Law Justice Amy Coney Barrett Megathread

So the announcer at the rose garden announced her as she walked out with the president.

will find an article soon.

e: he official announced her as his third pick.

e2:

---------------------------------------------
Article Start

The long-term academic, appeals court judge and mother of seven was the hot favourite for the Supreme Court seat.

Donald Trump - who as sitting president gets to select nominees - reportedly once said he was "saving her" for this moment: when elderly Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and a vacancy on the nine-member court arose.

It took the president just over a week to fast-track the 48-year-old conservative intellectual into the wings. This is his chance to tip the court make-up even further to the right ahead of the presidential election, when he could lose power.

Barrett's record on gun rights and immigration cases imply she would be as reliable a vote on the right of the court, as Ginsburg was on the left, according to Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University.

"Ginsburg maintained one of the most consistent liberal voting records in the history of the court. Barrett has the same consistency and commitment," he adds. "She is not a work-in-progress like some nominees. She is the ultimate 'deliverable' for conservative votes."

And her vote, alongside a conservative majority, could make the difference for decades ahead, especially on divisive issues such as abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act (the Obama-era health insurance provider).

Barrett's legal opinions and remarks on abortion and gay marriage have made her popular with the religious right, but earned vehement opposition from liberals.

But as a devout Catholic, she has repeatedly insisted her faith does not compromise her work.

Barrett lives in South Bend, Indiana, with her husband, Jesse, a former federal prosecutor who is now with a private firm. The couple have seven children, including two adopted from Haiti. She is the oldest of seven children herself.

Known for her sharp intellect, she studied at the University of Notre Dame's Law School, graduating first in her class, and was a clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, who, in her words, was the "staunchest conservative" on the Supreme Court at the time.

Like her mentor Scalia, she is an originalist, which is a belief that judges should attempt to interpret the words of the Constitution as the authors intended when they were written.

Many liberals oppose that strict approach, saying there must be scope for moving with the times.

Barrett has spent much of her career as a professor at her alma mater, Notre Dame, where she was voted professor of the year multiple times. One of students, Deion Kathawa, who took a class with her earlier this year, told the BBC she was popular because she involved everyone in discussions. He found her "collegial, civil, fair-minded, intellectually sharp, and devoted to the rule of law secured by our Constitution".

Another student told the WBEZ new site: "I feel somewhat conflicted because … she's a great professor. She never brought up politics in her classroom... But I do not agree with her ideologies at all. I don't think she would be good for this country and the Supreme Court."

Barrett was selected by President Trump to serve as a federal appeals court judge in 2017, sitting on the Seventh Circuit, based in Chicago. She regularly commutes to the court from her home - more than an hour and half away. The South Bend Tribune once carried an interview from a friend saying she was an early riser, getting up between 04:00 and 05:00. "It's true," says Paolo Carozza, a professor at Notre Dame. "I see her at the gym shortly after then."

Carozza has watched Barrett go from student to teacher to leading judge, and speaks about her effusively. "It's a small, tight-knit community, so I know her socially too. She is ordinary, warm, kind."

A religious man himself, he thinks it is reasonable to question a candidate about whether their beliefs would interfere with their work. "But she has answered those questions forcefully... I fear she is now being reduced to an ideological caricature, and that pains me, knowing what a rich and thoughtful person she is."

Her confirmation hearing for the appeals court seat featured a now-infamous encounter with Senator Dianne Feinstein, who voiced concerns about how her faith could affect her thinking on the law. "The dogma lives loudly within you," said Mrs Feinstein in an accusatory tone. Defiant Catholics adopted the phrase as a tongue-in-cheek slogan on mugs.

Barrett has defended herself on multiple occasions. "I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge," she once said.

However, her links to a particularly conservative Christian faith group, People of Praise, have been much discussed in the US press. LGBT groups have flagged the group's network of schools, which have guidelines stating a belief that sexual relations should only happen between heterosexual married couples.

LGBTQ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign has voiced strong opposition to Barrett's confirmation, declaring her an "absolute threat to LGBTQ rights".

The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research organisation, declined comment on Barrett specifically, but said appointing any new conservative Supreme Court justice would "be devastating for sexual and reproductive health and rights".

