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:
Supreme Court that ruled in favor of counting ballots (aka voting fraud) three days after the election.
I don't know why people keep saying this. Its not voting fraud if it takes a period of time to circulate through the mail before being counted. What is a good point to drive is the window of time for the ballots to be delivered, a few days? A week? An Entire Month? Almost any period of time will have allegations of being an arbitrary time frame. We have become too used to knowing the results the same night as the elections, this is a rarity, for most of the life of the US it would take weeks to know the results as results had to be moved around by ship or horseback. Eventually it was cut down to days as each rural area routed their counts to the nearest city and it was broadcast via telegraph wire to the state capitols and then D.C.. Even when electrification of the rural areas occurred it had delayed results like Truman v Dewey or Bush v Gore. Even Hillary v Trump was delayed as the margins were so close in some states.
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: Syaoran Li
Interesting article from VDARE. Black Kids Matter?
Will Amy Coney Barrett Vote For The Historic American Nation—Or Worry About Making Her Adopted Haitian Kids Cry?



When has the GOP ever done this? Do you think Lispy Graham will be your Franco?

Get your fascism memes straight, dude. Franco was a sellout. Primo De Rivera is the real fucking deal. And no, I don't expect her to be the next Primo. That's Trumps job, she just needs to ward off the dems while he does his thing.
 
Get your fascism memes straight, dude. Franco was a sellout. Primo De Rivera is the real fucking deal. And no, I don't expect her to be the next Primo. That's Trumps job, she just needs to ward off the dems while he does his thing.

My mistake, didn’t have my coffee yet.

You’re being sarcastic, but a lot of plan-trusting morons still unironically think Trump is gonna start doing Primo shit at this point, when his admin hasn’t even conserved the definitions of man and woman or really anything but the typical GOP slop.
 
Last edited:
My mistake, didn’t have my coffee yet.

You’re being sarcastic, right? You can’t really think Trump is gonna start doing Primo shit at this point lol, his admin hasn’t even conserved the definitions of man and woman.

Well he did build the wall, erased the TPP (and thank god for that shit), spent his entire term cleansing the FBI (sadly not enough), drastically changed the republican hyerarchy, changed labor laws for the better, banned critical race theory and got the supreme court at least partially fixed. Not to mention how he's used these riots to start jailing BLM and Antifa left and right.

I'd say he's already got a pretty decent track record, and if he also assfucks Obamacare, like he was gonna do before romney fucked him over, and uses the Hunter scandal to cleanse that swamp. Fucking hell dude, he'd jump straight to the forefront in success for reactionary politics, like that's some real good shit.
 
Well he did build the wall, erased the TPP (and thank god for that shit), spent his entire term cleansing the FBI (sadly not enough), drastically changed the republican hyerarchy, changed labor laws for the better, banned critical race theory and got the supreme court at least partially fixed. Not to mention how he's used these riots to start jailing BLM and Antifa left and right.

I'd say he's already got a pretty decent track record, and if he also assfucks Obamacare, like he was gonna do before romney fucked him over, and uses the Hunter scandal to cleanse that swamp. Fucking hell dude, he'd jump straight to the forefront in success for reactionary politics, like that's some real good shit.

That’s better than nothing but it’s not a reactionary counterrevolution lol, he’s completely incomparable with Primo and etc (which I never expected of him or thought was realistic to ask - you made the comparison, not me).

The leftward drift of American culture has not changed under him (a key part of every historical reactionary tendency was top-down cultural reform). Critical race theory still persists in the media, private sector, and overall cultural milieu (and multiculturalism/demographic decline march on). He’s a social liberal who’s more likely to have a delegation of MAGA-hat trannies at the White House than ban drag queen story hour and etc.

Look at who he amplifies: Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens, the whole coterie of cucks.
 
Last edited:
Article II, Section 2, Clause III Grants the President the power to fill vacancies that occure durring a recess of the Senate. It was a topic back in 2016 as a back door for Garland.

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."


"Could President Obama make a nominee during that recess? Only if the Senate is taking a recess lasting longer than three days, and does not come in from time to time during that recess to take some minimal legislative action. Both of those circumstances would be entirely within the Senate’s authority."

Which is why the Senate has refused to officially recess for almost four years now, so President Trump is denied the ability to make recess appointments. I mean, I am remembering this right, aren't I?
 
That’s better than nothing but it’s not a reactionary counterrevolution lol, he’s completely incomparable with Primo and etc (which I never expected of him or thought was realistic to ask - you made the comparison, not me).

The leftward drift of American culture has not changed under him (a key part of every historical reactionary tendency was top-down cultural reform). Critical race theory still persists in the media, private sector, and overall cultural milieu (and multiculturalism/demographic decline march on). He’s a social liberal who’s more likely to have a delegation of MAGA-hat trannies at the White House than ban drag queen story hour and etc.

Look at who he amplifies: Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens, the whole coterie of cucks.

