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:
Hirono's talking about the 5-4 decision on DACA, talking about how a conservative majority would have thrown millions of lives into chaos.

What the hell does this have to do with DACA's constitutional compliance? That's going to be her job-- determining the constitutional compliance of laws and executive actions. Talking about SCOTUS decisions this way all but invalidates the value of the SCOTUS.

Gratifying to see Democrats admit they're not going to do anything about immigration reform. DACA will be yet another thing to kick to the courts (along with abortion and gay rights) because they don't want to have to compromise with Republicans on an immigration bill.
 
I think my favorite part of these hearings so far was when Klobuchunt asked ACB about superprecedent, and when ACB asked her to clarify, Klobuchunt actually says "I thought by now I would be sitting in that chair (getting nominated for SCOTUS), but since you're the one sitting there, how about you tell me what it means?"

The unbridled jealous rage she must feel. Knowing ACB is miles ahead of her in basically all ways. That fucking cunt actually thought she might be a Justice of SCOTUS! When Nick Rackets pointed this out I couldn't believe it. You'll never be on the Supreme Court you River Troll Hag. You'll be lucky to keep your seat in the Senate. Since Saint Floyd would still be alive if you had prosecuted Chauvin when you had the chance years ago.
 
View attachment 1662595

That word is offensive you fucking faggot watch your cock-sucking language. Do you fuck your mother with that mouth? I don't give a shit about your preference, anyways. The only thing that matters is the adherence to the U.S. Constitution and "some fag's feelings" are not a codified portion of the U.S. Constitution. Fuck off and go back to eating pork chops like a serial killer.

If I read his comments and don't read "and cocks" I will be disappointed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EmuWarsVeteran
And Murkowski took over Daddy's seat. Who appointed her? Why, Daddy did, after he gave up his senate seat to be Alaska's governor. I'll note that people were so pissed off about the glaring nepotism that they stripped the power to appoint senators away from the governor. She's not as bright as daddy was, and while she's corrupt, he was much more corrupt than she could ever dream of being. But Daddy won his elections with more than 50% of votes cast, something Lisa has never managed to accomplish in her time in the Senate.
 
I think my favorite part of these hearings so far was when Klobuchunt asked ACB about superprecedent, and when ACB asked her to clarify, Klobuchunt actually says "I thought by now I would be sitting in that chair (getting nominated for SCOTUS), but since you're the one sitting there, how about you tell me what it means?"

The unbridled jealous rage she must feel. Knowing ACB is miles ahead of her in basically all ways. That fucking cunt actually thought she might be a Justice of SCOTUS! When Nick Rackets pointed this out I couldn't believe it. You'll never be on the Supreme Court you River Troll Hag. You'll be lucky to keep your seat in the Senate. Since Saint Floyd would still be alive if you had prosecuted Chauvin when you had the chance years ago.
I was confused by that statement of Klobuchar’s, because when has she ever been in the running to be a Supreme Court justice? You have to be one of the foremost scholars of constitutional law to even be considered. What a maroon.
 
Okay, so I've got this headline from our local online news site.
2020-10-15_09-51-11.png

Translation:
Learn more about Trump's controversial nomination to the US Supreme Court.
Amy Barrett understands that the Constitution must be applied the way it was written in 1787.

A serious question now: Legal interpretations notwithstanding, what's wrong with following the Constitution of your own country?
 
Okay, so I've got this headline from our local online news site.
View attachment 1663805
Translation:
Learn more about Trump's controversial nomination to the US Supreme Court.
Amy Barrett understands that the Constitution must be applied the way it was written in 1787.

A serious question now: Legal interpretations notwithstanding, what's wrong with following the Constitution of your own country?
That's not progressive.
 
Okay, so I've got this headline from our local online news site.
View attachment 1663805
Translation:
Learn more about Trump's controversial nomination to the US Supreme Court.
Amy Barrett understands that the Constitution must be applied the way it was written in 1787.

