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 used to think the theater aspect came about when these things began to be televised, and I'm sure that exaggerated things, but now I think they were theatrical before that too - just a smaller show, for the people in the room, and also with the hope the performances would be "powerful" enough to bleed out into newspaper articles of the time.
It was always theater. Politics was never chivalrous either
 
The second tweet is truly deranged - what is she talking about "rule by her fertility"? Don't all the Justices have children as well? Seriously, what does that even mean?
I think she's trying to claim that having too many children disqualifies you as supreme court because you are too focused on "casseroles".

She also seems to imply republicans vote judges based on the stability of their family. And she sees this as a negative thing.

I for one wouldn't want an antisocial supreme court judge with an unstable family life, but I'm not surprised femenazis want miserable people like them empowered.
 
It was always theater. Politics was never chivalrous either
Yes, that's what I was saying - it wasn't the broadcasting that made it so. As for politics not being chivalrous, that's probably for the best considering chivalry only makes sense in an environment which acknowledges and respects it philosophically, otherwise it seems absurd; I think the absence of that environment for a chivalrous protagonist was the basis of the presumed humor in Don Quixote.
 
yamiche goblin black cnn.jpg
Senator Lindsey Graham just quoted the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg saying, “A president serves four years not three.”

But Ginsburg said just before her death: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
One of those statements is a fact, the other useless tripe. What a retarded comparison to make.

That is one of PBS's lead journalists, by the way. She's about as smart as a shoe.
 
I think she's trying to claim that having too many children disqualifies you as supreme court because you are too focused on "casseroles".

She also seems to imply republicans vote judges based on the stability of their family. And she sees this as a negative thing.

I for one wouldn't want an antisocial supreme court judge with an unstable family life, but I'm not surprised femenazis want miserable people like them empowered.
Typical dyke who thinks less of straight women...bet she loves the adopted Haitians though
 
Yes, that's what I was saying - it wasn't the broadcasting that made it so. As for politics not being chivalrous, that's probably for the best considering chivalry only makes sense in an environment which acknowledges and respects it philosophically, otherwise it seems absurd; I think the absence of that environment for a chivalrous protagonist was the basis of the presumed humor in Don Quixote.

Well that isn't entirely right, the Don Quixote part I mean. The humor in Don Quixote was a mix of the fact that he was in fact completely insane (think "mr magoo" but with actual visions instead of blindness), part of it was parodying the situation of spanish politics (and indeed at multiple times the narrator or some characters told the audience that in fact Don Quixote's sense of morality might make him the sanest character in the tale), and part was just a parody of the novela caballeresca, which was the main genre of adventure novels at the time. This last point involved a lot of situation where Don Quixote's chivalry was contrasted with the mundanity of the situation and absence of courtesy from everyone else, but that was the minority of the tale by far. Source: I had to take multiple exams on this shit, I'm Spanish, we do that over here.

You are however right in how chivalry makes no sense in todays politics. Just look at britain, they tried to force it by banning things like clapping, adressing other members of congress directly, or even forcing question quotas that make no sense, and as a result their sessions have turned into an abhorrent farce where members of the same party lick each other's arse hardcore and everyone screams "EEEEEHHHHH" Like some inbred french canadian with a heavy slur. It's as comedic as it is freaking terrifying and I for one am quite happy my politicians at least have the freedom to tell each other how disgusting they are without that bullshit.

 
Apparently they are shitting on the GOP response to the ACB hearings.

Their main argument is that the Republicans got played because all the Democrats did was harp on "pre-existing health conditions" and the Republicans pulled up with rebuttals to religious arguments ready to go that obviously went nowhere. That, and the huge pitch black muzzle on ACB's face produces horrible optics. Just poor planning for Republicans and their think tank all together today.

But it's just Day 1, and the vote is the only thing that matters, so it probably still sticks to cuck Republicans cucking out.

However, their polls show that Trump is getting killed on healthcare because of course he is with the news cycle focusing on how he's just dying to strip it away for good.
 
Their main argument is that the Republicans got played because all the Democrats did was harp on "pre-existing health conditions" and the Republicans pulled up with rebuttals to religious arguments ready to go that obviously went nowhere. That, and the huge pitch black muzzle on ACB's face produces horrible optics. Just poor planning for Republicans and their think tank all together today.

But it's just Day 1, and the vote is the only thing that matters, so it probably still sticks to cuck Republicans cucking out.

However, their polls show that Trump is getting killed on healthcare because of course he is with the news cycle focusing on how he's just dying to strip it away for good.
Part of that is them getting to say "I told you so" the other part is How are the Republicans so fucking stupid not to see this coming? Idk how big of a hit ACB will be on Trump or whether it will impact the election in a big way, but either way Republicans should be better prepared than this. They keep fighting yesterday's war with yesterday's rules. How have they not learned anything in 4 years?
 
Well that isn't entirely right, the Don Quixote part I mean. The humor in Don Quixote was a mix of the fact that he was in fact completely insane (think "mr magoo" but with actual visions instead of blindness), part of it was parodying the situation of spanish politics (and indeed at multiple times the narrator or some characters told the audience that in fact Don Quixote's sense of morality might make him the sanest character in the tale), and part was just a parody of the novela caballeresca, which was the main genre of adventure novels at the time. This last point involved a lot of situation where Don Quixote's chivalry was contrasted with the mundanity of the situation and absence of courtesy from everyone else, but that was the minority of the tale by far. Source: I had to take multiple exams on this shit, I'm Spanish, we do that over here.

You are however right in how chivalry makes no sense in todays politics. Just look at britain, they tried to force it by banning things like clapping, adressing other members of congress directly, or even forcing question quotas that make no sense, and as a result their sessions have turned into an abhorrent farce where members of the same party lick each other's arse hardcore and everyone screams "EEEEEHHHHH" Like some inbred french canadian with a heavy slur. It's as comedic as it is freaking terrifying and I for one am quite happy my politicians at least have the freedom to tell each other how disgusting they are without that bullshit.

You're right, it's more complex, I forgot he had hallucinations, and haven't read about caballerescas at all - were those "adventure romances"? I used to love the novel though...this is my favorite part:

But he had hardly moved at all when Don Quixote lost his footing; and slipping off the saddle, he would have come to the ground, but for being suspended by the arm, which caused him such agony that he believed either his wrist would be cut through or his arm torn off; and he hung so near the ground that he could just touch it with his feet, which was all the worse for him; for, finding how little was wanted to enable him to plant his feet firmly, he struggled and stretched himself as much as he could to gain a footing; just like those undergoing the torture of the strappado, when they are fixed at "touch and no touch," who aggravate their own sufferings by their violent efforts to stretch themselves, deceived by the hope which makes them fancy that with a very little more they will reach the ground.

As for the British parliament, I don't understand it and prefer to think of it as having such an ancient past and storied traditions that I couldn't understand them if I wanted to.
 
If optics mattered, would there be a single Democratic Senator not named Cory Booker there? He's the only one who isnt moderately to extremely unattractive and the only one that can kind of control his facial expressions. There wouldnt be more than a handful of the middle aged Republican Senators who look like reasonably not ugly men in their 40s and 50s there.
 
Their main argument is that the Republicans got played because all the Democrats did was harp on "pre-existing health conditions" and the Republicans pulled up with rebuttals to religious arguments ready to go that obviously went nowhere. That, and the huge pitch black muzzle on ACB's face produces horrible optics. Just poor planning for Republicans and their think tank all together today.

But it's just Day 1, and the vote is the only thing that matters, so it probably still sticks to cuck Republicans cucking out.

However, their polls show that Trump is getting killed on healthcare because of course he is with the news cycle focusing on how he's just dying to strip it away for good.

Honestly he should be. I am one of the most fervent defenders of public healthcare on this forum, and even I can see very clearly Obamacare FUCKING SUCKS. Healthcare as with everything is all in the execution, and I can write you a fucking novel on the issues that arise with public and private healthcares and how to adress them (the wuhan thread knowa why), but for now suffice to say, Obamacare literally is the worst of both worlds. It literally only hurts america and it needs to be destroyed.

You're right, it's more complex, I forgot he had hallucinations, and haven't read about caballerescas at all - were those "adventure romances"? I used to love the novel though...this is my favorite part: But he had hardly moved at all when Don Quixote lost his footing; and slipping off the saddle, he would have come to the ground, but for being suspended by the arm, which caused him such agony that he believed either his wrist would be cut through or his arm torn off; and he hung so near the ground that he could just touch it with his feet, which was all the worse for him; for, finding how little was wanted to enable him to plant his feet firmly, he struggled and stretched himself as much as he could to gain a footing; just like those undergoing the torture of the strappado, when they are fixed at "touch and no touch," who aggravate their own sufferings by their violent efforts to stretch themselves, deceived by the hope which makes them fancy that with a very little more they will reach the ground. As for the British parliament, I don't understand it and prefer to think of it as having such an ancient past and storied traditions that I couldn't understand them if I wanted to.

The Caballerescas are basically the spanish version of the arthurian legends or swaschbuckling tales, so yeah "adventure romance" would be the larger international genre they fit in. They were always based on noble knights during the reconquista fighting evil and saving opressed peasants. So basically like Quixote but unironically. By the time Quixote came out spanish literature was already veering towards satire so its no wonder people were sick of that goodie two shoes crap, specially as the Bandoleros started becoming regional heroes due to the corruption of the nobility.
 
Last edited:
If optics mattered, would there be a single Democratic Senator not named Cory Booker there? He's the only one who isnt moderately to extremely unattractive and the only one that can kind of control his facial expressions. There wouldnt be more than a handful of the middle aged Republican Senators who look like reasonably not ugly men in their 40s and 50s there.
Yeah, but if optics mattered Cory wouldn't be there because he's a total retard.
 
Part of that is them getting to say "I told you so" the other part is How are the Republicans so fucking stupid not to see this coming? Idk how big of a hit ACB will be on Trump or whether it will impact the election in a big way, but either way Republicans should be better prepared than this. They keep fighting yesterday's war with yesterday's rules. How have they not learned anything in 4 years?

Why would they bother bringing out real weapons for something that the Democrats have a near zero chance of stopping? Let the retards showboat, it's not like anyone is changing their minds based on this.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: EmuWarsVeteran
The Caballerescas are basically the spanish version of the arthurian legends or swaschbuckling tales, so yeah "adventure romance" would be the larger international genre they fit in. They were always based on noble knights during the reconquista fighting evil and saving opressed peasants. So basically like Quixote but unironically. By the time Quixote came out spanish literature was already veering towards satire so its no wonder people were sick of that goodie two shoes crap, specially as the Bandoleros started becoming regional heroes due to the corruption of the nobility.
Thank you, very interesting.
 
Yes, that's what I was saying - it wasn't the broadcasting that made it so. As for politics not being chivalrous, that's probably for the best considering chivalry only makes sense in an environment which acknowledges and respects it philosophically, otherwise it seems absurd; I think the absence of that environment for a chivalrous protagonist was the basis of the presumed humor in Don Quixote.
Yeah occasionally people will idolize the past and try to say politics wasn’t so bad back then but completely ignore the duels and sometimes literal brawls that took place
 
Back