the whole discussion of super-precedents is really insider baseball.  There aren't dozens of major law review articles talking about it, the concept isn't being taught in ConLaw classes, and it isn't being cited in judicial opinions - although if (when?) Barret is confirmed that could change.

grumbler gets at the reason why this comes up. Respect for precedent is a classic conservative position and yet one of the more radical conservative schools of jurisprudence - originalism - doesn't really have that respect. There are intellectual battles within the conservative legal-academic community in the US between originalists like Scalia and non-originalists like Alito and there are those who seek to bridge the gap.  Barrett's article strikes me as being firmly in the latter camp - an attempt to suggest a via media where originalist methods are applied generally while protecting a core group of special precedents from originalist critique on more conventional Burkean grounds.  It's a discussion that may animate federalist society dinners but doesn't necessarily have a ton of relevance for those outside the conservative-academic bubble

[Admiral Yi]

Thank you for the very clear and informative answer Joan.

[Maladict]

Supreme court nominee Amy Coney Barrett refused to say whether she accepts the science of climate change, under questioning from Kamala Harris, saying she lacked the expertise to know for sure and calling it a topic too controversial to get into.

This is going to be very helpful for our future 

[merithyn]

Supreme court nominee Amy Coney Barrett refused to say whether she accepts the science of climate change, under questioning from Kamala Harris, saying she lacked the expertise to know for sure and calling it a topic too controversial to get into.

This is going to be very helpful for our future 

"Too controversial to get into"??? Does she know what job she's interviewing for???

[Syt]

Could be read as "I don't want to piss off the Republican senators and lose their vote."

[Valmy]

Could be read as "I don't want to piss off the Republican senators and lose their vote."

Yeah...lots of danger of that happening.

[Caliga]

I mean... couldn't she just say "I'm going to ban baby murder and FUCK ALL'YALL BITCHES" and still get confirmed?

[Grey Fox]

I mean... couldn't she just say "I'm going to ban baby murder and FUCK ALL'YALL BITCHES" and still get confirmed?

Yes.

But she couldn't say "I'm going to ban baby murder, save obamacare, GREEN NEW DEAL FTW and FUCK ALL'YALL BITCHES".

[Eddie Teach]

I would vote for her. 

[Zoupa]

I would vote for her. 

[Eddie Teach]

What have you got against Obamacare? 

[Zoupa]

What have you got against Obamacare? 

Hilarious.

[Eddie Teach]

You really need to lighten up man.

[Valmy]

Look she is going to be on the USSC. There is really nothing that can be done to stop it. Just have to win elections.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think she's a done deal yet.  Still a chance of a couple more no votes popping up.