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:
Yeah, that's what I meant.

That doesn't sound very encouraging. The Democrats are going to continue to hit Republicans on ObamaCare until the confirmation hearing and McConnell has to get one of Gardner, Romney, Murkowski, and Collins to say "Yes". I still think she will get through, but if she doesn't or at least doesn't get confirmed until after the election...
Don't get me wrong, I meant that their performances were serviceable. On one hand, the Democrats are hitting on the ACA, but they have no dignity, style, or grace in their performances. Whitehouse sounded like a kook, Blumental had a face made for radio, Klobuchar was clearly nervous and couldn't help but laugh inappropriately, Hirono... existed anywhere near Congress...

Especially compared to that, Republicans did a serviceable job. My assessment also comes from the belief that this is just political theater that doesn't change the fact that this is going to be a party line vote.
 
So how exactly does the term "sexual preference" imply it's a choice anyway?
Does anyone really have a "choice" in what they prefer in any context?
It doesn't need to make sense. That's the level we're on now. The days of meaningful reason are over.

The modern indoctrinated process is simply: ACB does not agree with us; not agreeing with us means you're either stupid or evil. ACB is not stupid, thus she is evil. Specifically, she is an evil Christian conservative woman. Therefore she is going to immediately repeal Roe V Wade, hates the LGBTQ community and is a slave to her Husband. Everything she says is then interpreted through that lens disingenuously or sometimes earnestly, depending on whether the journalist is morally bankrupt or irredeemably stupid. This goes on and on till there's a list of social charges against her. This is proof she is evil now, and of course by extension, so is Drumpf, in contrast to the holy RGB and the Democratic Party.
 
EkQp-i_XsAE2jyQ.png
EkQp9vUXcAYy2OF.png


Mirriam Webster edited the definition of "preference" today to add "offensive" to the description as a result of this hearing. I can understand that language is flexible and words have a tendency to mutate over the course of time, but if you can't win an argument unless you literally edit the definition of words in order to regain a footing, maybe you're just fucking stupid and you should make better arguments.
 
View attachment 1660739 View attachment 1660738

Mirriam Webster edited the definition of "preference" today to add "offensive" to the description as a result of this hearing. I can understand that language is flexible and words have a tendency to mutate over the course of time, but if you can't win an argument unless you literally edit the definition of words in order to regain a footing, maybe you're just fucking stupid and you should make better arguments.
I'm just waiting for Merriam Webster to have its inevitable purge of activist bullshit soon.

Also something something 1984.
 
View attachment 1660739 View attachment 1660738

Mirriam Webster edited the definition of "preference" today to add "offensive" to the description as a result of this hearing. I can understand that language is flexible and words have a tendency to mutate over the course of time, but if you can't win an argument unless you literally edit the definition of words in order to regain a footing, maybe you're just fucking stupid and you should make better arguments.
Don't bisexuals state they have a "preference" to one gender over the other all the time? Would that make this another case of bi-erasure? 🤔
 
View attachment 1660739 View attachment 1660738

Mirriam Webster edited the definition of "preference" today to add "offensive" to the description as a result of this hearing. I can understand that language is flexible and words have a tendency to mutate over the course of time, but if you can't win an argument unless you literally edit the definition of words in order to regain a footing, maybe you're just fucking stupid and you should make better arguments.
They used to be a bit more subtle about this newspeak kikery.
 
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, no one batted an eye at 'sexual preference' for the longest time but now the media is actively trying to make it some archaic insensitive slur on the level of the strawman of the evangelical conservative sneering that homosexuality is a choice.
 
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, no one batted an eye at 'sexual preference' for the longest time but now the media is actively trying to make it some archaic insensitive slur on the level of the strawman of the evangelical conservative sneering that homosexuality is a choice.
As others in the thread have said, they have nothing else, so they're making shit up at this point and hoping normies won't notice.
 
View attachment 1660739 View attachment 1660738

Mirriam Webster edited the definition of "preference" today to add "offensive" to the description as a result of this hearing. I can understand that language is flexible and words have a tendency to mutate over the course of time, but if you can't win an argument unless you literally edit the definition of words in order to regain a footing, maybe you're just fucking stupid and you should make better arguments.

Even dictionaries are pozzed now. Sometimes when I take a step back and really assess how insane everything is I wonder if I’m actually the insane person. These demons are not just brainwashing through MSM but literally editing the dictionary now?
 
Even dictionaries are pozzed now. Sometimes when I take a step back and really assess how insane everything is I wonder if I’m actually the insane person. These demons are not just brainwashing through MSM but literally editing the dictionary now?
Some days things get so surreal and insane I have moments where I wonder if I'm wrong about all of it. The propaganda is slamming into our collective common sense day in day out like a fucking battering ram. They literally aim to control language and retroactively socially criminalize any dissent. Some of the blatant gaslighting that occurs on a national level on a daily basis could unironically be the basis of a modern take on 1984. It's all crazy.
 
