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:
I AM from America. I mean keep that opinion as far from government as possible.

This is why we need Civics to be a required class. The ONLY way she'd have any say is if somehow a case about God in School's got up tot he Supreme Court. Judges don't get to just randomly decide stuff they want to.

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?

HK, normally you have some solid takes but this is hopelessly naive. They are already attacking her on a personal level, exactly in the ways that they did for Kavanaugh. Ignore that its an election year briefly, compare the two, and tell me if you see any actual difference for how they are acting right now to how they acted then.

Its the exact same. So why would we assume they'd hold back for an election year? Because it'd make them unelectable? HK, attacking her is what they think will GET them elected. They actually -believe- this is what the public will want.
 
Last edited:
Gay marriage and an abortion ban. More of the former will occur if the later happens.

Gay marriage is a dead issue. Perhaps a few exemptions for cake shops not wanting to make a cake for a gay wedding but that's about it. Honestly, gay marriage is somewhat easy to understand from a conservative position. You just want to share your life with another person with legal protection.

Abortion is a different animal. While gay marriage is in essence bringing two people together, abortion is the termination of human life.
 
HK, normally you have some solid takes but this is hopelessly naive. They are already attacking her on a personal level, exactly in the ways that they did for Kavanaugh. Ignore that its an election year briefly, compare the two, and tell me if you see any actual difference for how they are acting right now to how they acted then.

Its the exact same. So why would we assume they'd hold back for an election year? Because it'd make them unelectable? HK, attacking her is what they think will GET them elected. They actually -believe- this is what the public will want.

The most hilarious thing is HRC lost hard on suburban white women. Now they're attacking a wholesome mom, with seven kids, two of whom are adopted. I don't know who they're trying to convince. Most people know about RBG offhandedly, they're not diehard spergs buying action figures of someone they know little about. Plus they're making the most fucking retarded attacks possible:

"SHE'S A CATHOLIC SO CLOSE TO THE HANDMADIEN'S TALE"

"SHE ADOPTED BLACK KIDS, SHE'S EXPLOITING THEM"

"SHE'S NOT HONORING SOMEONE SHE DIDN'T KNOW'S DYING WISHES"

Kavanagh's attacks fucking pissed everyone off. Now these completely idiotic ones are used. This is really what they want, huh?
 
The most hilarious thing is HRC lost hard on suburban white women. Now they're attacking a wholesome mom, with seven kids, two of whom are adopted. I don't know who they're trying to convince. Most people know about RBG offhandedly, they're not diehard spergs buying action figures of someone they know little about. Plus they're making the most fucking retarded attacks possible:

"SHE'S A CATHOLIC SO CLOSE TO THE HANDMADIEN'S TALE"

"SHE ADOPTED BLACK KIDS, SHE'S EXPLOITING THEM"

"SHE'S NOT HONORING SOMEONE SHE DIDN'T KNOW'S DYING WISHES"

Kavanagh's attacks fucking pissed everyone off. Now these completely idiotic ones are used. This is really what they want, huh?
The drug their on makes it hard for them to realized how stupid their acting
 
The most hilarious thing is HRC lost hard on suburban white women. Now they're attacking a wholesome mom, with seven kids, two of whom are adopted. I don't know who they're trying to convince. Most people know about RBG offhandedly, they're not diehard spergs buying action figures of someone they know little about. Plus they're making the most fucking retarded attacks possible:

"SHE'S A CATHOLIC SO CLOSE TO THE HANDMADIEN'S TALE"

"SHE ADOPTED BLACK KIDS, SHE'S EXPLOITING THEM"

"SHE'S NOT HONORING SOMEONE SHE DIDN'T KNOW'S DYING WISHES"

Kavanagh's attacks fucking pissed everyone off. Now these completely idiotic ones are used. This is really what they want, huh?

This is another example of how Democrats can gain momentum and then derail themselves. They've hit the Amy Coney Barrett iceburg. Now the titanic begins to sink.

UNLESS, DJT screws up epically at the debates. Until then, lets get the band out to play while the unsinkable ship begins to list.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: FunPosting101
There's a lot of talk about Roe v Wade in this thread, but look, there's two options on it and it is essentially a nothingburger.

The most likely one is that nothing happens because 13% of the population commit 52% of violent crime and even Supreme Court Justices can do basic math.

The other option is that it gets rescinded and the abortion question reverts to the states, as it should have been in the first place. So then California has abortion factories and Alabama outlaws it.

What ACB on the court really means is that all the dirt the Dems have on Chief Justice Roberts becomes moot and the 2nd Amendment gets a major boost as Guns Rights cases start getting put before the Supreme Court and protections become precedents and draconian gun laws in NYC, Chicago and California become unconstitutional.

