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:
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.

The problem is the RINOs. You do not want to give them a single excuse to vote no, and sadly going straight to a vote qualifies.
 
NO. What you don't understand is that I am not Catholic and many Catholics disavow the Pope. But as far as God is concerned, He doesn't judge individuals on one man's flaws like the Pope. He doesn't do that for bad pastors/priests either. Each *man/woman* is judged by their own beliefs, actions, and faith.
Just because the pope is a communist doesn't mean other Catholics are.
Be quiet, heretic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Squid Diddler
Prediction: Barrett will go through and be generally beloved by the people. Harris and her fellow Democrats will, as usual, misbehave. Following the confirmation, the liblosers will go berserk, put on their pussy heads, burn down some places, break some stuff. Biden and his mulatto mistress will praise them. The country will say, what the fuck. Trump will win reelection.

Barrett's opening statement has been released:

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4

Amy-Coney-Barrett-statement-p1-normal.gifAmy-Coney-Barrett-statement-p2-normal.gif
Amy-Coney-Barrett-statement-p3-normal.gifAmy-Coney-Barrett-statement-p4-normal.gif
 
So when exactly is the vote? When is all this supposed to go down?

The confirmation hearing begins tomorrow, the next day each Senator will get a 30 minute round of questioning with ACB, then they each get a 20 minute round of questions on the 14th, and that could be followed by another round of questioning for 10 minutes on the 15th.
 
Last edited:
Imagine wanting a job where 100 people interview you for 30 + 20 + 10 a full hour each?! 100 hours of interviews from the dumbest cocksuckers on the planet while CNN proclaims to the world that you rape babies.

It's a wonder anyone who isn't already Halaled ever accepts a Supreme Court nomination.
 
She already went through a similar deal when she got appointed to the Seventh Circuit. I'm not sure what they can try to pull that won't backfire horribly, considering the shit they pulled back then did backfire horribly on them. The Dems are on very thin ice since they're already caught on record saying shit. Note that I'm not at all saying the Dems will just let her go through with only a pro forma inquiry and take the L, because that would require a realistic appraisal of their standing and chances. They're going to throw all the hand grenades they can, but said explosives will just land at their feet Wiley Coyote style and blow up them and their thin ice.
 
Optimistic, but she's definitely getting the seat:


If the only thing stopping her is a "You know what? Let's postpone these hearings. COVID is abound." then they have no chance besides a cuck Republican saying "Nay."
 
Last edited:
Optimistic, but she's definitely getting the seat:
View attachment 1655540

If the only thing stopping her is a "You know what? Let's postpone these hearing. COVID is abound." then they have no chance besides a cuck Republican saying "Nay."
I love how Dems have, yet again, decided to redefine words (in this case, packing.) Because filling empty vacancies and adding extra seats are the exact same thing.
 
So any idea on how the two GOP senators with COVID-19 are doing? Trump recovered just fine, but I'm wondering if they will be back before the Committee holds a vote on whenever or not to proceed. I've been meaning to bring this up, but literally no one has talked about the two sick GOP senators.
 
So any idea on how the two GOP senators with COVID-19 are doing? Trump recovered just fine, but I'm wondering if they will be back before the Committee holds a vote on whenever or not to proceed. I've been meaning to bring this up, but literally no one has talked about the two sick GOP senators.
They'll participate from home if necessary.
 
They'll participate from home if necessary.

Would they be able to? I thought a Senator had to be physically present to cast his/her vote, I know there are certain exceptions for it where for instance if a Senator couldn't make it because of an emergency that they could make an agreement with a Senator of the opposite party to not cast a vote to nullify the impact of both votes but I couldn't see that happening right now with the current state of vitriol between politicians from both parties for one another.

I know some in Congress have introduced ideas for legislation during the pandemic to alter the rules about remote voting but I don't think any of the drawn up legislation has made it to a vote and I believe McConnell has voiced opposition to changing the voting rules. Some have also suggested allowing the Senators to do remote voting from their personal offices in Washington too, but still it seems to be up in the air.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Zero Day Defense
I've been told they can have someone stand in their place and vote for them (that person knows what the senator wants to vote), so I don't see why they couldn't also use a stand-in for a few questions.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Exterminatus
Would they be able to? I thought a Senator had to be physically present to cast his/her vote, I know there are certain exceptions for it where for instance if a Senator couldn't make it because of an emergency that they could make an agreement with a Senator of the opposite party to not cast a vote to nullify the impact of both votes but I couldn't see that happening right now with the current state of vitriol between politicians from both parties for one another.

I know some in Congress have introduced ideas for legislation during the pandemic to alter the rules about remote voting but I don't think any of the drawn up legislation has made it to a vote and I believe McConnell has voiced opposition to changing the voting rules. Some have also suggested allowing the Senators to do remote voting from their personal offices in Washington too, but still it seems to be up in the air.
They can conduct the hearings virtually. The floor vote is at the earliest week after next, so whatever the senators are suffering from now they'll be past by then. And bear in mind, there is no statutory or Constitutional requirement for hearings at all. Also, they've been confirming federal judges virtually all year, as Feinstein noted in the video above.
 
They can conduct the hearings virtually. The floor vote is at the earliest week after next, so whatever the senators are suffering from now they'll be past by then. And bear in mind, there is no statutory or Constitutional requirement for hearings at all. Also, they've been confirming federal judges virtually all year, as Feinstein noted in the video above.
The thing is, aren't those two Senators part of the Committee? If so and they're not here by the 19th, the Democrats can delay the floor hearing simply by not showing up. Hopefully we can conduct the hearings virtually so that we can vote and get the confirmation floor hearing ball rolling on the floor.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: millais
The thing is, aren't those two Senators part of the Committee? If so and they're not here by the 19th, the Democrats can delay the floor hearing simply by not showing up. Hopefully we can conduct the hearings virtually so that we can vote and get the confirmation floor hearing ball rolling on the floor.
Not true. There's nothing that happens in committee that can't be done virtually. The floor debate will be a fixed-time thing that isn't an issue -- if a Republican needs to do a Caesar Rodney for the floor vote so be it, it'll happen. Remember also that nothing in committee is required. Not hearings, not a vote. That part is entirely show.
 
Not true. There's nothing that happens in committee that can't be done virtually. The floor debate will be a fixed-time thing that isn't an issue -- if a Republican needs to do a Caesar Rodney for the floor vote so be it, it'll happen. Remember also that nothing in committee is required. Not hearings, not a vote. That part is entirely show.
Interesting. So in other words, it's just a formality McConnell needs to do so that Trump doesn't risk burning more votes. Fair enough then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shield Breaker
Back