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:
What the fuck, the Dems didn't show up to the hearing so they don't have quorum?

These people are absolute vile.

THE MAD MAN GRAHAM IS MOVING AHEAD WITH THE VOTE.
No. Not true. Vote will be one week from today. I'm only sorry that Stolen Valor Blumenthal gets additional chance to slime the room as a result.
 
what happened? i checked out after cruz talked about the abe lincoln precedent the dems are pushing.

No. Not true. Vote will be one week from today. I'm only sorry that Stolen Valor Blumenthal gets additional chance to slime the room as a result.

There was an early vote on setting the date for the actual vote to put forward the nomination to the Senate on the 22nd. This was done at the start of today's hearing. I think only Rubin was present but the Ranking Member Feinstein didn't show up for proper quorum to force Graham to break with precedent. Graham said, nope, we're doing the vote to determine the date for the actual vote, and all the Republicans votes "Aye" and Rubin voted by proxy "No" for all the Democratic members but then said he couldn't do it for Feinstein so there was no quorum. It was just another tactic from the Democrats to stonewall this whole thing. Some aide from Graham came in and gave him a bit of paper that said this has happened before.

Someone correct me if I got this wrong.
 
They go on about Ginsburg's wishes but they never cared about Kennedy's when he retired with the stipulation Kavanaugh would be the nomonie.

Choices have consequences as Graham pointed out in referencing that shit show while going forward. And Zodiac Killer gives a historical smak down on Kamila's debate BS example in regards to Chase.
 
As a gay dude, I hear a lot of my fag pals getting all weepy about ACB being poised to overturn gay marriage and such. To which I always ask "Why are you mad at the courts, and not the legislature? They could just pass a law allowing it, but they refuse." That usually leads to a glittery tantrum and accusations of being racist.
 
The evolution of a monster.

evolution-of-horror.jpg
 
This woman addressing the Committee now has THE most staged-to-hell background. Note the RBG doll (ahem, ACTION FIGURE), the bookshelves laden with kids' photos, and books on display facing forward on a bookshelf. I hate these people SO MUCH with their bleeding heart "testimony." It's all about the feels.

sorry it's a photo of my TV screen, couldn't pull up a stream quickly to try to screengrab lol

1602778655443.png


I'm a MOM!
 
They go on about Ginsburg's wishes but they never cared about Kennedy's when he retired with the stipulation Kavanaugh would be the nomonie.

Choices have consequences as Graham pointed out in referencing that shit show while going forward. And Zodiac Killer gives a historical smak down on Kamila's debate BS example in regards to Chase.
When Scalia croaked in early 2016, the Onion posted a horrible gravedancing article, something like "Scalia loses his battle with progress".

They need to fucking pay for that.
 
How hard was it to make a bill that was constitutionally consistent so its future existence doesn't hinge on who dies/retires in a group of 9 people and who replaces them?
The entire american status quo carefily built by the 2 party system depends on never doing that so they can enforce laws however the fuck they please.

Sadly for them Trump aint playin that game.
 
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?
This is incorrect because Amendments are part of the Constitution as well, and they're actually saying she wouldn't consider the fucking Bill of Rights in her decision. Fucking lol. Also, she clerked for Scalia, so no shit she is an originalist.

Also the values of the Enlightenment, when it was written, are better than the values we fucking have today. Selfishness, narcissism, a small group matters far more than the majority...oh and slavery was going to be written out of the constitution but the South wanted to keep them. So shut the fuck up.
 
What's going on in the Cone Zone today?
Blumenthal's meltdown continues. It was talked about a bit yesterday, but in her 1800 pages of disclosures she left out a few talks she gave that were listed on the Notre Dame events calendar. Blumenthal is now arguing her nomination should be "delayed indefinitely" because of this discrepency. Senate Judiciary Committee dismissed the attempt to delay in a vote (12 Republicans vs 10 Democrats).

McConnell says he has the votes need to confirm her. The panel will vote October 22 then it will go to the Senate.

The Dems continue to parade mothers saying their sick, feeble-bodied children will die without Obamacare. 27 protestors were arrested for blocking the entrance to the building. Fantastic headlines from left wing publications.

tt.pngplnn.pngjj.png
 
Blumenthal's meltdown continues. It was talked about a bit yesterday, but in her 1800 pages of disclosures she left out a few talks she gave that were listed on the Notre Dame events calendar. Blumenthal is now arguing her nomination should be "delayed indefinitely" because of this discrepency. Senate Judiciary Committee dismissed the attempt to delay in a vote (12 Republicans vs 10 Democrats).

McConnell says he has the votes need to confirm her. The panel will vote October 22 then it will go to the Senate.

The Dems continue to parade mothers saying their sick, feeble-bodied children will die without Obamacare. 27 protestors were arrested for blocking the entrance to the building. Fantastic headlines from left wing publications.

View attachment 1664359View attachment 1664387View attachment 1664389
Between the Hunter Biden stuff and this...

Is this what the California forests feel like?
 
Blumenthal's meltdown continues. It was talked about a bit yesterday, but in her 1800 pages of disclosures she left out a few talks she gave that were listed on the Notre Dame events calendar. Blumenthal is now arguing her nomination should be "delayed indefinitely" because of this discrepency. Senate Judiciary Committee dismissed the attempt to delay in a vote (12 Republicans vs 10 Democrats).

McConnell says he has the votes need to confirm her. The panel will vote October 22 then it will go to the Senate.

The Dems continue to parade mothers saying their sick, feeble-bodied children will die without Obamacare. 27 protestors were arrested for blocking the entrance to the building. Fantastic headlines from left wing publications.

View attachment 1664359View attachment 1664387View attachment 1664389
When does she get confirmed then?
 
Blumenthal's meltdown continues. It was talked about a bit yesterday, but in her 1800 pages of disclosures she left out a few talks she gave that were listed on the Notre Dame events calendar. Blumenthal is now arguing her nomination should be "delayed indefinitely" because of this discrepency. Senate Judiciary Committee dismissed the attempt to delay in a vote (12 Republicans vs 10 Democrats).

McConnell says he has the votes need to confirm her. The panel will vote October 22 then it will go to the Senate.

The Dems continue to parade mothers saying their sick, feeble-bodied children will die without Obamacare. 27 protestors were arrested for blocking the entrance to the building. Fantastic headlines from left wing publications.

View attachment 1664359View attachment 1664387View attachment 1664389
Dems could be treating Christians the way China treats Uyghurs, and WaPo would find a way to rationalize it. Too bad they're propped up by Bezosbux and Beijingbux, or else they'd go the way of Gawker like they deserve.
 
My favorite bit for today so far was when Sen. Durbin tried to imply that Barrett thinks that gun rights are more important than voting rights by deliberately misinterpeting her past statements and opinions. They're really grasping at straws today, aren't they?
Gun rights are more important and voting is a privilege not a right. Imagine somehow that this is something we should be afraid to say.
 
Gun rights are more important and voting is a privilege not a right. Imagine somehow that this is something we should be afraid to say.
I'm not going to make an argument for or against that, but what I will say is that a basic reading of the 2nd and 14th Amendments clearly supports Barrett's proposition. There's nothing inherently wrong with purposivist arguments for a looser interpretation of the Amendments, I personally disagree with purposivist reasoning based on the fact that public perception of language and morality constantly changes, and deviation from commonly accepted rules tends to create more problems in the long run.
 
I hope to God they get this woman in and she's as conservative as the left seems to be freaking out and thinking she is. Because the USSC is going to be the last line of defense that the country has after this election. I just don't think Trump's going to win in November.
 
Back