Amy Coney Barrett's first decision as a justice was a wrong one
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/amy-coney-barrett-s-first-decision-justice-was-wrong-one-n1244892Amy Coney Barrett's first decision as a justice was a wrong one
Barrett didn't have to participate in a prime-time political spectacle at the White House, just eight days before Election Day. But she did.
Oct. 27, 2020, 8:00 AM EDT
By Steve Benen
snip//
Last night, the former reality-show personality turned the dial to 11, hosting a prime-time spectacle at the White House. It was, for all intents and purposes, a campaign celebration, held for the cameras, just eight days before Election Day.
The merriment had all the subtlety of a sledgehammer: Barrett stood in the spotlight, on a White House balcony in front of the presidential seal, alongside Trump who beamed with pride before an applauding audience, which included Republican senators who spent last week pretending they have no idea how the far-right ideologue will rule on cases of lasting import.
Barrett was then ceremonially sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas -- arguably the high court's most reactionary conservative -- as if to drive home the point that the right had taken over the judiciary.
Barrett had a choice. She does not serve at the pleasure of the president. The Supreme Court's newest member could've told the White House, "No, I'm not comfortable with this. I'm not a trophy to be shown off during a re-election campaign." On the show last night, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) described the event as "the latest episode of the Trump reality-TV show, 'Re-Election Theater.'"
And therein lies the point: Barrett's first decision as a confirmed Supreme Court justice was to agree to participate in this political spectacle. She knew about the electoral context; she knew this prime-time program would give the appearance of a political victory party; and she chose to do this anyway.
CNN's Jake Tapper heard from a Republican consultant last night who said in reference to the White House show, "If I'm [Amy Coney Barrett], I don't go to this." The consultant added that it "looks bad."
Her apparent indifference to the damage all of this does to her credibility and the legitimacy of her institution speaks volumes about Barrett and the indefensible process that concluded with such a brazenly political coda.
= new reply since forum marked as read
this was the rationale for expanding from 7 to 9, when the judicial system expanded from 7 to 9 circuits.
No packing, no expanding...just right sizing it. Citizens in each circuit are entitled to having an associate justice that is individually focused on their circuit. The current system of 4 doing "double duty" is depriving those citizens of equal justice under the law.
BTW: I'm no lawyer (not even f'ing close) but this still seems like a rational argument, and a principled approach, to me.
IANAL either.
But your proposal seems logical.
We need to do a lot of public selling of the idea to expand the court. Using terms and logic that the common voter can understand.
This is well thought out, and people can relate to increasing man power to cover increased work load.
She expects to be dominated by a man. It is in her DNA from long ago.
If he says, come to this gala, she will go.
And she did.
She is not going to think on her own. She will think and agree with the dominant Conservative male. And will affirm with all the Conserva-premes. She will not rock the boat until, well, ever.
We are going to have a LOT of 6-3 decisions going forward. Once in awhile you might see a 5-4 which will still go to the Conservatives, but it will make Roberts appear like he is trying to be ‘balanced’. With no loss for the monied interests who brought the case. If it is ruling against one of American’s rights, then he will just claim he is following the originalist/textualist philosophy.
We now have 6 pretzels on the court. I’ve never been fond of pretzels, the sharp edges tend to scratch my mouth.
Supreme Court of the GOPee.... 