Also, the last bastion of Progressive lawfare is dead and gone for the forseeable future.
 
Livestream Viewership Numbers For SC Nomination Announcement at 5PM:

Fox News: 78K
Bloomberg QR: 3K
CSPAN: 6.6K
Washington Post: 30K
NBC: 1.1K
CNBC: 7K
NowThis: 339
Fox Business: 18K
The White House: 32K
NewsNOW FOX: 7.9K
Bloomberg QT2 and 3: 920
CBS: 985
ABC News: 2.9K
Global News: 2.1K
RSBN: 46K
OANN: 1.9K
Golden State Times: 32K
Epoch Times: 636
USATODAY: 1.4K
The Sun: 633

Total: ~273.4K
 
Last edited:
"SHE ADOPTED BLACK KIDS, SHE'S EXPLOITING THEM"
All this talk about White people not helping minorities, when somebody adopts one, it's a problem.

Reminder that de Blasio has a Black (adopted?) daughter and she's raising hell. Nobody said anything then.

I get the argument, but poorly executed. And quite unfair to be honest.
 
The most hilarious thing is HRC lost hard on suburban white women. Now they're attacking a wholesome mom, with seven kids, two of whom are adopted. I don't know who they're trying to convince. Most people know about RBG offhandedly, they're not diehard spergs buying action figures of someone they know little about. Plus they're making the most fucking retarded attacks possible:

"SHE'S A CATHOLIC SO CLOSE TO THE HANDMADIEN'S TALE"

"SHE ADOPTED BLACK KIDS, SHE'S EXPLOITING THEM"

"SHE'S NOT HONORING SOMEONE SHE DIDN'T KNOW'S DYING WISHES"

Kavanagh's attacks fucking pissed everyone off. Now these completely idiotic ones are used. This is really what they want, huh?

I told my husband about the adoption outrage, and the only thing he said was 'So they're being racist?'

All this talk about White people not helping minorities, when somebody adopts one, it's a problem.

Reminder that de Blasio has a Black (adopted?) daughter and she's raising hell. Nobody said anything then.

I get the argument, but poorly executed. And quite unfair to be honest.

His wife is black. Bebop is his flesh and blood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FierceBrosnan
Roe v. Wade wont be overturned because there's too much settled law surrounding it. At most, a republican SCOTUS will make it slightly more difficult for accessibility by putting up more potential roadblocks but abortion isn't going to get overturned without the legislature getting involved.

Abortion is a dead issue and honestly not worth the GOP haranguing about. It polarizes moderate republicans and independents. It's not what a fractured GOP needs right now.

As someone pointed out, this nomination will really be a boost for gun rights, an issue that usually flies under the radar unless there's a shooting. While the left is complaining about moral nonsense, pronouns and tranny shit, the right is going to slip in an extremely pro-gun justice. Once again, the left completely misses the point.
 
There's a lot of talk about Roe v Wade in this thread, but look, there's two options on it and it is essentially a nothingburger.

The most likely one is that nothing happens because 13% of the population commit 52% of violent crime and even Supreme Court Justices can do basic math.

The other option is that it gets rescinded and the abortion question reverts to the states, as it should have been in the first place. So then California has abortion factories and Alabama outlaws it.

What ACB on the court really means is that all the dirt the Dems have on Chief Justice Roberts becomes moot and the 2nd Amendment gets a major boost as Guns Rights cases start getting put before the Supreme Court and protections become precedents and draconian gun laws in NYC, Chicago and California become unconstitutional.

Also, the last bastion of Progressive lawfare is dead and gone for the forseeable future.
Anyone talking about SCOTUS going to imminently overturn Roe v Wade once the nomination goes through is an idiot, on both sides. First off, the current benchmark for abortion in this country is Planned Parenthood v Casey, not Roe. Second, the state decisis factors elaborated on in Casey are still sufficiently present, especially reliance interests, to prevent the courts from overturning that precedent. I dont remember enough about whether Congress can draft legislation overturning a fundamental right enumerated under Substantive Due Process, but I think they can, and if so, would be the only way to successfully make abortion illegal again
 
Abortion is a dead issue and honestly not worth the GOP haranguing about.
Not as dead as the fetus after an abortion.



tenor.gif
 
Just wished to say amy coathanger barrett is trending right now. Say what you will about the right they never called Sonia Or Elena horrible crap like that. hell all of the justices get along just fine. honestly if Scalia and rbg can have a cold beer together and elena and scalia can hunt together then why cant the left give her the benefit of the doubt their fellow liberals did?
 
Back