Amy, Tell Me What You’re Gonna Do: Part 1

Avatar

Em Carpenter

Em was one of those argumentative children who was sarcastically encouraged to become a lawyer, so she did. She is a proud life-long West Virginian, and, paradoxically, a liberal. In addition to writing about society, politics and culture, she enjoys cooking, podcasts, reading, and pretending to be a runner. She will correct your grammar. You can find her on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

74 Responses

  1. Avatar InMD
    Ignored
    says:

    Thank you for the write-up Em, this is better than anything we can expect from the press. Looking forward to the follow up.Report

    • Avatar Aaron David
      Ignored
      says:

      I dissent.

      EM is the press, at least in her writing here, and shows that we had do have aspects of a press that care enough to write something such as this, which is uniformly excellent, if people care to search it out.

      Seriously EM, I think you could do very well as a legal analyst/journalist if you cared to switch careers.Report

  2. Avatar Marchmaine
    Ignored
    says:

    Thanks for the write-ups.

    Wondering how this was addressed:
    “The law has a provision by which a person in Kanter’s position may petition the US Attorney General for restoration of this right by showing he or she is not a danger to the public. However, these investigations conducted by the ATF were for the most part stopped in the early 90s due to the cost and time required for them.”

    I guess where I lost the plot is if the law specifically allows for restoration but declines to investigate and then denies application (seemingly) prima facie, then it strikes me as more than common sense that the Govt was overstepping the law itself (not to mention the 2A).

    If I’m following (and probably I’m not?) the Court asserted that in lieu of investigating the specifics of a case Wisconsin had defaulted to some version of “studies show” to basically deny ‘all’ petitions? Forget 2A, that’s a little disconcerting in itself.Report

    • Avatar Em Carpenter
      Ignored
      says:

      More the feds than the state, but basically yes, “studies show.”

      The ATF thing is addressed on page 3 (in the majority opinion) and 25 (dissent).
      Basically, Congress has not permitted the ATF (to whom the AG delegates the petitions) to appropriate funds for the investigations since the early 90s.

      In 2002, a man petitioned for restoration of his rights and the ATF returned the petition without decision, stating that they were not permitted to expend the funds to investigate. It wasn’t a “no”, it was a “we aren’t currently considering these petitions.” He filed a lawsuit which wound up at SCOTUS, and a 9-0 ruling authored by Thomas said that neither they nor the lower courts (who had ruled in the man’s favor) had jurisdiction over the suit because the petition had not technically been denied. “The absence of an actual denial by ATF of a felon’s petition precludes judicial review under § 925(c).”
      That case is here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/537/71/#tab-opinion-1961193
      Still good law as far as I can tell.
      Deciding those petitions is viewed as a discretionary function.Report

      • Avatar Marchmaine
        Ignored
        says:

        Wow, 9-0 proof that legal Limbo exists.

        If I recall correctly this sort of no-decision-non-action is also actively employed by the Govt in cases of forfeiture? That is, plaintiff must first petition the agency for relief/review (not sure legal term), which the agency neither grants nor denies… then proceeds to take or re-zone land under the grounds that the time for petitioning has expired? Upon appeal courts rule that they don’t have standing to appeal since there’s no ruling to appeal? Something like that?

        (I’m probably bungling the details, but there seems to be a trend here).Report

      • Avatar Oscar Gordon
        Ignored
        says:

        Oddly enough, this kind of legal limbo is not something actively opposed by groups like the NRA. You would think they would be banging that drum and getting Congress to stop permitting such limbo, or dragging case after case in front of SCOTUS, but it’s mostly crickets.Report

        • Avatar InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          It’s the usual BS with them. Manufacturer trade association posing as a civil rights organization.Report

          • Avatar Oscar Gordon
            Ignored
            says:

            It’s not just the NRA, it’s the whole 2A cheerleaders who also cheer for the Blue Wall.

            Dr. Hanley had a post of FB about an argument he was having with a person who was pro-2A but wholly against felons getting their rights back because reasons. And not just the logical, “all rights are reinstated as soon as the full debt to society is paid”, but also any kind of judicial review for the re-establishment of rights. There are a lot of people who are all about ‘rights’ unless you are convicted of a felony, and then you lose your rights forever, as far as they are concerned*.

