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:
Nothing in the constitution that says they can't do so immediately.
Nothing in the Constitution says Trump can't nominate a judge a week for the Supreme Court to get ahead of the democrats' threat of stacking the court aside from 9 being somewhat traditional at this point.
 
Nothing in the constitution that says they can't do so immediately.

They should get the vote to confirm her ASAP.

I get McConnell's toying with the Dems and making sure the RINO's won't cuck out too much but given the newest developments, they need to fucking confirm ACB really soon, like we're talking get the procedures started tomorrow morning or Monday morning at the absolute latest
 
They should get the vote to confirm her ASAP.

I get McConnell's toying with the Dems and making sure the RINO's won't cuck out too much but given the newest developments, they need to fucking confirm ACB really soon, like we're talking get the procedures started tomorrow morning or Monday morning at the absolute latest
Agree, with Trump's corona confirmed her appointment is all the more important. In case there is any legal fuckery regarding his fitness to run, or potentially Pence's ability to run in the case of Trump's death or incapacitation from corona. Supreme Court needs to be filled to deal with any electoral legal cases.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Syaoran Li
Mitch McConnell can end this pointless theater at any time and call the vote. Why he won't is a mystery as no democrat is going to accept ACB even if she could bring about the ALGSC.
I don't see it as pointless theater. The Kavanaugh hearings hurt the Dems badly, I'm all for another round of it. I want to see them desperately try to tear this woman down only to hurt themselves once again.
 
I don't see it as pointless theater. The Kavanaugh hearings hurt the Dems badly, I'm all for another round of it. I want to see them desperately try to tear this woman down only to hurt themselves once again.
I agree, at worst, at absolute worst, it lets them maintain the image of legitimacy with it, providing democrats an opportunity to participate which they have already announced they'll reject. It defangs what could be a major sticking point for moderates.
 
So, how about those two GOP senators that have tested positive? IIRC, that cuts into the scant majority they had to confirm ACB something fierce.
I recall speculation about some manner of remote/proxy voting as a possibility.
 
I recall speculation about some manner of remote/proxy voting as a possibility.
I believe the Senate had been resisting implementing that voting method, especially earlier on. It cost them the votes they needed to pass the original CARES act when Pelosi came back to gum everything up.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: XYZpdq
So, how about those two GOP senators that have tested positive? IIRC, that cuts into the scant majority they had to confirm ACB something fierce.
The actual vote is not for another 2 weeks and change. So i t won't effect anything. Also, a senator can inform of his vote ahead of time and have someone place his vote for him.
 
The actual vote is not for another 2 weeks and change. So i t won't effect anything. Also, a senator can inform of his vote ahead of time and have someone place his vote for him.
The latter statement is the more important; God forbid, those senators could be sick for that amount of time, and they may not even be in the clear after their symptoms subside if they're still testing positive.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ConfederateIrishman
Nothing in the Constitution says Trump can't nominate a judge a week for the Supreme Court to get ahead of the democrats' threat of stacking the court aside from 9 being somewhat traditional at this point.

To actually increase the number of SCOTUS seats you need to pass legislation, the President can't just go "4 MORE JUSTICES" and make it happen, when FDR tried to pack the court he had to go through Congress to do so before it ultimately failed. The last time the number of justices on the court was actually changed was in 1869 and required Congress to pass the "Judiciary Act of 1869" which left us with the current 9 seats we have today.
 
I don't see it as pointless theater. The Kavanaugh hearings hurt the Dems badly, I'm all for another round of it. I want to see them desperately try to tear this woman down only to hurt themselves once again.
This is dumb: the virus is currently spreading through the Senate, there is a non-zero chance a senator needed for the vote could get owned and suddenly you are stuck with a grid-locked judiciary system right as an election both sides immediately dispute if they lose hits. Trying to own the Dems right now and not secure your foundations only ensures more chaos down the line, so unless you are also an accelerationist like me this is a bad idea.
 
Schumer has an Agenda:
DA3E60CD-D6E7-4BE5-8F64-6016441E1B43.jpeg
4213CFF0-62FE-4DE5-80F3-5A54326B544D.jpeg

D42C1CE1-6849-470B-AFDA-988654AD6B02.jpeg
 
I don't know about the committee vote, but for the Senate vote the senators must physically be there to cast the vote themselves; proxy Voters are not allowed. Mcconnell resisted changes to Senate voting procedure at the beginning of corona, which is why this is the current state of play, but the Senate leader is very powerful and I strongly suspect he could implement some vote by proxy if it's required. I would be more concerned that COVID might make a senator to sick to vote--they're a high risk group.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: the fall of man
If anyone knows of a rule or precedent that would allow remote or proxy voting in this situation, its Mitch "I am the Senate" McConnell, ruling atop his skull throne of coronavirus victims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the fall of man
To actually increase the number of SCOTUS seats you need to pass legislation, the President can't just go "4 MORE JUSTICES" and make it happen, when FDR tried to pack the court he had to go through Congress to do so before it ultimately failed. The last time the number of justices on the court was actually changed was in 1869 and required Congress to pass the "Judiciary Act of 1869" which left us with the current 9 seats we have today.

I agree, but the Democrats are banking that they they can intimidate and blackmail enough of Congress to make passing that legislation viable. That, and if they can't get anything passed they're going to try to do it by fiat, by executive order, and dare anyone to make an issue of it. If Biden wins, he'll control the armed forces, and the justice department (and through them all federal law enforcement agencies). And I'll bet a Biden presidency will ram through a bill federalizing local and state police agencies as well. We have to federalize them, you see, to fight the terrible scourge of systematic racism.

If Biden is elected, expect to see a whole lot of naked, undisguised power plays and unambiguous threats. The Democrats, as the party stands now, simply can't be trusted to utilize the functions of government with all of its checks and balances. They don't regard any checks or any balance to their power to have any legitimacy.
 
Back