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 think the impact will be libs going apeshit on catholicism will be more effective at depressing catholics coming out for Biden more than catholics going "oh boy a catholic" and then them coming out for Trump.

A’yup! The fact that Biden is a Catholic (in theory) really does not play into most Catholics electoral decision process. Largely because the Catholics most prone to vote on the basis of a candidates faith are the more devout Catholics. And they hate Biden and consider him Catholic in name only.

But the anti-Catholic bigotry and hatred radiating off the Media and the Dems does sink in, and does play a role in their decision process. And like I said earlier, the fact that the point of the spear in this Anti-Catholic Bigotry being directed at ACB is coming in large part from the three most prominent Jews in the Senate is not going Un-noticed. Throughout the 20th Century American Catholics have been the Jews biggest allies and supporters. And Feinstein’s hate filled “Dogma” line is really a fuck you to that history. It didn’t get as much spread before because it was just for the 7th Circuit. But it’s being passed around heavily now. Every angle of attack the Dem’s are using boils down to “She is a CATHOLIC MOTHER! That’s what makes her unacceptable!” That’s not playing well in the KofC halls.
 
Imagine the comedy that will ensue as well if these people end up using early 20th century anti Cstholic Klan rhetoric, you know its coming. As someone mentioned earlier there is a very likely chance one of them utters the term "Papist" on live television.
Rather like the comedy that ensues whenever a non-Spanish speaker refers to the Pope in Spanish, where the article determines gender and therefore meaning: "el papa" is "the pope," while "la papa" is "the potato." (And with the current pontiff, it can be difficult to decide which is more accurate.)
 
Styx pointed out that USA today run an article advising Democrats against attacking Barrett's religious views

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqs3gHdHcMw
https://archive.vn/wip/iQV4Z



Here's the USA today article

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...atholic-democratic-bigotry-column/3549734001/
https://archive.vn/BbDpu

Another pro ACB article from USA Today

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-supreme-court-appointment-column/3549103001/
https://archive.vn/2KCHV

In a way she reminds me a bit of Jacob Rees-Mogg in the UK. JRM is another conservative Catholic but you get the impression when the media and the left attack him for it it damages them more than him. I suspect a lot of people despise the media's values more than they do those of ACB and JRM even if they don't share ACB/JRM's religious beliefs.
 
Styx pointed out that USA today run an article advising Democrats against attacking Barrett's religious views
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqs3gHdHcMw
https://archive.vn/wip/iQV4Z
The Democrats themselves are taking much the same tack:

Democrats feel boxed in on strategy for Barrett confirmation fight

A top Senate Democratic aide said the party has a three-part plan for avoiding those traps: "Health care, health care, health care."

That's the Dem playbook:
  • Focus attacks and questioning on Barrett's views on health care, including the Affordable Care Act and reproductive rights.
  • Argue that she'd help take away coverage and protection during a pandemic.
  • Give the spotlight to Sen. Kamala Harris.
  • Stick to issues, including labor rights.
 
The Democrats themselves are taking much the same tack:

Democrats feel boxed in on strategy for Barrett confirmation fight

A top Senate Democratic aide said the party has a three-part plan for avoiding those traps: "Health care, health care, health care."

That's the Dem playbook:
  • Focus attacks and questioning on Barrett's views on health care, including the Affordable Care Act and reproductive rights.
  • Argue that she'd help take away coverage and protection during a pandemic.
  • Give the spotlight to Sen. Kamala Harris.
  • Stick to issues, including labor rights.
I don't know Kamala hates Catholics. I pretty sure her insects will take over her.
 