            And sadly, these people exist across political divides, because the return of rights generally implies all rights, and if it’s one of those rights you don’t like those people to have…

            *I’m betting that attitude overlaps heavily with people who think any person who runs afoul of the police is obviously guilty of something.Report

            • Avatar Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              I’m pretty sure that the 2A argument has been settled for the time-being. First-time gun buyer numbers are up and they’re primarily in demographics that tend to lean Democratic anyway (African-Americans, Women).

              (I mean, that’s above and beyond the whole whiplash of how much power we’d pivot to thinking Law Enforcement ought to have given the last couple of months.)Report

              • Avatar Marchmaine
                Ignored
                says:

                I was in a local sporting goods store getting ready for hunting season and as I wandered by the gun case I was astounded to see about 6 guns in a case that holds about 40.

                Not sure if its a Covid-19 manufacturing/supply thing or a run on Guns… but if you wanted to buy a gun, you were gonna have to buy what they had left. None of this fancy pick your manufacturer/caliber emoji man stuff.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                The next time you’re in Big R, wander down and see if they have any Freedom Buckets. Things are slowly getting better now but, for 3 months there, the ammo aisles looked exactly like the Kleenex aisles.Report

              • Avatar InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I believe it is a run. I’m going to the show in Chantilly this weekend and have been told to expect gouging and chaos.Report

              • Avatar Marchmaine
                Ignored
                says:

                Whenever I go to Chantilly, I steel myself for gouging and chaos… and that’s just Sweetwater Tavern.Report

            • Avatar Aaron David
              Ignored
              says:

              Yes, it is very sad. But hopefully, that is changing, because (and I could be wrong) that seems to be a bit of a generational thing.

              Hopefully.Report

        • Avatar DavidTC
          Ignored
          says:

          Oddly enough, this kind of legal limbo is not something actively opposed by groups like the NRA.

          This limbo is literally caused by them. They’re the people who demand that BATFE not be funded, or at least reward politicians who brag about cutting funding to it.

          Which of course, results in long turn around for background checks, so the NRA can argue that it’s not possible to do them for all transactions or something.

          At some point, people need to accept the NRA is a con…and I’m not talking about the fact the leadership was operating as a money siphon. I mean the fact it often causes things, or refuses to migrate things, that it itself complains about.

          Let me give what is perhaps the best example: People here have repeatedly explained to me that gun control laws are a confusing chaotic mess in different states. You know what organization has the resources to manage some sort of database of that, make it public, and even create some sort of reference where people could look up their specific gun model and find out this information? Hmm.Report

          • Avatar Damon
            Ignored
            says:

            Why? You can just buy this.

            https://www.amazon.com/Travelers-Guide-Firearm-Fifty-States/dp/0578607875

            Sure, it might take a some time to refresh vs an online database, but the data is there…and no one really cares much about the laws in other states unless they are travelling to or through them. So why was resources.Report

            • Avatar DavidTC
              Ignored
              says:

              Are you really asking me why a ‘civil rights organization’ would be providing people of exactly what their rights are under the law in specific circumstance?

              It’s a little baffling, isn’t it? But you’re right, under that logic, the ACLU would have a ‘what rights do you have when speaking to the police’, the EFF would have a page telling people how to FOIA information about themselves, the Human Rights Campaign would have information about LGBTQ rights at a state and county level.

              But none of them do!

              I mean, there’s all sorts of stuff they aren’t doing that they could be, considering they have to keep track of all track of it _anyway_ if they want to fight it. If they’re trying to change the laws, they clearly have to know what laws exist. And yet, none of them bother to make any of that public!

              *holds finger to earpiece*

              Oh…they all have exactly those pages and are all doing those exact things? Huh. I did not know that. Thank you, imaginary earpiece.

              Oh, it turns out civil rights organizations are generally are very good at explaining rights that people have. For free instead of making them buy a book by a third party. That doing that is literally part of their mission, to explain existing rights and how they fall short in various ways, especially the really complicated situations that confuse people. This is usually a _large_ part of their mission.

