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:
You are not understanding this.

The Pope of the Catholic Church..is a Communist, Communism and Religion are mutually exclusive things.

You are saying "Oh Catholics will NEVER allow someone who hates religion into power." while someone who hates religion is in power in their very church and not a peep from them.

NO. What you don't understand is that I am not Catholic and many Catholics disavow the Pope. But as far as God is concerned, He doesn't judge individuals on one man's flaws like the Pope. He doesn't do that for bad pastors/priests either. Each *man/woman* is judged by their own beliefs, actions, and faith.
Just because the pope is a communist doesn't mean other Catholics are.
 
View attachment 1624162

Blumenthal is the reanimated skinwalker politician who signed a letter demanding that they stop Kavanaugh's hearing because Michael Avenatti accused Kavanaugh of being a serial gang-rapist. Not only has he never made an effort to fucking apologize for that, but he's demonstrated that what he believes to be 'legitimate' has no bearing on reality.

You were never going to vote for Trump's nominee anyways, Danang Dick, no one gives a shit. Be as childish as you want.
Didn't this guy fake being a Vietnam veteran? And he must be the senate version of Adam Schiff and coincidentally both are attached to "intelligence" committees.

On a side note, the overall picture I am getting is that Amy is being attacked for being a "practicing" Catholic. I don't know jackshit about Catholicism but they basically want her to be a lapsed or nonbeliever like Biden is I guess.

It reminds me of when Muslims were attacked with the "fundamentalist Muslim" meme back in the bush era because they actually practiced their religion and were not jackoffs willing to drink beer and eat pork just to prove they are American.

Point is that will anyone here respect a person who claims to be part of a religion and doesn't do shit to follow it and yet act "Holier than Thou" like when secular Muslims get more butthurt than practicing Muslims over small shit like when Joy Reid talked about Trump and Jihadis.
 
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.

Co-equal branches of the government. Senate can't do shit to the SCOTUS. They'd have to get an amendment which would require them convincing the flyover states to join in.

.....Can someone take me through the steps of leftist logic to make this make sense?
View attachment 1623820

1601185864387.png


"How do you do, conservative pro-lifers. Gosh, don't we all hate that evil Justice Barrett?"


Literally trying to concern troll a SCOTUS pic. Bold move, cotton.
 
Last edited:
They're calling her a nazi plantation mistress.
Untitled.png


And yet..Their Pope is guilty of that.
DocHoliday is right, many Catholics disavow the Pope but keep practicing their faith regardless.

And Catholics don't vote for the Pope.
 
Last edited:
Wow, dude is -super- salty about his preferred nominee not getting in. His salt keeps growing every time I look.


Robert Barnes in his natural environment tonight.

I think tomorrow he's supposed to appear on Viva Frei's channel to talk with him about the nomination and other legal shit, so we might get some more Barnes salt from that.
 
Dianne Feinstein basically already said there's nothing Dems can do to stop this so there won't be any fight. That's my bet.
Archive

I have no doubt the Dems will do their best to stop Barrett from being confirmed, but there is palpable fear here. If they're acknowledging that there is a possibility that she gets through and thus will likely rule against their voter fraud that they will try to pull this year, then they know they have to do everything they can to stop her from getting in. It's the only way to secure a 1000 year Reich for them.

So far they haven't brought up any of her rulings and voting decisions yet, which I have no doubt they will do at the hearings. But if she gets through regardless, it could devastate the Democratic Party, at least in its current establishment. We are looking at possibly the most diverse voting block for Republicans in history and a Trump victory with those kind of support would end the "Demographic Is Destiny" theory they touted for over a decade where they can rule forever just on nonwhites voting for them without any prompting.
That's where you're wrong kiddo.jpg

The left's plan of cheating through this election was entirely hinged on RBG staying alive until a Dem was in power. With her death goes their entire plan. They're now backpedaling on the whole "Vote by Mail" idea. This confirmation will produce a ton of salt because the left are entirely helpless as they watch the GOP ram her through. They will pull all the fucking stops to make sure she doesn't get nominated or that Trump doesn't get another nomination. Because if he does, they're entire agenda for the next generation or two goes down the fucking toilet.

And the funniest thing, is that this is all their doing. They're the ones who:
  • passed the law preventing the minority party in the senate from filibustering through a nominee
  • thought 2016 would be a cake walk
  • thought Trump was too toxic for the American public
  • thought Hillary was electable to most of the voting public
  • thought they'd be in power forever and the GOP was dead in the water
  • let the mask slip and show their true colors
Their decisions lead them down this path and created their own hell.
View attachment 1623723
If Barrett gets through, the only way Biden can win is winning fairly on Election Day. Trump knows a 5-1-4 majority in his favor means that any rulings on voting fraud with Barrett on the bench will likely go his way. The conservative majority would interpret the law that would force lawmakers to change VBM rules to minimize or prevent voting fraud all together. Elections have consequences and whoever loses will face the brunt of it. And the DNC knows their odds aren't good in light of a fair election, especially with the added bonus of a demoralized base that have zero issues to campaign on and the most unenthusiastic candidate who has to call a lid on most days.
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 Democratic Senators haven't to my knowledge attacked her on a personal level yet. I suspect they may refrain from that since they know appealing to emotion alone won't be enough to get the RINOs to vote "No". They will bring up her court records as that is the only way they can possibly win. They're probably not dumb enough to try a "she's waycist and too Catholic!" attack again.

