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:
If he thinks the Dems trash-talking the concepts of religion, adoption, motherhood and being an accomplished professional woman, ALL AT ONCE are going to HURT the Republicans this cycle... he really hasn't' been paying attention.

Because you know that they can't help themselves, even though they saw it fail mightily with Kavanaugh, they just wont' be able to hold back their cattiness and contempt for a person who did everything the right way, but, STILL PICKED THE LOSING SIDE OF HISTORY!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!


I would rather the general decide the eventual seated judge.

It did.

Where do you think all the Senators and the President came from?

This "not until the next election" nonsense is based on a fallacy that the current group in power was somehow, not elected itself.

Trump won the Presidency, by general election.

The current Senate all won their seats, by general election.

"The general" has set this up, the general of 2016.

And no "but - but - that was 2016!' because it doesn't matter, none of those officials have a half-life on their authority that grows weaker as the next election draws near, they have their power until 2020, all of it, end of story.

The President appoints and the Senate confirms/rejects, that's in the rule book. The rules say nothing about having to have recently won an election, only that you be the ones in power.

This "not now, it's too close to the end of the term" argument is sour grapes from those who WANTED the pick but didn't win when it mattered.

Win next time, don't come up with this goalpost-moving that you have to win twice now to be able to do it, or else it somehow doesn't count. This is like a team in a baseball game rallying from a big deficit to tie it in the 9th, and the opposition saying "We were leading for 8 innings, that's a clear majority of the game, so they just need to accept they were going to lose. It's a dangerous precedent to let them win at the last second! Besides, it's a double-header, if they're really legit, they can just beat us in the second game".

That's not how it works, that's not how it fuckin works AT ALL. You have to be leading after 9 innings to win, anything else is crybabies unable to deal with a loss.

Same here, Dems didn't win in 2016, they have no legit ground to stand on and say the party that did can't do their jobs because "the game's almost over".

Hail-Mary passes count for the full score as much as an opening drive does, now deal with it.
 
Last edited:
If he thinks the Dems trash-talking the concepts of religion, adoption, motherhood and being an accomplished professional woman, ALL AT ONCE are going to HURT the Republicans this cycle... he really hasn't' been paying attention.

Because you know that they can't help themselves, even though they saw it fail mightily with Kavanaugh, they just wont' be able to hold back their cattiness and contempt for a person who did everything the right way, but, STILL PICKED THE LOSING SIDE OF HISTORY!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
Barnes does have some good legal reasoning to be skeptical of Barrett, I'll say this now. But he seems utterly disconnected from;
1: The fact she was already vetted and that will speed up the process, a process that EVEN WITH her already being vetted is going to have 15 days to actually confirm her.
2: The fact that hesitant republicans need to be brought close to it, and as a mother of 5, strict catholic, originalist who served under Scalia, she is ideal for that.
3: The fact the Democrats ARE going to stick their foot in it. They have more venues of attack on Barrett than Lagoa, this gives plenty of ammo to fuck themsleves.
4: The fact Lagoa has even LESS judicial experience, making her a harder sell in a time crunched time.

If we had time, and I sure a shit hope Trump wins and gets a fourth slot to put Lagoa in, I'd massively prefer Lagoa. But we have a time crunch, So Barrett is the better option politically.
 
1601294250422.png

“So, our country isn’t so much center-right as Mitt Romney is center-wrong,” concluded Oliver, adding, “Look, this has been a very dark week for lots of people. The Supreme Court is about to lurch to the right for the foreseeable future, and if things seem hopeless right now, it’s because, to be completely honest, they basically are.”
:story:

 
Last edited:
I
Barnes does have some good legal reasoning to be skeptical of Barrett, I'll say this now. But he seems utterly disconnected from;
1: The fact she was already vetted and that will speed up the process, a process that EVEN WITH her already being vetted is going to have 15 days to actually confirm her.
2: The fact that hesitant republicans need to be brought close to it, and as a mother of 5, strict catholic, originalist who served under Scalia, she is ideal for that.
3: The fact the Democrats ARE going to stick their foot in it. They have more venues of attack on Barrett than Lagoa, this gives plenty of ammo to fuck themsleves.
4: The fact Lagoa has even LESS judicial experience, making her a harder sell in a time crunched time.

