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:
"When you tell somebody they're too Catholic to be on the bench, when you tell them they're going to be a Catholic judge not an American judge, that's bigotry." -My man Josh Hawley calling them out

It's to prevent the obvious, "why aren't you wearing a mask? You religous monster threatening members of Congress with Covid" attack.
I think everybody's spot on that this is the primary reason but it has the bonus of giving her a kind of poker face. The armchair body language experts can't scrutinize her every microexpression. If she has a serious expression, she's "scowling", if she has the faintest hint of a smile, she "smirking".

Edit to add team of photogs catching her every move. She isn't the one speaking or anything, she's just sitting silently listening:
gh.png
 
Last edited:
Hearings have started. Why is ACB wearing a mask? She already had the virus, she can't catch it again.
You can definitely catch it again, but yeah, the mask is mostly health security theater to get the mask karens off your back.

EDIT: I'm going to say that while I've enjoyed the massive hissyfit the Dems have been throwing about this, these extended battles over the Supreme Court just show how fundamentally broken our Constitutional system has become. The Supreme Court was never meant to have so much power over the laws as it has now, and it was never meant to enact de facto legislation through its decisionmaking process, in much the same way as Executive Orders were never meant to be. That being said, I'm definitely excited for the inevitable salt when she gets confirmed.
 
Last edited:
I’ll try to watch this later, but am I correct to assume the Democrats haven’t said anything about her other than ObamaCare and her religion?
Yes. So far they're leaning a lot more on ObamaCare and "stacking the court with idelogical extremists" than her faith.

So, it's a decently effective play by the Democrats. I don't expect this to be as much as a shitshow as Kavanaugh's hearing, so the result, either way, will come quickly.
 
Last edited:
Deus Vult.
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.
Fucking purity tests are already here. If they get serious enough, we impure persons are likely to impose some tests of our own, though they're likely to be more in the field of personal durability, until we're left the fuck alone.

Here's a nice take on how fucked things have gotten. Today is Columbus Day.
 
My favorite desperate act to paint her as evil was when the moron behind 'antiracism', Ibram Kendi, tried to claim she only adopted those Haitian kids to "civilize savages"

That's not even the worst part, the way he and his acolytes phrased it, they accused her of "Removing minority parents from the picture".

As if the biological parents didn't do that by OFFERING THE KIDS UP FOR ADOPTION.

Seriously, the way the press told the story, she had a platoon of Marines storm the island in the dark of night and abduct two random babies out of the arms of loving mothers and abscond with them back up the zip line....

These kids were PUT UP FOR ADOPTION, not KIDNAPPED or SOLD INTO SLAVERY.

But to the true believer (tm) in IDPOL there is no difference, think about that.
 
My favorite desperate act to paint her as evil was when the moron behind 'antiracism', Ibram Kendi, tried to claim she only adopted those Haitian kids to "civilize savages"

Kendi is somewhat right for the wrong reasons. Like Madonna, Angelina Jolie, and the countless liberal celebrities who’ve done the same thing, she should’ve adopted one of the many orphans in her own backyard instead of going to the 3rd world.

It’s a noble impulse, but a misguided one. By their nature as Haitians (and no fault of their own) these kids are a poor fit for western societies and especially the cognitively-demanding circles the Coney-Barrett family belongs to. If they don’t struggle to fit in and keep up academically now, they’ll likely have identity issues later.
 
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.
I get the logic, but speaking as a man of faith.... it honestly depends? Some people are naturally more humble because they believe in god, but you also have the more zealous types who see their lives as divine mandates where they are champions of God and only they can fulfill god's tasks. The later can turn easily into a de facto god complex, even if they themselves would never admit it even inside their own mind.
 
After seeing lefties piss themselves when Mitt Romney's family adopted a minority child this should not be shocking to anyone.

"She should adopt in her own backyard," Well, true, there are needy children here, but lest we forget how difficult it is to adopt within the United States. The people I know who have adopted from foreign countries (usually China or a South American country) did so out of desperation because the US system broke them.
 
Is the ACA the only legal issue being brought up?

I hope not, they *should* need more than that to sway public opinion but I guess that will depend on how effective the media spin is.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Clockwork_PurBle
Screw me, they're going to have Sen. Hirono blither after their break.

On my shortlist of most hated federal legislators, she ranks near the top, if not at the top. The way she spoke of Kavanaugh after he was confirmed was as disgusting as she looks.
A lot of them are contemptable. Hirono is also one of the top for me. Nadler is pretty vile. He's not a senator but Ted Lieu is another one. Generally don't have good experiences with Chinese Americans who come from the California area. Generally are so disconnected from the average person and are a bunch of commies will suck Xi and the mainland off but won't want to live there.
 
This man got metoo'd before that was even the current year. That guy sat through genuine racial discrimination where he couldn't get hired out of law school because they thought he was one of these affirmative action blacks who was not as smart as he was/is. If there is one thing that is certain in almost all of these supreme court hearings, the candidate is almost certainly the smartest person in the room. He certainly showed that when he shut them up with his "another form of lynching" speech.
 
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.