To secure the position on the Supreme Court - a lifelong job - Barrett will still have to pass a gruelling confirmation hearing, where Democratic senators are likely to take a tough line, bringing up many of their voters' concerns.

Professor Turley thinks she will take it her stride, due to the "civil and unflappable disposition" she showed during the hostile questioning for the appeals court position.

"She is someone who showed incredible poise and control… her [appeals court] confirmation hearing was a dry run for a Supreme Court confirmation. She has already played in the World Series."

article end
---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
Article Start

President Trump on Saturday announced he has chosen Amy Coney Barrett as his pick to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- a move that could significantly shift the nation's highest court to the right if she's confirmed by the Senate.

“Today it is my honor to nominate one of our nation's most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court," Trump said in the Rose Garden alongside Barrett. "She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution -- Judge Amy Coney Barrett.”

Trump announced Barrett, a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, who had been considered by Trump for the vacancy left by the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2018. Trump eventually chose now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh instead.

Ginsburg, a liberal trailblazer who was a consistent vote on the court’s liberal wing, died last week at 87. The announcement sets up what is likely to be a fierce confirmation battle as Republicans attempt to confirm Barrett before the election on Nov. 3.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has promised to put the nominee up for a vote, despite the objections of Senate Democrats -- who cite McConnell’s refusal to give Obama nominee Merrick Garland a hearing in 2016.

A source familiar with the process told Fox News that Oct. 12 is the target date for the beginning of confirmation hearings. This means that Barrett, 48, could potentially be confirmed by the end of the month and just days before the election.

Barrett, a former Notre Dame professor and a mother of seven, is a devout Catholic and pro-life -- beliefs that were raised as a problem by Democrats during her 2017 confirmation hearing to her seat on the 7th Circuit.

"The dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern," Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told Barrett. She was eventually confirmed 55-43.

Trump was also believed to have been considering candidates including 11th Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa. Trump had said publicly that he had five potential picks he was considering.

A source told Fox News that Trump had taken note of how “tough” Barrett was when she faced the tough confirmation fight in 2017 and had kept her very much at the front of his mind since then.

The source said Trump met her during the considerations on who to replace Kennedy in 2018, talked to a lot of people about her and wanted to keep her in place through the Kavanaugh vetting process in case there was an issue. Kavanaugh did face hurdles in his confirmation battle, but that came after his nomination was announced.

The source said that after Ginsburg died, Barrett was the only candidate he met and spoke with at length, although he made a few calls to Lagoa because some people were pushing him very hard to do so. But ultimately Barrett was always at the front of Trump’s mind to fill a Ginsburg vacancy.

Should she be confirmed, Barrett would be Trump’s third Supreme Court confirmation. That’s more than two-term Presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- who each put two justices on the court.

Democrats have vowed to oppose the pick, but the Senate math does not appear to be in their favor. Republicans have 53 Senate seats and Barrett only needs 50 to be confirmed -- with Vice President Mike Pence acting as a tie breaker in such a case.

So far, only Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, have indicated they oppose moving forward with a confirmation before the election. Murkowski has since suggested she still may vote for the nominee.

Fox News' John Roberts, Mike Emanuel and Tyler Olson contributed to this report.

article end
---------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
Family photo:
Ei30lIrXYAEVssv.jpeg
 
Well, you guys knew that her being a woman doesn't mean she won't escape the wrath of the left. No matter how petty they're going to present her as anti-woman and unalike Ruth that she will become public enemy number #2 next to Trump.
I've already seen attacks on the Twitter, the best website on the internet, questioning the circumstances of which she adopted her children. I'm guessing that's going to be the unique line of attack on her.
He's from a different time, when men gave up their seats on the bus for women and held doors open for them. They wouldn't let a woman pay for anything, not even a cup of coffee, because it wasn't right. It's less about seeing women as inferior than acknowledging they are worthy of respect.

I think the reason you don't see it much these day is not because of feminism but because most women act like barbarians and don't deserve our respect.
It's a nothing gesture. Oops I forgot to lower the mic for the next person, let me fix that for you...it just stood out. When I think of any other leader they would let the next speaker lower it themselves, or at most get one of their toadies to do it for them. They don't open doors, SS people do that for them, they don't make their own coffee, an intern does that for them and so on. All they do in these sorts of events is shake hands if at that, give the speech, smile and wave, and go off. Everyone else runs around for them, almost as if such matters are beneath them. Not saying he should be commended for doing it, just noting that it happened because it is so rare.

