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:
This thread needs more salt
View attachment 1623942
One for them is STILL mad that Bernie didn't win 2020.

"Barack Obama could've had three Justices." Agreed, blame RGB for not retiring when Obama offered.

Also, one of those comments mentioned how a 40 year old woman would be there until 2070 as a negative. They had NO problem when RBG stayed even after breaking two ribs. Maybe we SHOULD indict term limits?
 
Here is a gigaton of salt from reddit, mined by a token 4chan pajeet. Please pray (lol) for him as he risked his life in the worst dystopian hellscape ever to obtain only this much salt.

Warning: this FUCKTON of salt intake can kill you if done all at once.

1601160917508.png
1601157171540.png
1601157163711.png
1601157127723.png
1601157065149.png
1601156813867.png
1601156761224.png
1601156496657.png
1601156657185.png
1601156523995.png
1601156566749.png
1601156124981.png
1601156030318.png
1601155770075.png
1601155940967.png
1601155586143.png
1601155719301.png
1601154933448.png
1601154668371.png
1601154618459.png
1601154516627.png
1601154477153.png
1601154593002.png
1601154455242.png
1601154273534.png
1601154230694.png
1601155528729.png
1601155419327.png
1601155368576.png
1601155246923.png
1601155189500.png
1601155187264.png
1601155125261.png
1601155055071.png
1601155004998.png
Also, something funny to wash down the sodium.
1601155284031.png
 
Hold on a second, I haven't been following very closely with this whole new Supreme Court saga, didn't Garland, Obama's pick get blocked from being added as a Supreme Court judge back in 2016 like 6 months before the actual election happened? Why'd this one get allowed? Was there a statute that got overwritten?
 
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?
I've come to think they really just say whatever to be contrarian. It's like that kid in school that always plays Devils Advocate because they think their opponents character matters more then his argument. REEEE Trump bad so everything he does is bad. I think they really are just that vicious and stupid.
 
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?
Oh Yes I agree..with normal sensible people they wouldn't be willing to throw the election being dicks.

However I think these people have hit Frank Grimes level of insanity where they are entirely willing to grab electrical cables with no protection.
 
Hold on a second, I haven't been following very closely with this whole new Supreme Court saga, didn't Garland, Obama's pick get blocked from being added as a Supreme Court judge back in 2016 like 6 months before the actual election happened? Why'd this one get allowed?
Some would say hypocracy and republicans being power hungry and grabbing it for any means necessary.

People who pay attention would say it's because when Obama attempted it the Senate and WH were different parties as opposed to now when the Senate and WH are the same therefore unlike before, the WH has the authority to nominate and the Senate has the authority to vote on said nomination due to the public being unified enough to give one party enough power(by both the Senate and the WH being of the same party) via public opinion to nominate and confirm a justice.

Up to you as an individual to choose which paradigm you want to believe. Theres going to be a vote either way.
 
Hold on a second, I haven't been following very closely with this whole new Supreme Court saga, didn't Garland, Obama's pick get blocked from being added as a Supreme Court judge back in 2016 like 6 months before the actual election happened? Why'd this one get allowed? Was there a statute that got overwritten?
The Senate has never voted on a Supreme court justice during a lame duck when the president and the Senate are of opposing parties. Cocaine Mitch continued this long tradition and the retarded mongs forget he's a master of precedent. If the Senate doesn't want to vote for a Supreme court justice then they wont and can drag it out forever.
 
Hold on a second, I haven't been following very closely with this whole new Supreme Court saga, didn't Garland, Obama's pick get blocked from being added as a Supreme Court judge back in 2016 like 6 months before the actual election happened? Why'd this one get allowed? Was there a statute that got overwritten?
Democrats didn't control the Senate so they got dicked. People get all up in arms about how it wasn't fair, but that's just how the game is played. If you don't control the Senate or you can't get enough votes, you don't get to appoint a new Justice. The Democrats love to kick and scream about it, but if they'd had a majority in the Senate, they'd have shot down every one of Trump's appointments, too.