BTW, in that some rainbows idea of "judicial fairness" is going to be a running reeeeee in all of this, let me present you with the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit. From Wikipedia (because if that tilts in any direction, it's to the left):

"Leaked internal memos to Democratic Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin mention liberal interest groups' desire to keep Estrada off the court partially because 'he is Latino,' and because of his potential to be a future Supreme Court nominee.[6] A spokesman for Durbin said that 'no one intended racist remarks against Estrada' and that the memo only meant to highlight that Estrada was 'politically dangerous' because Democrats knew he would be an 'attractive candidate' that would be difficult to contest since he didn't have any record.[6] Democrats argued that Estrada had extreme right-wing views, although others pointed to Estrada's difference with some conservatives on Commerce Clause issues.[7]

"On March 6, 2003, there was the first of seven failed cloture votes on Estrada.[8] Fifty-five senators voted to end debate on his nomination and allow a final confirmation vote, and forty-four senators voted not to end debate.[9] After twenty-eight months in political limbo and a protracted six-month battle using the filibuster, Estrada withdrew his name from further consideration on September 4, 2003.[10] Bush nominated Thomas B. Griffith in his place, who was confirmed in 2005 under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal."
 
Styx pointed out that USA today run an article advising Democrats against attacking Barrett's religious views

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqs3gHdHcMw
https://archive.vn/wip/iQV4Z

View attachment 1625274

Here's the USA today article

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...atholic-democratic-bigotry-column/3549734001/
https://archive.vn/BbDpu

Another pro ACB article from USA Today

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-supreme-court-appointment-column/3549103001/
https://archive.vn/2KCHV

In a way she reminds me a bit of Jacob Rees-Mogg in the UK. JRM is another conservative Catholic but you get the impression when the media and the left attack him for it it damages them more than him. I suspect a lot of people despise the media's values more than they do those of ACB and JRM even if they don't share ACB/JRM's religious beliefs.
So I predicted at the beginning of this thread that Dems have more to lose fighting this confirmation than just letting it happen. Styx's comments sort of reflect that. Just some more summation on why there won't be any elected Democrat fight against ACB:

1.) Any reflexive push-back on ACB ultimately boils down to her being Catholic which is a turn-off for mainstream Americans

2.) All anti-ACB buzz on Twitter is coming from non-elected people by-and-large. Usually hilariously uninformed journos

3.) The line of attack anyone associated with the DNC takes (which seems the most politically safe) is that ACB shouldn't have even taken the nomination because it's an "inappropriate time" for an nomination. In a way, this is more turning it around to an attack on Trump rather than ACB herself

4.) I think with such a short amount of time before the election, Dems could make much more use of "Can you believe Trump appointed someone this soon after the death of RBG (PBUH)?!" than investing extra energy into fighting this when they already know it's pointless to fight it since Trump and the Senate have every legal right to appoint her

5.) One of the BIGGEST things as to why any kind of fight is pointless is that she was already grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee 3.5 years ago when she was appointed to the 7th Circuit. A compromise McConnell could throw out that would damage Dems if they refuse is "Any line of questioning can only pertain to her activity after her appointment" since Dems obviously brought any major grievances against her the first time around

6.) The other main reason against any further dragging this out with questioning is that she is UNEQUIVOCALLY LAUDED by literally everyone she's ever worked with/studied under regardless of their political affiliation. She's seen by many on the left as undeniably fit for this position, so questioning her fitness as far as her ability to hold this office is completely out of the question.

So moving away from "All Dems are morons and will fight this to the bitter end" BS, realistically, what could Dems ACTUALLY do to prevent this? Nothing. Would ANYONE on the left benefit from fighting from this? No. In fact, them having a "no" vote on the books would probably be a better thing to campaign on than some dumb impassioned speech they give that probably impugns Catholics and mothers. So yeah, I fully stand by my prediction that she is confirmed without issue from elected Dems (Twitter will obv go nuts as they already are).
 
Last edited:
So I predicted at the beginning of this thread that Dems have more to lose fighting this confirmation than just letting it happen. Styx's comments sort of reflect that. Just some more summation on why there won't be any elected Democrat fight against ACB:

1.) Any reflexive push-back on ACB ultimately boils down to her being Catholic which is a turn-off for mainstream Americans

2.) All anti-ACB buzz on Twitter is coming from non-elected people by-and-large. Usually hilariously uninformed journos

3.) The line of attack anyone associated with the DNC takes on this (which seems the most politically safe) is that ACB shouldn't have even taken the nomination because it's an "inappropriate time" for an nomination. In a way, this is more turning it around to an attack on Trump rather than ACB herself

