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 actually like that Barret is, or at least seems to be, of genuine Christian faith. (Jokes about Catholics not being real Christians aside.) I notice a tendency for judges to become extremely arrogant, and develop an even worse God complex than doctors because they control the courtroom. This effect would only be worse on the Supreme Court, where no higher government court can overturn you.

Believing that after death you will stand before the all-knowing, almighty God who then will be a perfect judge of your actions and character has to be a moderating factor. She believes that every decision she makes on the 'supreme' court will be subject to a judicial review like nothing on Earth. It won't be easy for her to slide into corrupt partisan or cowardly judicial action like former Justice Zogberg or current Justice Cuckberts.
 
View attachment 1656786

I shouldn't be laughing, but I am. It's so fucking cliche at this point. Is every single Democrat going to cry about nothing more than the supreme court becoming conservative majority?
*checks copy of Democrat senator playbook*
Yeah, pretty much. That and "but merrick!"
These hearings are so pitifully, laughably partisan it's just a sad display. Watching Klobuchar right now makes me want to drown myself.
 
Why are they hammering Obamacare so much? First of all, Obamacare was unconstitutional to begin with, so ruling against it would be correcting a mistake anyway, but more importantly, isn't Obamacare not even popular? This is the hill you're going to die on? I guess they really spent all their bullets on Kavanaugh, huh?
 
Why are they hammering Obamacare so much? First of all, Obamacare was unconstitutional to begin with, so ruling against it would be correcting a mistake anyway, but more importantly, isn't Obamacare not even popular? This is the hill you're going to die on? I guess they really spent all their bullets on Kavanaugh, huh?

People who have to deal with the paperwork, hate it.
People who have to deal with the rules and regulations, hate it.
People who lost their existing healthcare, hate it.
People who understand the economics behind it, hate it.
People who know much about judicial law or pay attention to the government, hate it.

People who know none of those things? They don't understand it to begin with, they just hear "They're taking my healthcare!".

It's the "republicans want to starve children and seniors" thing from the 80s all over again.
 
Why are they hammering Obamacare so much? First of all, Obamacare was unconstitutional to begin with, so ruling against it would be correcting a mistake anyway, but more importantly, isn't Obamacare not even popular? This is the hill you're going to die on? I guess they really spent all their bullets on Kavanaugh, huh?
The Obamacare shit really boggles my brain. They act like it's some great pseudo-socialized health care, but in reality it's just government mandated private insurance. Thankfully, I don't have to worry about health insurance, but my friends who're in college have all been fucked over by Obamacare, and the penalties for not signing up for it are steep. I know it was supposed to be a public option and all that, but what does it matter what it was supposed to be, when in reality it's forcing millions of people to take part in a system the left absolutely despises. Truly the "party of science, reason, and logical/critical thinking."
 
Do they really have to do this bread and circus nonsense as it's all but confirmed that Mitch has the numbers and that he will ram this through.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Clockwork_PurBle
Do they really have to do this bread and circus nonsense as it's all but confirmed that Mitch has the numbers and that he will ram this through.

Trying to just ram this through could be seen as unsavory enough for purple state senators to risk voting against it (especially if their term isn't up this year).

IIRC there only needs to be 4 Republican defectors for the vote to fail. Despite (perhaps out of my own spite) Romney's assertion, I'd consider him a solid chance of voting no. So they can safely have to more defect, but still want to give them as little justification as possible.
 
Last edited:
Why are they hammering Obamacare so much? First of all, Obamacare was unconstitutional to begin with, so ruling against it would be correcting a mistake anyway, but more importantly, isn't Obamacare not even popular? This is the hill you're going to die on? I guess they really spent all their bullets on Kavanaugh, huh?
Because it was a massive payout to some of their biggest political donors, and if it goes by the wayside, the funding gets cut off.
As the years go on, I increasingly believe the public option getting removed from the bill was always the intent, and not a consequence of congressional politics. It was just a cover to enable the misappropriation of government power while providing a handy excuse for the program's inevitable failure to improve healthcare.
 
I've never met anyone who has hated women more than other women
1602515339971.png
 
What really scares the liberals in Washington DC is that Amy Coney Barret, unlike Justice Roberts, has zero desire to mingle with the political class or participate in the wink-wink nudge-nudge politicking that takes place at tony cocktail parties. She has her religious faith, her children, and a fully-formed moral code. This is terrifying for the chatterati that pretend to rule the American people. She's not one of them and she never will be.
 
I actually like that Barret is, or at least seems to be, of genuine Christian faith. (Jokes about Catholics not being real Christians aside.) I notice a tendency for judges to become extremely arrogant, and develop an even worse God complex than doctors because they control the courtroom. This effect would only be worse on the Supreme Court, where no higher government court can overturn you.

Believing that after death you will stand before the all-knowing, almighty God who then will be a perfect judge of your actions and character has to be a moderating factor. She believes that every decision she makes on the 'supreme' court will be subject to a judicial review like nothing on Earth. It won't be easy for her to slide into corrupt partisan or cowardly judicial action like former Justice Zogberg or current Justice Cuckberts.

Catholics believe in God that can be bought.
 
Just a friendly reminder that notable percentage of the posters in this thread want to fuck Amy Coney Barrett.

Hmm this is a generalization but conservative waman generally are hotter than liberal waman.


I don't really know anything about her but she was definitely the hottest of the available candidates.

I have some relevant information about this SCOTUS pick.

She is not fat and I would do her.

If that's the shittiest pic they can find of her then she is legitimate waifu material.

Hawt. I'd dig dat daug

Do SCOTUS justices get Secret Service details? I would sign up to whiteknight for Barrett (hopefully with a Barrett).

The thirstposting did die down somewhat, but I just want you all to continue your day with the knowledge that more than a few kiwis want to stick their peepees in the Supreme Court nominee, and this is very funny.
 
Deus Vult.

View attachment 1656864

I am highly amused that the Democrats on the Judiciary committee have zero arguments based on merit. Only about her political leanings, religion and family.

When these fucktards get power again, the purity tests are coming.
Their arguments seem to be about how she's going to repeal the ACA and-- wait a second this wrinkly guy's really up here talking about how the Republicans want an activist judge.

I don't doubt they do, but they're really up here calling the kettle black.

Anyways, the Democrats are allegedly aware of the flaws in the ACA, but they've hardly worked on working out the kinks all this time.
Just a friendly reminder that notable percentage of the posters in this thread want to fuck Amy Coney Barrett.













The thirstposting did die down somewhat, but I just want you all to continue your day with the knowledge that more than a few kiwis want to stick their peepees in the Supreme Court nominee, and this is very funny.
What about you? Would you?

Anyways, Wrinkly Blumental insists that it's the woman's right to decide when she wants to start a family.

I agree, of course. Women have the right to decide to not have sex that can render them pregnant.
 
Back