              Except for the NRA. This is what they have:
              https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/

              That’s it.

              And it’ very very incomplete. For the super-obvious: On some states, they mention it’s illegal for a minor to possess a handgun, and others (like Alabama) they don’t bother to mention the law there (It’s the same as any other firearm…which the site doesn’t bother to define. Not there at all.)

              This I noticed in ten seconds just clicking between states. I’m not some gun law expert, I just said “Surely Alabama doesn’t let literal children have handguns, why did that section go away? What does the law actually say there?’ and spent ten seconds googling it.

              Aka, this is utterly useless as any sort of actual reference! Because…they just sorta randomly include different sections per state. You, random parent living in Alabama whose kid just took up shooting as an extracurricular activity, you want to know if it’s legal for your 17 year old to put their rifle in their car and drive it to a gun range to do shooting, or if you need to be in the car also? Well, good luck figuring that out, the NRA isn’t going to help!Report

          • Avatar Oscar Gordon
            Ignored
            says:

            There are numerous reasons the BATFE should not be funded, many of which have to do with the agency having been right up there with ICE when it comes to being out of control.

            That said, why is such a thing (the restoration of rights) in the wheelhouse of a law enforcement organization? Or, perhaps more importantly, why is the government allowed to decline to fund resources for the restoration of rights?

            To me, that is the more fundamental question, and perhaps the one that needs to be put before the court again (if it has ever gone before). If the government sees fit to expend resources to strip a person’s rights, then they should not be allowed to be stingy when the restoration is sought. If we hold that the protection of rights is a fundamental duty of government, anyway.Report

            • Avatar Aaron David
              Ignored
              says:

              The push should always go to the citizen.

              Meaning that in all cases that the gov’t declines to fund, declines to defend, or any other trick of an overreaching gov’t, the presumption is that the citizen won the case to the fullest extent of the petition. Because you are right, stripping a citizen of their rights should never come lightly, and the gov’t should never be allowed to play rope-a-dope with those rights.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Exactly, and IMHO, this is something the SCOTUS should enforce, but refuses to (assuming the question has come before it in the past).Report

              • Avatar Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                People often say something to the effect of; the law is too important to leave to lawyers. And I think that this might be such a case. Again, when the courts do something like this, congress (Fed or State) needs to quickly move to slap them down. It is, in my eyes, a huge failure of jurisprudence.

                This is the leviathan.Report

              • Avatar Em Carpenter
                Ignored
                says:

                Congress is the one not letting them do the investigations into the petitions.Report

            • Avatar DavidTC
              Ignored
              says:

              There are numerous reasons the BATFE should not be funded, many of which have to do with the agency having been right up there with ICE when it comes to being out of control.

              That’s not why the organization shouldn’t be _funded_, that’s why they should have oversight, or controlled by law, or be dissolved.

              Not funding things is not actually the way to fix the fact they are out of control. And, yes, I am aware of the irony that I am pro-defunding-the-police, but that’s just a stupid attempt to use right-wing rhetoric back at them, and I don’t like the term. The police should be dismantled and then maybe, partially, reassembled, with other parts put other places.

              As should the BATFE, if it is out of control. I’ve heard people say it is, I have no experience there, but…honestly, at this point, I’m willing to believe that about in anything in law enforcement agency. Especially if you’re comparing it to ICE.

              In fact, this is a good example of how things should be placed outside law enforcement…although actually I don’t really understand want BATFE would have to do with that anyway. The idea that BATFE somehow should be judging the likelihood of repeated gun crime is insane. BATFE is not really in charge of ‘gun crime’ in the sense of ‘crimes committed with guns’, which is surely what we’re talking about here.