4.) I think with such a short amount of time before the election, Dems could make much more use of "Can you believe Trump appointed someone this soon after the death of RBG (PBUH)?!" than investing extra energy into fighting this when they already know it's pointless to fight it since Trump and the Senate have every legal right to appoint her

5.) One of the BIGGEST things as to why any kind of fight is pointless is that she was already grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee 3.5 years ago when she was appointed to the 7th Circuit. A compromise McConnell could throw out that would damage Dems if they refuse is "Any line of questioning can only pertain to her activity after her appointment" since Dems obviously brought any major grievances against her the first time around

6.) The other main reason against any further dragging this out with questioning is that she is UNEQUIVOCALLY LAUDED by literally everyone she's ever worked with/studied under regardless of their political affiliation. She's seen by many on the left as undeniably fit for this position, so questioning her fitness as far as her ability to hold this office is completely out of the question.

So moving away from "All Dems are morons and will fight this to the bitter end" BS, realistically, what could Dems ACTUALLY do to prevent this? Nothing. Would ANYONE on the left benefit from fighting from this? No. In fact, them having a "no" vote on the books would probably be a better thing to campaign on than some dumb impassioned speech they give that probably impugns Catholics and mothers. So yeah, I fully stand by my prediction that she is confirmed without issue from elected Dems (Twitter will obv go nuts as they already are).
Thats a smart lay out plan. Meaning the dems won't follow that.
 
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.

False alarm, I forgot my sister transferred in her sophmore year to the other big Catholic girls school.
 
That's the Dem playbook:
  • Focus attacks and questioning on Barrett's views on health care, including the Affordable Care Act and reproductive rights.
  • Argue that she'd help take away coverage and protection during a pandemic.
  • Give the spotlight to Sen. Kamala Harris.
  • Stick to issues, including labor rights.
Why the fuck would the Dems need to give Copmala the spotlight? She's the fucking VP. The only reason she doesn't put herself out there is because she's a bitch and people will start asking questions about her past actions if she is in the spotlight for too long.

The left would rather construct an ideal version of Kamala than the reality of Copmala. A proud woman POC who worked her way from the bottom of society to the top of the political ladder. But the reality is she's a privilage Indian/Jamaican who fucked her way to the top and done some very shitty things along the way. Including keep people in prison for longer than their terms were to use them as cheap labor. She did this to men in the Black community. That same community she supposedly represents.
 
Why the fuck would the Dems need to give Copmala the spotlight? She's the fucking VP. The only reason she doesn't put herself out there is because she's a bitch and people will start asking questions about her past actions if she is in the spotlight for too long.

The left would rather construct an ideal version of Kamala than the reality of Copmala. A proud woman POC who worked her way from the bottom of society to the top of the political ladder. But the reality is she's a privilage Indian/Jamaican who fucked her way to the top and done some very shitty things along the way. Including keep people in prison for longer than their terms were to use them as cheap labor. She did this to men in the Black community. That same community she supposedly represents.
If Kamala can get some good shots and quotable soundbites in during the Senate questioning, it may be able to offset Biden's poor debate performances.
 
ACB is based. The last thing she did before leaving the Appeals Court was flip off Wisconsin Democrats.
1601237915979.png

I am starting to like her a lot.
 
But would it be awsome and ironic. If ACB turns out to be prepared and embarrasses Kamala instead. That would be funny.
ACB and the Republicans would have to be beyond exceptional not go in there absolutely prepared after Kavanaugh. The Dems showed during that hearing that they won't let little things like decency, respect, or the truth get in their way, they can't accuse her of rape but they'll throw everything else they can at her.
 
When the 98% white Appalachian state doesn't deserve existing because it splintered off from the Confederacy but the 20 younger states remain unmolested, and the 100k spillover from the Baltimore conurbation into the federal capital somehow DO deserve reps and 2 senators...
 
