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:
They really did not fucking expect her to die until later on or until the next presidential cycle.

I think they were probably ignoring everything the doctors were saying. You can listen closely while the doctor gives you the sometimes unpleasant, likely outcome of treatment or you can ignore that part and ask how things will play out if the planets and stars align and a miracle occurs. I'm certain they were only hearing the latter.

It's absolutely astonishing how the supposed "educated" betters of society could make such horrible decisions that lack even the most basic foresight and planning.
 
God sees believers as individuals. What he (pope) does has no bearing on God's opinion of people
If the man who speaks for god and his supplicants are so out of lockstep then why even bother with the farce? Self-respecting catholics should fully reject the pope, and anoint their own 'Murican-pope.
 
LOL, I just now realized my sister went to high school with her. A couple years difference, though. I need to call her and see if she has any memories.
It was a good Catholic all girl's school in the early 90's. There was no finger-banging going on of any sort, I'm sure. The nuns wouldn't have stood for it.
Not to mention she grew up in the whitest suburbs in Louisiana, before it went to shit after Katrina.
 
ICEL Calls For All-Meme Missal Translation For Youth Masses

1DA9F7E7-6AC9-4B51-9C55-5BDA30BBB3A8.jpeg
 
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.

37f40440-a9b7-11e6-8856-c4d924c6e731_web_scale_0.5451713_0.5451713__.jpg
 
Don't act like it would be any different if the presidential shoe wasn't on the left foot.
It wouldn't be any different, of course. But even if Trump decided to say "You know what, I'm going to wait for the election because that seems fair." the left wouldn't respect him any more, hate him any less, or stop calling him an unhinged despot, so he loses absolutely nothing by doing this. In fact, he gains everything. They know it and it's burning them up.
 
Trump 4d chess. Taunt Democrats into fighting against a clear evangelical appointee. Get evangelicals and Christian majority riled up into voting Trump.

It's better than that. She's Catholic, not a Protestant which means she shares a religion with Hispanics. If Trump can peel off some Hispanic voters from the Democrats he can win.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ins-hispanic-voters-florida-rattle-democrats/
https://archive.vn/B5T79

If I were him I'd make a 'Fuck the Cuban government, death to Communism' speech given that a lot of Hispanics in Florida fucking hate Cuba's Communist regime.

Also, I reckon Hispanics are not necessarily keen on Mexican illegal immigration. Some other Hispanic Americans look down on Mexicans, particularly the kind of Mexicans who hop the border.
 
Last edited:
Forgive me, but what the fuck is a Robert Barnes?
some lawyer. he has 2 weekly youtube shows. one with a lawyer and one with a pollster.
he made a pretty good case against her based on her record as a judge.
He is pretty interesting because he is a pro trump civil right lawyer with some big cases under his belt.
 
They're calling her a nazi plantation mistress.
View attachment 1624338


DocHoliday is right, many Catholics disavow the Pope but keep practicing their faith regardless.

And Catholics don't vote for the Pope.

The avenue to protect the ability of women to get an abortion from state level legislation is spelled out right in the Constitution...a Constitutional Amendment.

Let's have this discussion about if it's moral or ethical to allow a woman to kill her baby or if it's ethical for the state to restrict what a woman does with her body, including any human life within.

So often, Democrats take such discussions out of the public discourse any try to impose their beliefs through judicial fiat. Much like abortion, I cannot fathom how the 1964 Civil Rights Act applies to faggots and dyke's.

This does not mean I do not understand the incantations that birthed such an abomination just that I believe the argument to be ridiculous. Not one legislature in 1964 would have believed their enumerated protections covered queers and it would have been considered a strawman to utilize such an argument to oppose the 1964 bill but here we are.

An additional point that frustrates me, is how a supposed right can be spun out of nothingness but an enumerated right (the 2nd Amendment) does not apply to the citizenry but is viewed by left leaning jurists as giving the state power in the very document meant to restrict it.

Putting this succinctly, convince your fellow man about an issue if you believe it to be in the moral or ethical right instead of appealing to nine robed person's who are right only because they are final.
 
Last edited:
Back