              And in fact, they aren’t in charge of this, the DOJ is (Which makes sense), but BATFE inexplicably has a role in this and is able to stall them, for…no reason.Report

              • Avatar George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                The BATF is in charge of tobacco and alcohol because those were major sources of government revenue. Guns were thrown in because Congress decided to tax machine guns. They’re not so much a law enforcement agency as a narrowly-scoped tax enforcement agency looking for a higher purpose.Report

  3. Avatar Oscar Gordon
    Ignored
    says:

    People often forget that the felon rule impacts way more than 2nd Amendment rights, and just how broad that rule is (and, hey, 3 felonies a day!).Report

  4. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Hey, this is great. The main things that I’ve noticed about her is that she had a ruling in which she tossed out a claim for Qualified Immunity (granted, it was an exceptionally egregious attempt to claim it, but toss it out she did!) and that she was a clerk rather than a prosecutor and then worked at a law firm rather than in a prosecutor’s office.

    So… huh. Not bad.Report

  5. Avatar Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    This is great. Thanks for doing this.Report

  6. Avatar Burt Likko
    Ignored
    says:

    Doe v. Purdue doesn’t strike me as an awful decision. It does strike me as drawing into sharp relief fundamental issues of inclusiveness — there are powerful facets of our trafitional adversarial system of justice which deter women from reporting sexual assaults. I’m not at all clear how the demands of the due process clause (and its companion, the confrontation clause, though that may only apply in a criminal proceeding) can be squared with the investigatory and disciplinary processes demanded by Title IX, and Doe’s story presents a fairly extreme example of why that is. It seems to me (at least as a jumping-off point for considering the issue) that in a Title IX discipline matter like Doe’s, a civil rather than criminal due process standard ought to apply. The difference comes up with issues like provision of counsel, what constitutes sufficient advance notice of charges and evidence, and standards of review of decisions. But Purdue didn’t meet that. I’m not really bothered by Barrett’s decision in Doe because of this — the Constitutiontrumps a atatute, after all.

    I hope that Barrett would have handed down some guidance about future adjudication, but it sounds like that didn’t happen. Perhaps she couldn’t get her colleagues to sign off on any, and it would have been dicta anyway?

    Kanter is more eyebrow-raising. Mr. Kanter seems like a reasonable candidate for restoration of gun rights; his crime was not violent and highly technical. We don’t know the whole story of the man, of course, the way an investigator would. What we do know is that Barrett took it upon herself to write a dissent longer than the underlying majority opinion, indicating strong feeling on her part. That dissent indicates she would have crafted new categories of people and crimes, based on her historical gloss of Stuart-era English practices. The OP notes “She was unpersuaded by the studies cited in the majority opinion that even felons convicted of non-violent crimes are more likely to commit violent crimes in the future,” before concluding that this categorical exclusion approach advances no governmental interest. That doesn’t follow. There’s a governmental interest in preventing violence. Dare I say, it’s a compelling governmental interest. Maybe she might hold that the government’s pursuit of that interest in this case betrays non-narrow tailoring, which is one way to find in Kantor’s favor–but to do that seemingly requires an individualized analysis rather that a categorical one, and she’s not willing to sacrifice categorical exclusions from the gun ownership rights of the post-Heller Second Amendment. I don’t see a viable structure of reasoning to her dissent. Yet based on that fragile reasoning, she’d have given a felon a firearm. I don’t like it, even if better alternative paths to that destination are available.Report

    • Avatar Burt Likko
      Ignored
      says:

      Further to the above, when did she clerk on the Supreme Court? Could she have had a hand in writing the Heller decision?Report

    • Avatar Oscar Gordon
      Ignored
      says:

      I think one thing such studies often fail to consider is the 2nd order effects of convicting a person of a felony in the first place. A non-violent felony still closes off large avenues of opportunity for most people and limits their ability to get ahead.

      In short, they are studies that conclude that people who have had their foot cut off have trouble walking.Report

    • Avatar Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      There are very few judges or justices who are perfect clockwork in their decisions. We also both know that most decisions do not involve hot button issues and it is very easy for the Supreme Court to issue a 9-0 decision to clarify some circuit split on an issue of Civil Procedure or Admiralty Law or something that is largely seen as “non-controversial.”*

      But for the most part, there are very few surprise justices anymore. Everyone has learned from the examples of Eisenhower nominating Warren and Brennan and Nixon appointing Blackmun. The last surprise Justices were probably Stevens and Souter. Merrick Garland would have been a reliable vote for the liberal side on hot-button issues more often than not despite his reputation as a moderate milquetoast. He certainly would have joined with Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan in clawbacks on mandatory arbitration clauses as an example. Amy Coney Barnett is more likely than not to write decisions that please conservative activists on hot button issues.