I'd say you're wrong in saying that the leftward shift hasn't changed. And I'd say it's better his way than an actual counterrevolution. Just look at how they all ended. Primo was followed by the socialist revolution, Franco turned spain into one of the most hardcore left wing countries in europe, portugal's fascism turned the country into a socialist republic. Meanwhile to find the right wing in europe you gotta go to the ex-commies like hungary, serbia and russia. Pendulum theory is a bitch and the harsher the turn is the worse it gets when it swings back, Trump has managed to shift it backwards without accelerating it, if he manages to solidify his second term I think america is set for a right wing shift, but it needs to be done right, and I'd say he knows how.
 
I'd say you're wrong in saying that the leftward shift hasn't changed. And I'd say it's better his way than an actual counterrevolution. Just look at how they all ended. Primo was followed by the socialist revolution, Franco turned spain into one of the most hardcore left wing countries in europe, portugal's fascism turned the country into a socialist republic. Meanwhile to find the right wing in europe you gotta go to the ex-commies like hungary, serbia and russia. Pendulum theory is a bitch and the harsher the turn is the worse it gets when it swings back, Trump has managed to shift it backwards without accelerating it, if he manages to solidify his second term I think america is set for a right wing shift, but it needs to be done right, and I'd say he knows how.

If you’re afraid of pendulum theory, Trump has emboldened the left who incorrectly perceive him as a fascist they must fight by any means necessary. There is undeniably a backlash against him, same as if he were a real fashy strongman.

A right wing shift from whom? Gen Z, set to be the gayest and brownest generation ever? What does a right-wing shift mean, anyway (according to the GOP, it’s “low taxes, jingoism, and social values to the left of 1990s Joe Biden”)? The “silent majority” is now a cultural and demographic minority, and will become even more so once the boomers die out.

These problems go beyond what Trump or any president could or would do about it, so you can’t really blame him...but that’s exactly why he’s not your savior.
 
Which is why the Senate has refused to officially recess for almost four years now, so President Trump is denied the ability to make recess appointments. I mean, I am remembering this right, aren't I?
It's more than four years. It's a practice they've kept up for decades I believe.

This video goes through it briefly.

The recess business is covered around 3:20
 
I don't know why people keep saying this. Its not voting fraud if it takes a period of time to circulate through the mail before being counted. What is a good point to drive is the window of time for the ballots to be delivered, a few days? A week? An Entire Month? Almost any period of time will have allegations of being an arbitrary time frame. We have become too used to knowing the results the same night as the elections, this is a rarity, for most of the life of the US it would take weeks to know the results as results had to be moved around by ship or horseback. Eventually it was cut down to days as each rural area routed their counts to the nearest city and it was broadcast via telegraph wire to the state capitols and then D.C.. Even when electrification of the rural areas occurred it had delayed results like Truman v Dewey or Bush v Gore. Even Hillary v Trump was delayed as the margins were so close in some states.
I voted last week, the election happens the same time every four years. Voting machines are electronic, people who vote in the mail have months to send it. There is no reason at all to not have the votes counted by midnight, if you can't figure out how the USPS works, maybe you shouldn't be trusted to elect a leader.
 
The USPS doesn't work, unless you call sitting around in decrepit offices and getting uppity when people dare to come claim their packages, delivered to the post office by FedEx or UPS, "work."
Nothing like the old days, when from time to time one of the sullen Postal Workers Union members would kill everyone else in the building. "Going postal," it was called.
 
I don't know why people keep saying this. Its not voting fraud if it takes a period of time to circulate through the mail before being counted. What is a good point to drive is the window of time for the ballots to be delivered, a few days? A week? An Entire Month? Almost any period of time will have allegations of being an arbitrary time frame. We have become too used to knowing the results the same night as the elections, this is a rarity, for most of the life of the US it would take weeks to know the results as results had to be moved around by ship or horseback. Eventually it was cut down to days as each rural area routed their counts to the nearest city and it was broadcast via telegraph wire to the state capitols and then D.C.. Even when electrification of the rural areas occurred it had delayed results like Truman v Dewey or Bush v Gore. Even Hillary v Trump was delayed as the margins were so close in some states.
The use of voting machines and ballot scanners has reduced the process of counting ballots.

DRE (Direct Recording electronics) contain a memory card/stick that is inserted into the election management system to be used in the final tabulation.

Ballot scanners (both precinct and central) can scan many ballots (DS450 used by many places can scan 72 ballots a minute) that is then tabulated into the election management system.

The only big limiting factors are:

1) driving the memory stick from a precinct to a central location (Voting devices are not allowed to have internet capabilities)

2) postal service not delivering ballots in a timely fashion. Dont mail your ballots in, use a ballot box or drop them off at a polling place. I can't account for the mailing process but ballot boxes (at least at the polling places ove worked at) have a procedure that must be followed requiring different political affiliations personal to sign off on verify lock numbers.
 
Back