Always, but if the opposition seems slightly anemic and even more bloviating compared to Kavanaugh's nomination, bear this in mind. (Grain of salt not required, IMO.)


archive

Anonymous Democratic Senator Throws Dianne Feinstein Under the Bus Ahead of SCOTUS Hearings: ‘She’s Not Sure What She’s Doing…’​

Matt Naham Sep 23rd, 2020, 2:13 pm


An unnamed Democratic senator sharply criticized Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) ahead of eventual Supreme Court hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, going so far as to say that Feinstein is “not sure what she is doing.”

The criticism, first reported by Politico, may spark some “isn’t that ageism” retorts. Feinstein, at 87, is the oldest member of the Senate. She is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

The report said that Democrats “privately fear” Feinstein can’t now do what is necessary to achieve meaningful, effective and ultimately successful opposition to the Republican Party’s rapid effort to fill the Supreme Court seat of late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But that’s not all. The reported fear is that Feinstein might do something to jeopardize Democrats’ chances at winning back a Senate majority. An unnamed senator said a faction of Feinstein’s colleagues want someone else to lead the charge against President Donald Trump’s nominee because Feinstein is “not sure what she’s doing.” The handling of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings was cited as an example:


A Democratic senator, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said a group of Feinstein’s colleagues want Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) or Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) to serve as the top Democrat on the Judiciary panel for the upcoming nomination hearings, which are expected to be extraordinarily contentious. This senator is worried that potential missteps by Feinstein could cost Democrats seats.
“She’s not sure what she’s doing,” the Democratic senator said of Feinstein. “If you take a look at Kavanaugh, we may be short two senators because of that. And if this gets [messed] up, it may be the same result.”

If President Trump does, indeed, nominate Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court you can bet that Republicans will argue that anti-Catholic bigotry motivates the Democratic opposition. They may say look no further than the comments Sen. Feinstein made during Barrett’s appellate court confirmation hearing in 2017. Feinstein (D-Calif.) suggested that the then-nominee’s Catholic faith was concerning.

“The dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said. Here was the full quote:


Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that dogma and law are two different things, and I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern.

This was clearly about Roe v. Wade.


Barrett, a former clerk for Antonin Scalia, said during her confirmation hearing for the Seventh Circuit that she would “never impose my own personal convictions upon the law.” More recently, Barrett’s former colleagues at Notre Dame Law School, where she is an alumna and was a professor, said the jurist currently seen as the SCOTUS frontrunner is no mere ideologue.


“If she’s being considered by a Republican administration, that means they think she’s going to be more conservative,” Notre Dame law professor Paolo Carozza told the South Bend Tribune. “But people are reducing Amy to an ideological category instead of taking her for who she is: An intelligent, thoughtful, open-minded person.”


Stephen Yelderman, another Notre Dame Law School professor, said Barrett is “mind-blowingly intelligent” and “one of the most humble people you’re going to meet.”


“Judge Barrett is the complete package,” he said.


Eleventh Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa, another SCOTUS possibility, is also a Catholic.


“I suggest that in order to be a good Catholic advocate, one should start with St. Thomas More,” Lagoa said during an Oct. 2019 dinner for the pro-life conservative law firm the Thomas More Society. “It is more than going to Mass every Sunday, and to me at least, it means having a personal relationship with God that in turn informs how we treat others.”


More was executed on July 6, 1535 after he refused to take the Oath of Supremacy, which would have recognized King Henry VIII as the head of the Church in England.


Feinstein responded to Politico’s reporting by saying she was “really surprised and taken aback” by the idea that her colleagues fear she will be a liability.


“Because I try to be very careful and I’m puzzled by it,” Feinstein explained her surprise. “My attendance is good, I do the homework, I try to ask hard questions. I stand up for what I believe in.”


Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Feinstein’s colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, dismissed concerns about Feinstein. Booker said he was “fully confident in her leadership”; Blumenthal said he sees “no reason to question” Feinstein’s leadership.
 
In that the floating turd Richard Blumenthal wafted his stench through our screens today, and will some more, I feel the obligation to remind us all of this:
blumenthal-stolen-valor.jpg


At a ceremony honoring veterans and senior citizens who sent presents to soldiers overseas, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut rose and spoke of an earlier time in his life.

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

There was one problem: Mr. Blumenthal, a Democrat now running for the United States Senate, never served in Vietnam. He obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records. [. . . more at link.]
 
I get the logic, but speaking as a man of faith.... it honestly depends? Some people are naturally more humble because they believe in god, but you also have the more zealous types who see their lives as divine mandates where they are champions of God and only they can fulfill god's tasks. The later can turn easily into a de facto god complex, even if they themselves would never admit it even inside their own mind.

Good points. I suppose that for me even such a scenario would be preferable to a judge who bases their ethics and decisions on the shifting sands of cultural relativism or 'social justice'. They have no notion of accountability, temporal or eternal. Your proposed self appointed champion at least will maintain that, if only subconsciously, and with it an avenue to thereby check their hubris.

We have to accept that, as fallen mortals, we can only strive to emulate the perfection of the Holy. Our justices keeping in mind the Supreme Judge and their inadequacy in comparison can only help them work to be their best.
 
Back