Even dictionaries are pozzed now. Sometimes when I take a step back and really assess how insane everything is I wonder if I’m actually the insane person. These demons are not just brainwashing through MSM but literally editing the dictionary now?

If reality is against you, then reality is the enemy. This is current Leftist playbook and is taught unironically in colleges now.

social_construction_1.png


social_construction_2.png
 
View attachment 1660739 View attachment 1660738

Mirriam Webster edited the definition of "preference" today to add "offensive" to the description as a result of this hearing. I can understand that language is flexible and words have a tendency to mutate over the course of time, but if you can't win an argument unless you literally edit the definition of words in order to regain a footing, maybe you're just fucking stupid and you should make better arguments.
People look at me like I'm a qtard when I say it, but this kind of thing has been their gameplan for decades now. The commie purges in hollywood back in the 20th century seem to have really turned celebs in general further and further left - the Dems control public opinion through entertainment industry. "fact checking" on sites like twitter and facebook allows them to control public discourse by exposing people to their way of thinking while censoring anything resembling wrongthink - the Dems control what you're allowed to say in public, and whether you're allowed to keep your job if you express wrongthink, because leftists will often try to get people fired for imagined offenses or simply because they dare to not be leftists themselves. They have spent years coddling up to teachers because they know that state sponsored education is basically state sponsored programming - the Dems control our youth by controlling early access to their developing minds. And then there's shit like this, and streaming services pulling "offensive" programming, and the like - Dems now want to control what information is available to much of the public. They are setting everything up to grab absolute, total control of everything. The fact that they're so desperate against ACB confirmation and against a second Trump term tells me that 2016 really threw a wrench into their plans. Their best made plans may in fact sink like the titanic if they can't conjure up a win this year, and they are terrified.
 
Even dictionaries are pozzed now. Sometimes when I take a step back and really assess how insane everything is I wonder if I’m actually the insane person. These demons are not just brainwashing through MSM but literally editing the dictionary now?

Real-time, in fact, and in direct response to losing an argument..... it's shocking. "We declare you lost because your words, retroactively, mean different things now, so when you said "green" on record yesterday, well, today we have redefined green to mean "red", and that's clearly wrong, the item in question was not red, so you lose."
 
I mean she is a federal judge and has been nominated to the Supreme Court. No shit she's a hell of a lot smarter than anyone here. Literally 150+ IQ zone there.

View attachment 1660325
World's "fittest woman" just had a kid. Guess we'll see how that goes, but it doesn't look like it's slowing her down much too much.

Holy shit that's no woman that's the Terminator. Jokes aside, I meant more on Olympic competition and shit like that, fitness expertise is more lenient, but as impressed as I am, knowing what goes on in a metabolic sense I have to say:

World's "fittest woman" shouldn't be working out while pregnant, what the hell.

Yeah. I mean, moderate exercice is always good. But holy shit. I could rant for hours about how the fetus secretes hormones which affect the metabolic pathways to feed itself and how this affects doing exercice, but let's just get to the most basic: Oxygen.

Prenatal Hemoglobin is not the same as regulat Hemoglobin. It is an altered molecule which attracts oxigen more strongly than the regular one. This is because if it didn't attract oxygen more then it wouldn't feed the necessary amount of oxygen to the unborn child.

This causes issues because, well, for all intents and purposes the body of the mother will need extra oxygen, a lot of it. This is why many pregnant women can get short of breath and have what in spanish we call "sofocos", which I believe is translated as "hot flash" but I'm not sure.

Point is. Usually while doing exercice your body increases the volume of air per minute that your body processes. But for pregnant women it is already doing that, so instead it just can't process more air, which results in fainting. This can also cause brain damage to both the mother and child and developmental issues to the child.

Not saying pregnant women can't do aerobic exercice, they can, specially for short periods of time. But it is dangerous for both the mother and the baby, specially if it is for a prolonged period of time and specially on the later months. So I can't help but be concerned.

That would mean Trump will get to put four Justices in during his first term.

Jokes aside. If trump gets a second term, we might see the supreme court turned into a full house of republicans for maybe decades. And personally I dislike single party situations like that on principle, but seeng just how much democrat supreme court apointees have tried to attack the constitution it might just be for the better.

You really need to get rid of the fucking 2 party system, man. It goes to shit if one of the parties becomes hostile to democracy, and it's very clear the dems have passed that point hardcore. You need third parties to start having more influence to stop this bullshit from happening again.
 
Back