      *Though nothing is completely without controversy as a decision like Twombly seems neutral on its face as does the rewrite of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on discovery but those decisions do make it harder for plaintiffs to bring edge cases in Federal Court.Report

    • Avatar Em Carpenter
      Ignored
      says:

      I could have been clearer.
      The studies cited by the government that felons are more likely to commit further crimes did not differentiate between violent and non violent felons, contributing to her not presuming a logical nexus.
      I think violent crime is fairly easy to define (with a few exceptions- I realize courts find burglary to be “violent”, even when no one is home and no one is harmed. My state use to categorize simple DUI as violent, too.) I think it could be more narrowly tailored, and I think that is her point. Categorical, but not such a broad category.
      She recognizes the compelling government interest but not an arbitrary connection between it and, as she points to as an example, selling pigs without a license.Report

    • Avatar DensityDuck
      Ignored
      says:

      “There’s a governmental interest in preventing violence. ”

      lol

      So if you’re convicted of a Felony Crime then the government can just do whatever it wants to you, and that’s okay because It’s In The Interest Of Preventing Future Violence?

      Those convicted of felony crimes can have their phones tapped, can have their homes searched without warrant or notice? If a law-enforcement official involved in that activity finds something they believe is suspicious, the person can be arrested without a warrant, denied counsel, and held indefinitely without a trial?Report

      • Avatar Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        Those convicted of felony crimes can have their phones tapped, can have their homes searched without warrant or notice?

        Its not just them – this is the crux of the whole warrantless surveillance program started under Bush the Later and cemented under Obama.Report

    • Avatar DavidTC
      Ignored
      says:

      It’s interesting how I agree with the Purdue case for…reasons that no one seems to like.

      I…really hate cases dismissed on standing grounds. The idea the person has no right to put this in front of a jury is…dumb. Likewise, the idea that he _only_ has standing to challenge by the ROTC, and wouldn’t if that wasn’t true, is also dumb.

      Public colleges are not _required_ to educate people but they, like government institutions, are required to act in a semi-rational manner and not just randomly deny service to people. Driving is a privilege, not a right, one that even has a few subjective judgements like the driving test, but we don’t let DMV clerks deny you a license because they don’t like your MAGA hat or whatever, and there really should be a legal remedy if that’s what they do.

      Yes, Perdue had ‘rules’, but the rules Perdue operated under are…really bad. _And_ the people in charge of disciplinary meetings didn’t even slightly seem to care to getting to the truth. Talking to neither the accused _or even the accusator_. No sworn statements, no witnesses. A ‘jury’ that clearly did not care.

      However, the sexual discrimination argument is…really interesting.

      What John really proved was that the school perhaps had a bias on cracking down on _sexual assault_, due to funding threats That’s not the same thing as bias against _men_. It’s not a _good_ thing, we should start all criminal accusations with the idea that ‘the crime must be demonstrated to some level’, even if the bar is lower here. But it’s not a violation of Title IX, just due process.

      And if your thought is ‘But men are mostly the people accused of sexual assault, so a tendency to disbelieve them is bias against men.’, then…yes. You are correct. Except: If conservatives actually believe the logic of that, they would notice…the opposite must be true, bias against believe allegations of sexual assault is…sexism. And…wow.

      Conservatives: Suddenly arguing that there is systematic, nationwide discrimination against women, due to the lack of the system believing their assault allegations…because conservatives decided to argue it had inverted in one case. Alrighty!

      But what about the ‘Alcohol isn’t the cause of campus sexual assault. Men are.’ article that a different part of the university posted?

      This is yet more logic I’d like to conservatives start applying _anywhere else_, because they often seem to be the ones who argue that ‘evidence’ like this _isn’t really evidence_ of biases. Like a sexist cartoon passed around by men at a business can’t be used to prove any sort any sort of company-wide sexual discrimination. Or that, [Note: Remember to come back and replace this with whatever the latest horrible instances of police racist message boards or belonging to white nationalism organizations showed up recently.]

