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 saw some really touching commentary from a couple of Kiwis about how nice it was of Trump to adjust the microphone for ABC.

Here's the Bizzaro-world reading of that moment from Twitter.

Apparently that moment really stood out to people on both sides and I'm really stunned by the stark contrast in the two views of what was going on there.

image (32).pngimage (34).pngimage (33).png
(Archive)
 
Last edited:
I saw some really touching commentary from a couple of Kiwis about how nice it was of Trump to adjust the microphone for ABC.

Here's the Bizzaro-world reading of that moment from Twitter.

Apparently that moment really stood out to people on both sides and I'm really stunned by the stark contrast in the two views of what was going on there.

View attachment 1626701View attachment 1626703View attachment 1626702

It's like Scott Adams said, Americans are watching the same film but seeing two different movies, and the Democrat's version is some bizzaro fucked up 8mm snuff film (and obviously some BBC spliced in).
 
It's like Scott Adams said, Americans are watching the same film but seeing two different movies, and the Democrat's version is some bizzaro fucked up 8mm snuff film (and obviously some BBC spliced in).
BBC and snuff? Sounds like a Democratic dream film.

Nothing gets them off more than aborting black babies.
 
I saw some really touching commentary from a couple of Kiwis about how nice it was of Trump to adjust the microphone for ABC.

Here's the Bizzaro-world reading of that moment from Twitter.

Apparently that moment really stood out to people on both sides and I'm really stunned by the stark contrast in the two views of what was going on there.

View attachment 1626701View attachment 1626703View attachment 1626702
(Archive)
More evidence for the profession of psychology and the like being raped by political agenda. I can see why so many people consider it to be a pseudo-science.
 
More evidence for the profession of psychology and the like being raped by political agenda. I can see why so many people consider it to be a pseudo-science.

I'm not sure it's safe to pin this one on the field of psychology. Then again, I'm also not sure why an ophthalmologist is parading themselves as an expert in body language, so...

image (35).png
 
Last edited:
I saw some really touching commentary from a couple of Kiwis about how nice it was of Trump to adjust the microphone for ABC.

Here's the Bizzaro-world reading of that moment from Twitter.

Apparently that moment really stood out to people on both sides and I'm really stunned by the stark contrast in the two views of what was going on there.

View attachment 1626701View attachment 1626703View attachment 1626702
(Archive)
Is anyone surprised? Doing anything for women to them seems patronising or misogynistic. You get reeeeee'd at for holding doors open or generally helping like this. "Highly sexual", how? This guy is on another planet. For me, it's a small act worth no attention, but it's noticeable because it's a world leader adjusting something for someone else. Normally people in equivalent positions don't do anything other than make speeches and shake hands, everything from opening doors to adjusting mic stands is left for toadies and staffers to do.
 
Same reason people keep posting Styx videos.

Everything Trump does is sexual to these people. Almost like they are thinking about him in a certain way..

Sometimes a microphone is just a microphone. :smug:

I bet Freud would have had a field day with TSD and how people who hate Trump seem to want to talk about him in sexual terms.
 
You know, I went and did a bit of digging into Barret back when the Kavenagauh circus was going on, and as far as I'm concerned, Amy should be fine. Like all of Trump's picks so far, she will be reliable to interpret the law for the people. That's all you should ask of the highest court, to interpret the law according to the constitution as it stands today.

She's conservative, but somewhat moderate. The salt and ground teeth from staunch libs is entertaining, but they are powerless to stop the 3rd court pick, no matter what cards they play.

She's also young, and frankly brilliant. So this will be interesting. It will be doubly interesting if Trump wins and Thomas retires.

I don't really like this so much, personally, I like it more when the highest court in the land doesn't list to one side in a perfect America.

We don't live in that, so I don't really blame the GOP for doing this, even though I would rather the general decide the eventual seated judge.
 
I saw some really touching commentary from a couple of Kiwis about how nice it was of Trump to adjust the microphone for ABC.

Here's the Bizzaro-world reading of that moment from Twitter.

Apparently that moment really stood out to people on both sides and I'm really stunned by the stark contrast in the two views of what was going on there.

View attachment 1626701View attachment 1626703View attachment 1626702
(Archive)
I had a look at his Twitter and it’s almost hourly attacks on Trump, not living in the USA I keep forgetting TDS is a real thing.

What kind of man gets a PhD in “body language” and “emotional intelligence”? Maybe I’m a philistine but I would assume he doesn’t have pure intentions and avoid him if I knew one. I guess what I’m saying is that he’s probably projecting his own predatory instincts onto Trump.
 
Which is why the apex of lunacy is the screeching over the oppression of a "waiting period" for an abortion (not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of rights), yet somehow the same waiting period and worse is a must for firearms despite being specifically written as something that shall not be infringed.

Dont even try to get these mongoloids to understand what the 10th Amendment means. That is what all of this is about.

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.
You know, the modern left does like to heckle too, do they have any angry Ulstermen? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlbmIMbKZa4 .

Wait, what if modern mainstream leftism is a WASP plot to fuck over all the krauts, poles, micks & wops by flooding them with newer waves of immigrants, who will compete for their jobs but never threaten the positions of the old-money types? Is that why Trump's administration is full of Irish & Germans, and "Muh Russia" is such a consistent line of attack and the most insufferable TDSers are Anglos? Maybe they really are the Know-Nothings, except with an altered strategy for modern times.
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.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.
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.

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.
They could always fall back to merely controlling academia, education, entertainment, and the news media. It's not like Trump is actually going to go full Gleichschaltung (or do they believe their own propaganda?). Then just bide their time for when a non-demented candidate appears and the MAGA boomers are dead or too incoherent to even vote. But maybe being so close to total victory gives them a certain flailing madness.
 
Last edited:
I would love for them to go for another circus in front of a committee. They have made all the wrong moves over these 4 years, so another would be fantastic. I would love to see another Thomas styled "high tech lynching" put down of them by her, but this time regarding women.


She is going to be like Thomas in more ways than one for certain.
 
Democrats feel boxed in on strategy for Barrett confirmation fight

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.
Nice mnemonic.

Reminder that your vaunted Barnes retweeted this .
1601183845195-png.1624250
I don't know the guy, but are you sure it means "I agree with this" rather than "lol look at this faggot"?
 
Can someone please give me the TL;DR of why John Oliver is trending on Twitter? I know he ranted about the Supreme Court last night and basically said "America is fucked", but I don't have the stomach for a 21 minute spergout.
 
Nice mnemonic.


I don't know the guy, but are you sure it means "I agree with this" rather than "lol look at this faggot"?
Unfortunately, yes. Barnes was going hard on the idea that Lagao was the better pick, saying himself picking Barrett will (somehow) nuke the republican chances at the senate and house to less than 50%, and going on a tirade about how awful Barrett was politically.

Dudes a lawyer who knows his shit.... but also an arrogant man with some good reasons to be so. But his biases -rule- his political predictions, and his ego seems to have taken the choice of Barrett over Lagoa as a personal insult.
 
Back