The moral of the story is to never try and out-maneuver Skull Throne McConnell because he will find a way to fuck you up, even if he has to drudge up some archaic fucking tome from the late 1700s to cite a single rule that no one's even heard of for two centuries.
 
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.
Opposing the opposition always takes priority over compromise because it gives your opponent a win. When you view politics as a zero-sum game, every issue becomes all or nothing. So it's not like they are now in favor of capital punishment, if you ask them they will say that they are ardently opposed to capital punishment. It's just that they want someone from their political party to represent their values.
 
Hold on a second, I haven't been following very closely with this whole new Supreme Court saga, didn't Garland, Obama's pick get blocked from being added as a Supreme Court judge back in 2016 like 6 months before the actual election happened? Why'd this one get allowed? Was there a statute that got overwritten?

Majority Republican senate, that's why. And that Garland fiasco was pure political too.

Nope..

Pumpkin Spice.


Ok. I guess I better open wide.
 
Hold on a second, I haven't been following very closely with this whole new Supreme Court saga, didn't Garland, Obama's pick get blocked from being added as a Supreme Court judge back in 2016 like 6 months before the actual election happened? Why'd this one get allowed? Was there a statute that got overwritten?

Surprisingly concise and decent article about Garland (notice the "Biden rule") even though it's from CNN: Here's what happened when Senate Republicans refused to vote on Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination
 
For posterity:

Oh mommy, judge me. Supremely.
Yeah, she's surprisingly attractive.
Mommy milky?
All of the miserable harpy spinsters in their Handmaid's Tale costumes, they all glare at ACB with her Aryan beauty, slim figure, United Colors of Benetton ad perfect family, her amazing resume, and her impressive list of accomplishments, and they seethe with rage, because she's everything that they pretend to despise, but she's everything they so desperately want to be, but drinking the progressive Kool Aid ruined their lives, and they know they'll die alone, unloved, and insane, and their cats will feast on their corpses.
she kinda cute


I’m gonna post these every dozen pages more or less, so they don’t clog up my multi quote.
 
Last edited:
Democrats didn't control the Senate so they got dicked. People get all up in arms about how it wasn't fair, but that's just how the game is played. If you don't control the Senate or you can't get enough votes, you don't get to appoint a new Justice. The Democrats love to kick and scream about it, but if they'd had a majority in the Senate, they'd have shot down every one of Trump's appointments, too.

The moral of the story is to never try and out-maneuver Skull Throne McConnell because he will find a way to fuck you up, even if he has to drudge up some archaic fucking tome from the late 1700s to cite a single rule that no one's even heard of for two centuries.
Remember 2016 and the whole "Blue wave" and them crowing about the house but not giving a shit about the Senate. They keep losing and thinking they are winning when Trump focused on the Senate knowing they'd likely lose the house. I'm not sure they realized how much they fucked themselves.
 
Democrats didn't control the Senate so they got dicked. People get all up in arms about how it wasn't fair, but that's just how the game is played. If you don't control the Senate or you can't get enough votes, you don't get to appoint a new Justice. The Democrats love to kick and scream about it, but if they'd had a majority in the Senate, they'd have shot down every one of Trump's appointments, too.

The moral of the story is to never try and out-maneuver Skull Throne McConnell because he will find a way to fuck you up, even if he has to drudge up some archaic fucking tome from the late 1700s to cite a single rule that no one's even heard of for two centuries.

Yeah, McConnell takes no prisoners.
 
This thread is really exposing a lot of racism, sexism, classism and tribalism. And this is the first day.

God, Americans can be vile. Trump being President really exposed a lot of America's true intentions.
The people in the thread or the people the thread talks about?

Cause alot of us here will tell you where we stand. I believe people are extremely tribal and trying to change that leads to nasty results.
 
The people in the thread or the people the thread talks about?

Cause alot of us here will tell you where we stand. I believe people are extremely tribal and trying to change that leads to nasty results.
Mainly the latter.

I don't understand how a woman van be against women's right. That particular logic.
 
Back