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:
Mainly the latter.

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

That's only predicated that Roe v Wade makes it to the Supreme Court again.

And no, there is no tribalism anymore in Americal. It's straight up religious. Secular v Religious.
 
Mainly the latter.

I don't understand how a woman van be against women's right. That particular logic.
Cause people be fucktarded and npcs.

Once again people are extremely tribal.

I lived on the border of texas for a while.

Seen a guy who was very white. He had an accent. Thought it was adorable. Turned out he was Mexican.

Seen a dark skin Mexican with same level of English proficiency and I felt anger.

The only difference was skin color. Both had the same level of English mastery. Yet only one triggered a negative reaction.

What I am getting at someone who isnt within ones tribe can be the nicest person ever and they will trigger feelings within that person the same feelings you get when you smell dog shit.

Like wise someone could be of said persons in group and could be a jigsaw level monster and they will be seen as pleasant and charming.

Just because they are on the "correct side"
 
Ah, SCOTUS stacking, and yet GOPpers have the nerve to get pissy at Democrat court packing. Expect SCOTUS term limits the nanosecond dems get control of senate.
Uh, huh, the Democrats are most certainly going to shoot themselves in the foot in the long term just because the Republicans pulled one over on them and got three SCOTUS judges.

...then again, the Democrats did set up the circumstances that allowed the Republicans to so easily get two appointments in with only a slight majority in the Senate, so you may be on to something.
 
Abortion is and will always be the lynchpin against Conservatives voting Democrat and Democrats are deeply embedded in Abortion rights.

Religious v Secular. Catholics/Christians/Evangelicals will come together against Abortion every single time. Do I think Roe v. Wade gets overturned? Probably not if the Religious right controls the deck on how abortion is conducted in America.
 
Abortion is and will always be the lynchpin against Conservatives voting Democrat and Democrats are deeply embedded in Abortion rights.

Religious v Secular. Catholics/Christians/Evangelicals will come together against Abortion every single time. Do I think Roe v. Wade gets overturned? Probably not if the Religious right controls the deck on how abortion is conducted in America.
Gay marriage and an abortion ban. More of the former will occur if the later happens.
 
But make no mistake, the Religious Right is America. Secular Democrats are New York/California fringe. Biden would need to court the religious right heavily to be elected president. That's what's been the Dems problem, they refuse to budge on Abortion. And the Religious right slaps them down everytime. Run an Anti Abortion goat against the best Democrat you've got.....they'll vote in the goat.
 
But make no mistake, the Religious Right is America. Secular Democrats are New York/California fringe. Biden would need to court the religious right heavily to be elected president. That's what's been the Dems problem, they refuse to budge on Abortion. And the Religious right slaps them down everytime. Run an Anti Abortion goat against the best Democrat you've got.....they'll vote in the goat.
New York/California Fringe? I wouldn't call 40 million and 20 million people a fringe.
 
By popular vote, more than republicans did.

Ok. Popular vote. But we all know the Right mobilized against Clinton and the electoral college got Trump elected.

Still wasn't enough of inner America to get her elected. Ohio can determine a president not California. And look at the mess California's in? You think those tent people have voting on their minds?

That's the whole reason why there's an electoral college, so one populated state can't vote in presidents due to popular vote. If there wasn't an electoral college, then there would be a civil war.
 
I find it funny that all these people are screaming about an end to Roe v Wade and the precedent it established, even if that happened, it would just(temporarily)kick the abortion issue back to the states, and yes some of those states would likely outlaw abortion to one extent or another, which isn't something I agree with necessarily, but that in turn would provide the fuel for the dems(or some other vaguely left/liberal party)to make a comeback in 2024 or 2028(assuming Trump wins in 2020 that is,)which would then likely lead to abortion being legalized by the legislature.

🤔 Hmm...how much of this outrage is being fueled by the Dems in congress upset that they will actually have to do their jobs for a change?

By popular vote, more than republicans did.
80 million people out of some 3 to 4 hundred million is actually still a fringe, if you're talking about hardcore supporters and not all the people who were holding their nose to vote for the shill.
 
Last edited:
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.
Hmm this is a generalization but conservative waman generally are hotter than liberal waman.

 
It takes a little more than a 51-49 vote in the Senate to so dramatically change the rules, chief. In this case it would take a constitutional amendment, which the Democratic party certainly doesn't have the support or votes to successfully pass. Hoping real hard and a party-line vote won't get it done.
Nope. Constitution gives the power of determining the number of justices to Congress. "The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates."

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.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
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?
No. No. N-fucking-o. In 2016 Obama put up a guy and the Republican Senate said, "Lookee there, Rastus, we ain't going to approve a Democrat so why even bother holding hearings?" In 2020, Trump put up a woman and the Republican Senate said, "Why lookee here. Trump's a Republican and so are we, so come right in." Thereby maintaining a trend that goes back well over 100 years.
 
Back