If we had time, and I sure a shit hope Trump wins and gets a fourth slot to put Lagoa in, I'd massively prefer Lagoa. But we have a time crunch, So Barrett is the better option politically.
I feel Barnes also doesn't realized dems cannot control themselves anymore
 
We kicked your kind out in 1776 so all this "our country" talk is pathetic. Go back to Bongistan. Take the ginger and the royal mutt back, I heard they were meddling in our election as well.
Anglos really need to get their ilk under control. For all the mutt memes atleast it helps dilute the disgusting Anglo genes enough that we can enjoy some semblance of freedom and not be state mandated to own a loicense for every occasion and need.
Interesting fact, despite nominally cancelling the slave trade Anglos were a major supplier of funds (and some equipment, notably ships) to the Confederacy, even serving as the national equivalent of a money launderer for the Confederate cotton, and winning sufficiently for them to justify intervening on the Confederate side was pretty much the hope the Confederates pinned their victory to. When is cancel culture going to finally cancel the Anglo scourge for their financial supporting of evil Confederate Slavery? And when are patriotic Americans going to demand reparations from them for assisting in the killing of Americans by insurrectionists?

Edit: "The US realized that as well and made it clear that recognition of the Confederacy meant war and the end of food shipments into Britain." OI YOU GOT YOUR BREAD LINE LOICENSE?
South Africa also apparently made a theme song for the CSS Alabama, a renowned Confederate Raider, that has become a folk song. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp_0Dwg5tzM
 
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)

"Dr. Jack Brown
@DrGJackBrown
Body Language & Emotional Intelligence Expert, Speaker, Physician, Lecturer, RT≠endorsement, No Lists, #LGBTQAally, #BLM, #ClimateCrisishttp://BodyLanguageEQ.com"

This is the leftist version of a pickup artist.


I just wanted to grill and play vidya in peace. I didn't ask for this.

View attachment 1625901

I wasn't on the farms during the gamergate wars but I remember being laughed at by conservatives when I thought it was less a tempest in a teapot than a sign of things to come, and by god those gamer faggots were right. :neckbeard:
 
"Dr. Jack Brown
@DrGJackBrown
Body Language & Emotional Intelligence Expert, Speaker, Physician, Lecturer, RT≠endorsement, No Lists, #LGBTQAally, #BLM, #ClimateCrisishttp://BodyLanguageEQ.com"

This is the leftist version of a pickup artist.

I'm guessing the pickup artist thing is out of necessity. He's mostly posted good photos, but if you run a search you get a sense that he's got that "pre-old man face." His chin juts out a bit and his mouth looks like it's naturally sucked in like he lost all his teeth even though I don't think he did.

jackbrown.jpg
 
They already used all of this fucking rhetoric. The entire country was supposed to end under Kavanaugh's confirmation and we were supposed to already be living the Handmaid's Tail and all the gays were supposed to be in the newly-constructed Fagschwitz and black people were supposed to be picking cotton again, bla bla fuckin' bla none of it happened, chill the Hell out.

It's like watching some kind of hysterical pinwheel. "The sky is falling falling! There's a wolf! The sky is falling! There's a wolf!"
 
When are patriotic Americans going to demand reparations from them for assisting in the killing of Americans by insurrectionists?

Actually, we got those after the war by successfully suing the Brits for the damages those ships they gave to the Confederates did upon Union merchantmen and whalers.

Oi! You got a loicense for that privateering, mate?

Turns out they didn't.



Nope, you can keep him.

Compromise, we leave him in the Mid-Atlantic gap to look for U-boats. He gets to take out his frustrations on non-existent Nazis, neither of us have to hear from him again, win-win!
 
Back