Though if that is the path they want to choose, be my guest. I'm all for Trump winning and expanding the Republican majority in the Senate. I'd hardly call him "hopelessly naive" when I have no doubt he's hoping for the Dems to make that shitty of a move to further discredit them with the American public.
In the full answer she argues both sides
Of fucking course soyboy Gavin Newsom would take the video out of context like the slime he is. If the Democrats try to play this clip, it will blow up in their face.
 
Oh so white women don't matter anymore and are part of the shit in this country's history?

So Hillary losing wasn't a tragedy and it didn't derail progress? OK.
This thread is slowing proving that women can't stand the achievements / success of another woman. There's always something to dig at, always something to prove and be autistically-ambitious about with them.

Forget about black people hating niggers. These harpies can't stand a chick who really knows what she wants in life.

Barns is a tard who thinks he's some super lawyer. His claim to fame is getting Snipes out of taxes if I recall correctly.
Anybody from Weeb Wars can vouch for me on this. All super lawyers are tards.
 
Dianne Feinstein basically already said there's nothing Dems can do to stop this so there won't be any fight. That's my bet.
The leaders of the Democratic party know well that they can't attack ACB because, liike Feinstein said, it's a lost cause. And bad optics.

but they are unable to control the hordes they have unleashed in America. They will attack her and slander her name, and some will do stupid shit like actually try to hurt her family for real and that will only hurt the Dems chances to win.

And the Dem leaders can't stop it.
 
The leaders of the Democratic party know well that they can't attack ACB because, liike Feinstein said, it's a lost cause. And bad optics.

but they are unable to control the hordes they have unleashed in America. They will attack her and slander her name, and some will do stupid shit like actually try to hurt her family for real and that will only hurt the Dems chances to win.

And the Dem leaders can't stop it.

Well when you help to cultivate and encourage a culture of screeching, piss-ant, crybabies, you get shit like them going apeshit over a Supreme Court nomination.

The Democrats pandered to the useful idiots, and now the dogs have gone mad, and nobody knows how to handle it.
 
Last edited:
You know, I am not happy about Amy Barrett being a new Justice, but I am not surprised. I don't hold it against the Republicans for putting her in there. Republicans are going to do what they are going to do. They are going to follow their agenda because they have the power to do so. I have to admire them for playing the game expertly.

While I hate their platform and their beliefs I can't blame them for following through with it.

Rather, I blame the Democrats, their race baiting white hating activist sect, their smug journo class motherfuckers and their worship of Obama and Hillary Clinton for the world we exist in right now.

They threw all of middle America and most of white America away with their shitty platform and elitist attitudes. Now we get to live in some right-wing populist hell hole. Yay. Thanks Obama. Thanks Hillary.
 
Why are Republicans against abortion? It's none of their business, personally.
As someone said it's because a lot of religious people are on the right and believe life begins at conception, in addition though the fact that legalizing abortion was never made an actual national law but rather forced through the court with very poor reasoning when it was still highly controversial, and the fact that the constitution pretty much dictates that laws and issues of the sort of level of abortion should be dictated at the state level are the main reasons. There are plenty of Tea Party Republicans like Ron Paul who basically want Roe V. Wade revoked and for the states to have to determine whether or not to criminalize it. All this sperging that overturning Roe V. Wade will instantly outlaw abortion is retards who dont understand that even if that did happen the state legislatures would still have to independently decide to outlaw it, and in all likelihood even if one did most wouldn't so worst case they would have to travel across state lines to have such an act performed.
 
.....Can someone take me through the steps of leftist logic to make this make sense?
View attachment 1623820

Hollwood types in a nutshell

1601193412908.png


"catholic mutt breeders are SO BASED"

Religious conservatism is a viable right-wing ideology in America. Ethnonationalism is not.

Dianne Feinstein basically already said there's nothing Dems can do to stop this so there won't be any fight. That's my bet.

Seems like the Democrats really are out of options.

When asked if there was anything Democrats could actually do, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., also a Judiciary Committee member, said on Monday, "You mean some triple secret trick procedure that we managed to hold back through Gorsuch and Kavanaugh? No," he said with a sarcastic smile.
 
Unfortunately I cant quite summon up a link right now or even properly remember since its late where I am and happened a while ago, but I recall a few Breitbart articles early on from Trump's first few court noms that the Dems (mostly Feinstein IIRC to nobody's shock) were this close to insinuating that their Catholic faith made them unsuitable to be judges due to the pro-life stance inherent there. The current tack of "OH MY GOD EVIL CATHOLIC" isn't new or shocking to me, I am afraid.
 
Back