      But suddenly here, we’re suppose to think this one link to one article by the part of the university that is supposed to stop sexual assaults and encourage the reporting, _not_ the part that actually adjudicated over the suspension, means the entire thing is biased?

      Like, if this is where conservative thought has honestly ended up, if they legitimately believe what is alleged in this case, that bias _towards_ believing claims of sexual assault are sexist against men. (And thus bias against believing those claims are sexist against women.) And also that very slight indications at the institutional levels (Instead of the decision-making level) help prove discrimination, then…I will throw a party.

      But I’m pretty sure this only applies when it’s _men_ who are the victim.

      Which, again, he is a victim of a completely unfair process, and again, he should have his day in court. Honestly, I think he should win, if what is reported is true. Although that’s not actually what’s under discussion. He certainly should get to go to court with it.

      But I’d really like to see some indication from Barrett that this isn’t _just_ when it’s men.Report

      • Avatar Burt Likko
        Ignored
        says:

        It’s not standing so much as due process. Standing is the ability to plausibly claim that one has been injured in some material way. I don’t think there’s any doubt that Doe had been injured. He lost a scholarship, he lost the ability to attend the school for a year, he lost the ability to pursue a career in the Navy.

        Due process is different. The classic markers of due process are 1) notice of the charges against you, 2) an opportunity to respond to the charges against you, 3) a neutral and fair decision-maker (not necessarily a jury), 4) the ability to present evidence on your own behalf, and 5) the ability to examine and question the evidence presented against you. You can see where Purdue’s process doesn’t live up to those standards.

        Bear in mind also that Title IX requires that a college receiving federal money have conduct codes that include imposing discipline for the sort of thing Doe was accused of. And that the college provide fair procedures for the hearing of these claims aimed at providing an equal educational opportunity for men and women alike. Those hearings don’t have to be like court hearings. But they do have to be aimed at advancing the goal of equal access to education for women.

        That’s the backdrop against which your thoughts about how notions of equality and sexuality on campus in today’s world come into play. I’m not popular in some circles for pointing out that too much experimentation with a classic adversarial procedure risks losing some of the hallmarks of due process, precisely because the requirements of Title IX guidance suggest that strict adherence to a classic judicial exchange creates a playing field that is inherently uneven to a female accuser against a male respondent.

        I don’t know what the fair solution is, but I do know that the Constitution trumps a statute, and the Due Process Clause is the Constitution and Title IX is a statute and whatever the solution winds up being, it’s going to have to be a different way of dealing with the statute because the Constitution isn’t going to and oughtn’t change to accommodate even as powerful a concern as this.Report

  7. Avatar greginak
    Ignored
    says:

    Thanks, this is interesting and good project. I’ve seen commentary on Kanter v Barr around the Civic v Personal rights issue which i don’t get. Voting isn’t individual??? I’m not sure where or what this distinction is being made on. This leads to the seeming result that it’s easier to strip voting rights from a person then gun rights.Report

    • Avatar Em Carpenter
      Ignored
      says:

      It is easier to strip voting rights, yes. The 14th Amendment says at Section 2:
      “But when the right to vote… is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced…” That language indicates that voting rights can be abridged for those who commit crimes (otherwise why mention it as an exception to the reduction in representation for denying the vote to eligible citizens?)
      I differentiate a personal right from a civic right in that a civic right is one that amounts to a right to participate in certain aspects of society, like the examples of voting and jury service. A personal right is one that effects the individual alone. If your 4th amendment rights are violated, it does not affect society (except perhaps in a broad sense that upholding the rights of one is important in order to uphold the rights of all.) I agree that its a subtle difference.Report

      • Avatar greginak
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m sure you’re correct but it seems insaneish. My right to free speech or religion impacts no one else but they are sure held as things we should very rarely abridge. It does seem consistent with the opinion piece i read where this easily leads to felons being able to buy guns but not vote. Which sounds exactly like US of A 2020!!! but not actually good imho.Report

        • Avatar Em Carpenter
          Ignored
          says:

          You’re correct though that’s the point. The rights that affect you specifically are not to be abridged. Your right to worship, speak, protect yourself, receive a fair trial, etc. Exceptions should be extremely rare and only under extraordinarily compelling circumstances.Report

        • Avatar Em Carpenter
          Ignored
          says:

          Just want to add that I personally also support voting rights for felons.Report

          • Avatar Mike Schilling
            Ignored
            says:

            It seems silly that a felon can’t vote for president but can be one.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            Eh. Some felonies.

