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:
Wasn't there a guy here whose sister did?

Yep, that was me. I remembered my sister had gone to Dominican a couple of years earlier than Barrett. So I called her up to hopefully get some juicy stories only to be told that I'm a real dumbass, that she had transferred in her sophmore year to the other big Catholic girls school. So no stories, unfortunately. Just me getting called a dumbass by my sister.
 
View attachment 1659758

Amy Coney Barret owns a fridge, but says she can rule fairly on a case about appliances.
Amy Coney Barret owns a dog, but says she can rule fairly on a case about animal rights.
Amy Coney Barret owns a house, but says she could rule fairly on a case about the 4th Amendment.

That's you. That's what you sound like.
Who the fuck makes that argument? There are like 6 million new gun owners in the country since Corona and the race riots.
 
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?
10 years ago "preference" would've been more incorrect, but even then it's splitting hairs.

An orientation is what you want as a whole. "I am only oriented towards women or men." A preference is a specific trait or even a specific activity. I.e., "I have a thing for red heads," "I prefer getting to know someone before I sleep with them," etc.

However, the Dems are actually way behind their woke voting base on this one. Gay rights? Nah, they're accepted and flaunted everywhere now. Women's rights? Well OK but that's still old. It's all about trans rights now. Women can have dicks and men can have vaginas and periods now and also danger doesn't exist uwu. So if you say "I'm a lesbian, I prefer women" then you better be prepared to take progressive ladydick. Now that crowd is saying "do you prefer X genital."
 
Fucking hell. Watching her demolish Feinstein by referencing stuff she's written by chapter and verse from memory to tear apart her argument.

Usually when at these things it's all, "Do you have a page number?", and then they flip through a document and read their own words like they've never even seen them before.

I don't have to agree with all her opinions, but this woman is sharp.
 
If reality is against you, then reality is the enemy. This is current Leftist playbook and is taught unironically in colleges now.

View attachment 1660917

View attachment 1660919
I want to keep more receipts like these, but it's too stressful.
It's a Catholic high school that obviously failed miserably in the education of the author of this miserable piece. It should withdraw her diploma, presuming she stuck around long enough to get one.
As a Catholic involved in youth ministry for 10 years (hope that's not too much of a PL), I can say with authority that most "Catholic" schools are just public schools with crucifixes on the walls. They tend to care more about money, prestige, and who can carry a football more than catechesis.
After watching this hearing, I realized that I recognize these asshat politicians.
They were the kids in elementary school who were the hall monitors. They were also the ones who would rat you out to the authorities for any perceived violation of school rules.
They were the ones in high school who ran for student government and were the giant asskissers who would ingratiate themselves with the teachers. They were unremarkable students; not smart enough to be in the chess club, not athletic enough to be in sports, not edgy enough to be the stoners or rebels. You might find a few of them in speech and debate or drama club. You would never find them in calculus or any honor level STEM type pursuit. The females weren't "cute" enough to be cheerleaders.
They were the ones that always seemed to linger on the outskirts of their peer social groups, but you could frequently find them volunteering to help the school office staff. Even then, they seemed to want to police their peers behavior and suck up to power.
Maybe. But I always think of them as that one kid in the class who was a conceited, political know-it-all prick, ran for student council president, and thought he was the next JFK for getting into an Ivy League school.
 
Who the fuck makes that argument? There are like 6 million new gun owners in the country since Corona and the race riots.
Which, the Democrats said yesterday, proves that we need judges who can find a way to eviscerate the Second Amendment. Listening to Democrats is not good for your mental health, but we have to do it, because they sometimes let us know what they're up to. Then the pajamaboys at CNN took it a step further.
 
My takeaway from the confirmation: OMG guise this BASED AND TRAD shrill feminist #girlboss who cries at the altar of St Floyd of Fent with her rainbow family and takes care not to offend the “LGBTQ (can’t forget the Q) community” is gonna save America by doing nothing about Roe v Wade or any other liberal diktat really! Why no I didn’t type this with one hand, why do you ask?

Instead of the clerical fascist psycho libs make her out to be, she’s exactly what I expected: a lame virtue signaling cosmopolitan like every other high-ranking lawyer in DC.
 
Last edited:
She has said some extremely cringe things that make me not like her. Better than the alternative though, so whatever. I understand why they can't just nominate another Scalia or Thomas ATM.
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:


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.
She has the most crossfit wins of any woman. Yeah I know crossfit is dumb as a path to fitness, but someone's ability to win their championships is still an extreme testament to her athleticism. It's basically fitness as a sport. If you'd ever seen pics of her before that is her taking it easy. Probably comparable to a normal person having a walk. Anyway point being that while having kids is obviously hard on a woman, it's not an excuse for lack of success.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: EmuWarsVeteran
barrett-mom.jpg
 
Instead of the clerical fascist psycho libs make her out to be, she’s exactly what I expected: a lame virtue signaling cosmopolitan like every other high-ranking lawyer in DC.

I think if you've formed any opinions of her actual views based on the things she said in these hearings, you're inserting your own preconceptions into it. She's been almost religious about not expressing any personal views outside of purely technical legal opinions.
 
I think if you've formed any opinions of her actual views based on the things she said in these hearings, you're inserting your own preconceptions into it. She's been almost religious about not expressing any personal views outside of purely technical legal opinions.
That's what he has a problem with.

I never expected her or any other judge to be some firebrand culture warrior who would seriously fight the liberal status quo in the first place. It’s not even really about her: The courts have enforced the liberal status quo since before she was born and precedent makes it hard to wage culture war through the courts (recent precedent mostly backs up the liberal view).

The problem is, most conservatives think she will be that activist judge to save them from the left...which sets them up for disappointment when she inevitably flounces on a ruling about amnesty or trans kids or something like Gorsuch and Roberts did.
 
I never expected her or any other judge to be some firebrand culture warrior who would seriously fight the liberal status quo in the first place. It’s not even really about her: The courts have enforced the liberal status quo since before she was born and precedent makes it hard to wage culture war through the courts (recent precedent mostly backs up the liberal view).

The problem is, most conservatives think she will be that activist judge to save them from the left...which sets them up for disappointment when she inevitably flounces on a ruling about amnesty or trans kids or something like Gorsuch and Roberts did.
Problem is, you need to pay attention, which you clearly haven't been doing. The Constitution does not say you can abort your child. It does not grant a right to marry your butt buddy. Those things were made up out of thin air by activist liberal judges, who claimed the Constitution contains such rights. What conservatives seek are judges who limit their interpretation of the Constitution to what it, as amended, actually says. If liberals want to enshrine buggery or baby killing, the conservatives say, that's fine: but they have to pass a fucking law to bring that about. No shortcuts.
 
Back