So I predicted at the beginning of this thread that Dems have more to lose fighting this confirmation than just letting it happen. Styx's comments sort of reflect that. Just some more summation on why there won't be any elected Democrat fight against ACB:

1.) Any reflexive push-back on ACB ultimately boils down to her being Catholic which is a turn-off for mainstream Americans

2.) All anti-ACB buzz on Twitter is coming from non-elected people by-and-large. Usually hilariously uninformed journos

3.) The line of attack anyone associated with the DNC takes (which seems the most politically safe) is that ACB shouldn't have even taken the nomination because it's an "inappropriate time" for an nomination. In a way, this is more turning it around to an attack on Trump rather than ACB herself

4.) I think with such a short amount of time before the election, Dems could make much more use of "Can you believe Trump appointed someone this soon after the death of RBG (PBUH)?!" than investing extra energy into fighting this when they already know it's pointless to fight it since Trump and the Senate have every legal right to appoint her

5.) One of the BIGGEST things as to why any kind of fight is pointless is that she was already grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee 3.5 years ago when she was appointed to the 7th Circuit. A compromise McConnell could throw out that would damage Dems if they refuse is "Any line of questioning can only pertain to her activity after her appointment" since Dems obviously brought any major grievances against her the first time around

6.) The other main reason against any further dragging this out with questioning is that she is UNEQUIVOCALLY LAUDED by literally everyone she's ever worked with/studied under regardless of their political affiliation. She's seen by many on the left as undeniably fit for this position, so questioning her fitness as far as her ability to hold this office is completely out of the question.

So moving away from "All Dems are morons and will fight this to the bitter end" BS, realistically, what could Dems ACTUALLY do to prevent this? Nothing. Would ANYONE on the left benefit from fighting from this? No. In fact, them having a "no" vote on the books would probably be a better thing to campaign on than some dumb impassioned speech they give that probably impugns Catholics and mothers. So yeah, I fully stand by my prediction that she is confirmed without issue from elected Dems (Twitter will obv go nuts as they already are).

That would be a good plan. But the problem is they need to appease the Progressive Snowflakes that they currently have out rioting and destroying normal Americans lives. Because if they don’t the mob will immediately turn on them. The Dems are fucked. If they don’t proclaim their mysogynistic anti-catholic bigotry from the floor of the Senate their marxist mob will come for them. If they do go after ACB they will be seen as repugnant to the normal American people. As they say “If you don’t can’t de monster, don’t throw de Svitch!“

Why the fuck would the Dems need to give Copmala the spotlight? She's the fucking VP. The only reason she doesn't put herself out there is because she's a bitch and people will start asking questions about her past actions if she is in the spotlight for too long.

The left would rather construct an ideal version of Kamala than the reality of Copmala. A proud woman POC who worked her way from the bottom of society to the top of the political ladder. But the reality is she's a privilage Indian/Jamaican who fucked her way to the top and done some very shitty things along the way. Including keep people in prison for longer than their terms were to use them as cheap labor. She did this to men in the Black community. That same community she supposedly represents.

oh yeah sending Kamala out, an openly anti-Catholic/anti-Christian bigot with a perpetual look of disdain glued on her face, to argue their case.

But would it be awsome and ironic. If ACB turns out to be prepared and embarrasses Kamala instead. That would be funny.

ACB gutted Diane Feinstein like a fish when she tried it. And Feinstein is way better at such things then Kamala. Putting Kamala up against ACB would be a remarkably bad thing to do to the Biden campaign. You don’t want the Camera’s taking in and comparing the two exchange by exchange. Because there is no way Kamala comes across looking anything but awful in that exchange.
 
ACB is based. The last thing she did before leaving the Appeals Court was flip off Wisconsin Democrats.
View attachment 1625552
I am starting to like her a lot.
So just to make sure, does a stay allow disallow ballots to be counted in Wisconsin for after six days like was originally passed? If so, that's a good sign she will side with Trump when the election gets contested.
 
ACB gutted Diane Feinstein like a fish when she tried it. And Feinstein is way better at such things then Kamala. Putting Kamala up against ACB would be a remarkably bad thing to do to the Biden campaign. You don’t want the Camera’s taking in and comparing the two exchange by exchange. Because there is no way Kamala comes across looking anything but awful in that exchange.

Is there an exchange in which Kamala does not end up on the losing end? Even when she has gotcha moments she comes off looking like an unqualified moron.
 
Back