            I’m cool with saying to a guy who got sent to the clink for some dumb stuff who has repaid his debt to society having all rights and privileges returned to him.

            But someone who, for example, kills another person has pretty much removed that person’s right to vote. Forever.

            I am less cool with saying “okay, you can vote again!” to this person.Report

            • Avatar Mike Schilling
              Ignored
              says:

              I’m OK with letting the punishment fit the crime. If you committed a crime with a gun, you lose gun rights. If you conspired to disenfranchise people (hello, NC legislature), you lose the right to vote. If you interfered with the CDC during a pandemic, you get used for alpha testing of treatments, and so on.Report

  8. Avatar North
    Ignored
    says:

    Great analysis Em!Report

  9. Avatar Mike Schilling
    Ignored
    says:

    The real question is whether she’ll be the fifth vote to hand Trump the presidency. Ted Cruz thinks so.Report

  10. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    My Request:

    Does she have anything related to Wickard?Report

  11. Avatar George Turner
    Ignored
    says:

    If she’s confirmed, her seven children won’t have any avenue to appeal her decisions. 🙁

    Just thought I’d throw that out there.Report

  12. Avatar Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    The most unpredictable thing for me, and I think most casual observers, is stare decisis. I can understand the originalist versus living Constitution continuum, and the Democratic versus Republican ideological leanings. But I don’t know how to guess if a Justice is going to be inclined to overturn precedent or not. I don’t know if you can gauge that from their non-SCOTUS history, either.

    On one side, you’ve got people like Thomas, who was probably always going to ignore precedent because he’s committed to the words of the law. Then you’ve got Roberts, who seems willing to follow any precedent. But is that just because of the role he sees himself in? If he were an Associate Justice, would he be more inclined to upset the apple cart?Report

  13. Avatar George Turner
    Ignored
    says:

    Well, let’s look at Biden’s picks. He said he’s going to nominate an African American woman. Presently there are only three on federal appeals courts, Bernice Donald (age 69) on the Sixth Circuit, Ojetta Thompson (age 69) on the First Circuit, and Judith Rogers (age 81) on the DC circuit.Report

    • Avatar Marchmaine
      Ignored
      says:

      I don’t think Kagan was ever even a judge?

      Like becoming a Cardinal, it seems that only Bishops can become one, but it’s not a requirement.Report

      • Avatar George Turner
        Ignored
        says:

        Well, he could nominate Oprah or Michelle Obama, I suppose, or go with a law professor or district judge. I think all that really matters is race and sex.Report

  14. Avatar Fish
    Ignored
    says:

    Excellent, Em. Thank you so much for investing your time and effort into researching and writing this.Report

  1. September 30, 2020

    […] (Note: There is no case of the week today, since I have been busy working on my series analyzing the jurisprudence of our new SCOTUS nominee. You can read Part 1 of that here.  -Em) […]Report

  2. October 1, 2020

    […] (Note: This is part 2 of a series in which I examine opinions written by Amy Coney Barrett during her tenure on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. My intention is to gain and provide insight into her approach to legal analysis, beyond the headlines and partisan spin. Part 1 can be found here.) […]Report

  3. October 5, 2020

    […] and provide insight into her approach to legal analysis, beyond the headlines and partisan spin. Part 1 can be found here; Part 2 can be found […]Report

  4. October 8, 2020

    […] is Part 4 of a series examining the opinions and writings of Judge Amy Coney Barret. Part 1 can be read here, Part 2 can be read here, and Part 3 can be read […]Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *