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:

HistoriaCivilis against the Outer Rim being represented in the New Republic Senate like the Core chauvinist he is. Probably a secret neo-Imperial sympathizer. Also his videos are mostly a boring monotone recitation of names and dates.

Ted Cruz shut up why do Republicans always accept dumbass Democratic promises? 'Wah wah you got more Super PAC action than we did arent you saying they're wrong when you get more from them?' There's nothing wrong with any of it! Freedom of speech and freedom of association, aholes.
 
Those of you not sleeping through Cruz's sermon but about to nod off might be interested in this, which speaks to Sheldon Whitehouse's experience and knowledge in the field of dirty money:

Judicial nominee's donations draw ire


By MANU RAJU and SCOTT WONG
06/23/2010 04:59 AM EDT

Republicans have mounted a vigorous attack against a district court nominee whose family donated nearly $700,000 to Democratic candidates and causes, including thousands of dollars to the two Rhode Island senators who recommended him for the job. . . .

Since 1993, McConnell and his wife, Sara, have contributed $694,000 to Democratic campaigns and committees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political contributions. That includes $15,530 to Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed and $12,600 to Sheldon Whitehouse, the state’s junior senator.

The McConnells also donated $157,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee since 1993 and an additional $47,500 to Senate-related campaign committees.

[more at link]
 
ACB probably wishing she still had her mask so she could at least mouth the words "you stupid fucking cunt" when ole Amy Klobberjaw is talking
Klobuchar began by repeating Kamila's opening speech in a vain though not entirely unsuccessful attempt to prove that she would have been a better vice presidential choice.
 
Nothing is gaining traction. They have nothing. RINOs have nothing to pretend to be trepidatious about. She's gonna get confirmed.

I've never met anyone who has hated women more than other women
View attachment 1656858
I think the fact that she sort of proves the whole women need abortions to compete in the upper echelons thing wrong really rattles the self-proclaimed "nasty women" demo.
 
Ginsburg getting Reaper'd really screwed up the Dems plans for this election.
Their mail-in ballot fraud plot centered around the last chance for Republicans being a 5-4 Repub Court...which was in actuality a 5-4 Dem Court with Lolita Express John Roberts.
The Court going to 6-3 Repub blows that out of the water, so now I tend to believe the only play left is violence and intimidation from now until January.
Just please please please invoke the Insurrection Act after the election and put these useless Commie retards in the ground once and for all.
 
How did day 1 go? Didn't have the ability to watch it.

After day 2, it seems that they keep screeching about the ACA and "PEOPLE WILL DIE" line we are familiar with. She seems pretty good so far.
Cornyn asked her to show her notebook to see if she had been taking notes because of how competently she had been answering questions. It was blank and it's now a meme.

Most of us internet degenerates are reasonably bright but there's no way I could deal with a senate inquisition without keeping track of the questions, especially when it's a dozen questions inside 30 minutes of pontificating about irrelevant things.

She's sharp. Really sharp.

Otherwise it was democrats babbling about Trump and conspicuously avoiding attacking her religious beliefs, unlike in 2017 when they tried that route of character assassination.
 
I think the fact that she sort of proves the whole women need abortions to compete in the upper echelons thing wrong really rattles the self-proclaimed "nasty women" demo.

That is one I will never understand, just look at the STEM community. I dunno about other countries but here in spain we got a very good share of mothers that have managed to be very successful, specially on biotech and related fields, which btw are fields on which international organisms consistently rank us amongst the top countries on. Yes it is true than children make it statistically harder to get to the top echelons, mostly because they inevitably take some degree of time and effort to raise, but they make it far from impossible. I mean, I have not found any environment more competitive than STEM academia, if they can excell at that shit, they can excell anywhere else... well except sports, probably, pregnancy fucks you up biologically.

But this is on a whole new level, managing to get that high with that many children is indeed truly awe inspiring, she should be a role model to any honest egalitarian, political views aside. But no, because she is conservative, the feminists use as an insult the same thing they'd be praising if she were a dem. And "nasty women" attack her viciously for not getting abortions.

I mean, nothing wrong with being married to your job either, I've known multiple people like that, both men and women, and almost all of them were fairly good and gentle people, but they also attack such people, calling them "incels" and mocking them for being chaste.

So if having a stable family is bad and being married to your job is also bad. What is the good option? Being a miserable degenerate faggot?! God. It's like they hate people just because of being happy.

Honestly, if you're young and you're reading this: do whatever the fuck makes you happy. But do whatever makes you TRULY happy. Don't let short term pleasure turn you into such a fucking monster that seeing others succeed makes you writhe and seethe like that. I am the first to criticize religion when needed, but it sure as shit also got some shit right, and this is the most important one: Carnaval means nothing without Cuaresma. Letting yourself go once a year is healthy, but letting your base animalistic instincts drive you like that is the easiest way to turn into a horrible person.

The fact that the american congress is showing itself to be filled with such scum during these showings is honestly disheartening on a whole new level.
 
Remember that Barrett is sworn and the senators aren't. Their reckoning will come upon their eventual deaths.
I have never seen a less impressive group of people than the senate. These hearings always infuriate me. You could sequester a random assortment of underbridge hobos, put them in suits, and eke out a more coherent, reasonable, respectable performance.
 
I have never seen a less impressive group of people than the senate. These hearings always infuriate me. You could sequester a random assortment of underbridge hobos, put them in suits, and eke out a more coherent, reasonable, respectable performance.
You could do a whole cringe reel of Congressional smoothbrains whenever there are hearings on anything technological, when the old senators and representatives say they can't make their VCRs stop blinking, the middle-aged ones say their kids program their phones for them, and the young ones try to seem cool by saying they enjoy playing Halo Crossing.
 
I have never seen a less impressive group of people than the senate. These hearings always infuriate me. You could sequester a random assortment of underbridge hobos, put them in suits, and eke out a more coherent, reasonable, respectable performance.
And yet people keep voting them into office.
 
And yet people keep voting them into office.
My engagement with voters over the last few years has taught me that most people know nothing beyond mainsteam media headlines and Facebook memes. Trying to reason with people like that has taught me that way more people than I would have imagined are unwilling or unable to think about anything. People really do need to be herded. That they are being herded into the abattoir, that they are proudly, ignorantly dancing to their doom is frustrating.

One word to describe the American electorate: hopeless. Two words: fucking retards.
 
Back