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:
Call her a racist / colonizer for daring to adopt 2 Haitian kids. Say she's a threat to Roe v Wade because she's a Christian and they're usually pro life. Basically shit on her for being religious. This is where we're at. Its already happening.

She's some exotic flavor of Catholic, which doesn't normally do non-vanilla forms. This is going to be a tricky line of attack, especially since they blew their load early on their MUH HANDMAYDENZ TALE malarkey.

And if that doesn't work, they'll drag out some dude in need of a paycheck from her alma mater to say she was gropey one time at a college party when they were both drunk. Or drag some high ranking judge's kid out to say he was raped by her during a internship or something of the like.

That's going to be a tough sell, considering how blase the left (and the culture in general) is about female-on-male sexual abuse. I can't think of a single case that actually got legs- not that the press won't try, of course, but it'll be weak tea even if it's true (spoilers: it won't be.)
 
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.
Nah, I still hold doors open for people. Almost everyone appreciates the courtesy. On the rare occasion some uppity broad snaps at me for it, I just let go of the door, let it smack her and go about my business.
 


First off, the chances of the court over-turning Roe v. Wade is slim. Even if they did, it only eliminates the legality of abortion on the Federal level, states will still have a say on what is or isn't legal in their state.

Also, aren't these Pro-choicers always argue "if you're against abortion and care about children, why don't you adopt?" Now that there is a woman who actually did that, they get ass-mad and compare it to slavery.

:story: :story: :story:

Edit: after reading all these anti-ACB tweets, it is clear that these people don't understand what a supreme court justice actually does. These faggots just desperately want this country to become a YA dystopian novel so that they can LARP as Katnis or Harry Potter.
 
Last edited:
I hope that they succeed this time, because watching the chimp out on this board will be so fucking funny. A&N is basically Trump Enslavement Syndrome: The Subforum
Their strategy so far seems to be, "Working mothers are evil, big families are evil, how dare she adopt outside of her own race" and "How dare she be religious" so I can't particularly say that they're off to a great start in trying to win the public over. We're barely a month out from the election, where a lot of these people have to run for re-election. They're going to have to chill out on how hard they play this during the hearings, because if anyone goes turbo-retard overdrive, everyone's going to remember that when it's time to go out and vote.

Unless they live in a deeply blue, far-Left area, they're going to have to watch their asses or they'll run the risk of pissing off basically every single middle-class woman in the fucking country. I don't think this one is going to involve nearly as many politicians chimping out on camera as Kavanaugh's hearing, purely for that reason.
 
Their strategy so far seems to be, "Working mothers are evil, big families are evil, how dare she adopt outside of her own race" and "How dare she be religious" so I can't particularly say that they're off to a great start in trying to win the public over. We're barely a month out from the election, where a lot of these people have to run for re-election. They're going to have to chill out on how hard they play this during the hearings, because if anyone goes turbo-retard overdrive, everyone's going to remember that when it's time to go out and vote.

Unless they live in a deeply blue, far-Left area, they're going to have to watch their asses or they'll run the risk of pissing off basically every single middle-class woman in the fucking country. I don't think this one is going to involve nearly as many politicians chimping out on camera as Kavanaugh's hearing, purely for that reason.

I am not sure they can help it anymore, I really think the past 4 years have gotten them addicted to being outraged at everything and the limelight that they get when they say orange man bad.
 
Let this sink in. Trump, a Republican President, has nominated to the Supreme Court someone who has a record of being largely not in favor of Capital Punishment. And the leftist Dems are going berserk about it. Since anything Trump does is bad, then Capital Punishment must be Good!

How the Fuck does he do it? Every Fucking Time! He gets them to abandon their publicly long held beliefs immediately just to oppose him, without a moments thought or reflection. Everytime! He gets them to chew off their own legs in an insane frenzy of "ORANGE MAN BAD!" And they fall for it every fucking time. He plays them like a Piano and they never see it. And he even tells them what he's doing to their faces, yet they still do it. Go watch his Atlanta speech. Apparently he now has Dems arguing against Wealth and Prosperity in the Black Community and Neighborhoods.
 
I'm getting pissed off at the attacks of being a religious woman when I try to be progressive in my views on freedom. I've even stated that my personal convictions can infringe on other's freedoms. But then this shit happens and yes I said shit. It is shit. And it's cursed unprofessional attacks on people for political power.
Fuck all of you. AND YES I SAID FUCK, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
 
Can't get a link because paywall, but the New York Times article quoted John Locke on the topic of Catholics supposedly being unable to separate their personal and private lives.

Lmao @ the New York Times kvetching bout subversive foreign religious groups tho.

4gexaj.jpg
 
I'm getting pissed off at the attacks of being a religious woman when I try to be progressive in my views on freedom. I've even stated that my personal convictions can infringe on other's freedoms. But then this shit happens and yes I said shit. It is shit. And it's cursed unprofessional attacks on people for political power.
Fuck all of you. AND YES I SAID FUCK, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
We are gonna send the Queen of Penguins to wash your mouth out with soap.
 
I am not sure they can help it anymore, I really think the past 4 years have gotten them addicted to being outraged at everything and the limelight that they get when they say orange man bad.
Well if they're willing to completely throw an election then they're more than welcome to it, but generally I mean that Kavanaugh's hearing got downright mean and they delved into very personal attacks. That same avenue isn't really available for ACB, because it's really not wise to start aggressively yelling at a woman on live television, especially if you want to paint her as an evil racist for adopting black children or a horrible monster because she's religious, especially when that religion is the same fucking religion as your party's candidate.

The odds are already very much stacked against them and if it came down to party lines, they already lose the vote. If this hearing starts going even the slightest bit South for them, the more squeamish Democrats will defect to try and save their asses in the upcoming election, which will be, what.. Two or three weeks away, when this hearing is completed?
 
Can't get a link because paywall, but the New York Times article quoted John Locke on the topic of Catholics supposedly being unable to separate their personal and private lives. That made me laugh, I have to say: suddenly it's OK to cite an old, dead, white male as an authority when it's in line with their personal viewpoints. Also, Locke was writing during a time when Catholicism was broadly illegal in the UK. Haha, historical context goes brrr.
Locke was probably right tbh, but oh my fucking god if they go all in on dogwistling every 19th century argument against Catholicism my sides are going to implode.
 
Back