Your point about modern women acting like barbarians is true. Once upon a time I used to hold doors open for people or go out of my way to help others, not anymore unless they are elderly or pregnant/carrying babies or they ask. Not worth it. More likely to get chewed out by some sad sack of shit if you go out of your way than if you leave them to sort themselves out.
 
I've already seen attacks on the Twitter, the best website on the internet, questioning the circumstances of which she adopted her children. I'm guessing that's going to be the unique line of attack on her.
Doesn't surprise me. I know it might be seen that white supremacists will be upset to see a white family adopt non-white children, but really it's a common theme in the left to rant against white families adopting non-white children and raising them to be white; basically ignoring their natural heritage.
 
They're already attacking her religious background and that group she belongs too...whatchaa call it... Patriot Prayer?

They've been preparing for this since 5mins after RBG dropped dead. They'll have an angle but will it work?
No. All they will do is piss people off and envoke the wrath of every catholic in this country.
 
I've already seen attacks on the Twitter, the best website on the internet, questioning the circumstances of which she adopted her children. I'm guessing that's going to be the unique line of attack on her.

It's a nothing gesture. Oops I forgot to lower the mic for the next person, let me fix that for you...it just stood out. When I think of any other leader they would let the next speaker lower it themselves, or at most get one of their toadies to do it for them. They don't open doors, SS people do that for them, they don't make their own coffee, an intern does that for them and so on. All they do in these sorts of events is shake hands if at that, give the speech, smile and wave, and go off. Everyone else runs around for them, almost as if such matters are beneath them. Not saying he should be commended for doing it, just noting that it happened because it is so rare.

Your point about modern women acting like barbarians is true. Once upon a time I used to hold doors open for people or go out of my way to help others, not anymore unless they are elderly or pregnant/carrying babies or they ask. Not worth it. More likely to get chewed out by some sad sack of shit if you go out of your way than if you leave them to sort themselves out.
The way he puts his arm around Melania or his daughters and gently guides them to the car reminds me of my dad. I don't see that IRL anymore, probably because now if a dad touches his daughter everyone thinks he's a pedo, and it's not like the left hasn't tried to claim he did Ivana.
 
Lol yeah no shit nigger. It's almost like the left has pretty much all but declared war at this point. Why would anyone on the right feel obligated to not just take advantage of anything they legally can?

After Kavanaugh I think it became apparent that the gloves really had come off, like they drug him through the mud with allegations that had zero backing in reality, not even the glow niggers at the FBI could find anything incriminating on him which should've been the biggest red flag that it was a fruitless endeavor, sure they tarnished his name but at the end of the day he still gets to be a Justice of the Supreme Court and all their wailing and gnashing of teeth can't change it.

So now it's like well you guys wanna do this we can play with you too and just shove ACB through the nomination and there's nothing legally you can do about it because in your infinite arrogance you altered the rules and never entertained the thought that the conservatives would return to power to immediately use those powers against you. This entire circus is one that they built for themselves.
 
Doesn't surprise me. I know it might be seen that white supremacists will be upset to see a white family adopt non-white children, but really it's a common theme in the left to rant against white families adopting non-white children and raising them to be white; basically ignoring their natural heritage.
I remember when Tamron Hall and the rest of the menstrual cycle on MSNBC commented on Mitt Romney's adoption of a black child into his family. The words were "that child doesn't belong". It really pisses them off when someone on the right adopts black children.

IDK what else they can throw at her to drag shit out like they did with Thomas and Kavanaugh. Roe vs Wade is one, but that isn't scandalous, that's her viewpoint on a judicial matter. A sexual assault allegation from some bint 30 years ago would be beyond ridiculous. Best choice I can imagine (in terms of mental gymnastics and lols) would be an utterly hypocritical allegation of her "sleeping her way to the top" and one about illicit sexual relations with her co-workers to social climb.

Anyone here have any ideas how the Dems might make this appointment into another international circus with bullshit hearings and grandstanding?
 
Back