A serious question now: Legal interpretations notwithstanding, what's wrong with following the Constitution of your own country?
Apparently, there's a statute of limitations on ideas, nevermind the fact that we still use Newtonian Mechanics, which is older than the US constitution by 100 years.
 
A serious question now: Legal interpretations notwithstanding, what's wrong with following the Constitution of your own country?
It's rooted in concepts like liberty, personal choice and responsibility, government limitation, and the advancement of civilization. Such concepts are the sweet fruit of Western Christianity, and thus anathema to the power brokers who killed it's prophet. They are also the fetters which bound the aristocrat class to historical irrelevance, and thus must be shattered to allow the would-be new kings of technology to take a modern throne.

So basically nothing, unless you're from an evil religious sect or desire to be a tyrant.
 
It's rooted in concepts like liberty, personal choice and responsibility, government limitation, and the advancement of civilization. Such concepts are the sweet fruit of Western Christianity, and thus anathema to the power brokers who killed it's prophet. They are also the fetters which bound the aristocrat class to historical irrelevance, and thus must be shattered to allow the would-be new kings of technology to take a modern throne.

So basically nothing, unless you're from an evil religious sect or desire to be a tyrant.
Sometimes that scrap of paper gets in the way of your Superior Future(tm).

*stress sigh*
 
That's not progressive.

You know. I am the first to point at the parts of the american constitution I see as outdated or just plain wrong. (FPTP, faithless electors, poor wording and deliberately wrong interpretations leading to judicial branch tyranny, and poor intra-state distribution of power. Oh and also that part about cops literally having no duty to actually do their job. Wtf is up with that last one?!)

But you'd think people would get that if you think the constitution has segments which are wrong or outdated, then it is the job of the ammendment process to fix them by following proper legal procedure. I mean, that's literally why the ammendment process was created to begin with, in order to ensure possible flaws can be fixed!

So if there already is a process for that. Why exactly would we NOT want those sworn into the organism whose job it is to enforce the constitution as written to, you know, do their fucking job?! Oh yeah it's because they know damned well their ideology cannot stand up to scrutiny long enough for them to use the ammendment process without getting curbstomped on the meantime and would rather abuse the previously mention judicial tyranny to unofficially enforce inmoral and downright unconstitutional non-written laws.

That's probably why they were so assmad about "superprecedent", they want their ideology to set precedent and be left unquestioned immediately, they can't stand the fact that as it turns out judges aren't magic and precedents can be challenged.
 
You know. I am the first to point at the parts of the american constitution I see as outdated or just plain wrong. (FPTP, faithless electors, poor wording and deliberately wrong interpretations leading to judicial branch tyranny, and poor intra-state distribution of power. Oh and also that part about cops literally having no duty to actually do their job. Wtf is up with that last one?!)

But you'd think people would get that if you think the constitution has segments which are wrong or outdated, then it is the job of the ammendment process to fix them by following proper legal procedure. I mean, that's literally why the ammendment process was created to begin with, in order to ensure possible flaws can be fixed!

So if there already is a process for that. Why exactly would we NOT want those sworn into the organism whose job it is to enforce the constitution as written to, you know, do their fucking job?! Oh yeah it's because they know damned well their ideology cannot stand up to scrutiny long enough for them to use the ammendment process without getting curbstomped on the meantime and would rather abuse the previously mention judicial tyranny to unofficially enforce inmoral and downright unconstitutional non-written laws.

That's probably why they were so assmad about "superprecedent", they want their ideology to set precedent and be left unquestioned immediately, they can't stand the fact that as it turns out judges aren't magic and precedents can be challenged.
They care a great deal about challenging a precedent if it's on a ruling they don't like. Much like they're all for going to a select group of officials they didn't elect to overrule majority vote if the majority voted in a way they don't like - such as running to the courts when every single state voted to amend its constitution to ban gay marriage.
 
Back