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:
Im sad this thread only went to about 65 s far. I was fully expecting shit to go crazy before it hit the Senate. Meh, take victories where we can.
I was/am surprised as well, I thought the Supreme Court nomination would have far more media attention but there has been surprising silence on the subject.

I mean there is the usual histrionics, but I was expecting a Kavanaugh level reactions.

I don't really know what to make of it.
 
murkowski and collins delined to accept the nomination. there's only 51 republicans approving unless the GOPe gets its shit together and gets the broads to vote yes.
 
The whole thing being less of a clownshow (so far) is pleasantly unexpected.
Didn't get a repeat of this, thankfully.

O4bT2OH.jpg
 
I was/am surprised as well, I thought the Supreme Court nomination would have far more media attention but there has been surprising silence on the subject.

I mean there is the usual histrionics, but I was expecting a Kavanaugh level reactions.

I don't really know what to make of it.

Even though they thought they were totally justified, the Dems realize, excepting a few AOC-tier galaxy brains like Chuck Schumer, that the fallout of that was disastrous, and doing it again would be ill advised this close to an election. Also, they're slowly starting to realize that the Trump Republicans refuse to buckle under threat of being called names and that for all their fuming and artful crying, at the end of the day, the Republicans have the votes and will just vote it through.

It might be dawning on them exactly what they lost when the McCain wing collapsed, and their attempt to reassert control over the neocons with aggressive shaming is useless when Trump's popularity amongst the Republican voter base means defying him is an insta-loss of seat. Though I'm not shocked a couple did it anyway, the "lose with dignity" in them is Pavlovian at this point, they'll park a car when they're leading the race because they don't want to "win by too much" , the establishment having trained them that ANTHING they do must either be purely symbolic with no chance of success or a narrow loss, but NEVER a win. Because they're the WRONG party on the WRONG side of history. They can only support the obvious superior progressive future by degree, they can't, even when in power, refuse to implement it.
 
Last edited:
Even though they thought they were totally justified, the Dems realize, excepting a few AOC-tier galaxy brains like Chuck Schumer, that the fallout of that was disastrous, and doing it again would be ill advised this close to an election. Also, they're slowly starting to realize that the Trump Republicans refuse to "lose with dignity" and that all their fuming and artful crying, at the end of the day, they have the votes and will just vote it through, it might be dawning on them exactly what they lost when the McCain wing collapsed, and their attempt to reassert control over the neocons with aggressive shaming is useless when Trump's popularity amongst the Republican voter base means defying him is an insta-loss of seat. Though I'm not shocked a couple did it anyway, the "lose with dignity" in them is Pavlovian at this point, they'll park a car when they're leading the race because they dont' want to "win by too much" , the establishment having trained them that ANTHING they do must either be purely symbolic or a narrow loss, but NEVER a win. Because they're the WRONG party on the WRONG side of history.
Not just the McCain wing dying, it was the dems removing the previous facade of gentlemen rules that congress had agreed upon. McConnel and Lidsney Grahm of all people told them during Obama's 1st term: " You change these rules, you will regret it." Once the party of cucks realized that now not only were their wives gonna be fucked but now they were gonna start getting fucked too amazingly they grew a backbone. Well some of them and really because Trump makes it clear you will lose if you don't follow him but even still, I like this new zero sum game of politics.

I prefer all blades up front and shown instead of them stabbing the American public in the back.
 
I think Sasse is aware that if he votes against Barrett he's guaranteed to be primaried, with Republicans across the country and the RNC pouring money into his opponent's coffers. He's spineless, but he wants a good long career as a United States Senator and he's not going to take such a huge risk over Barrett, who he doesn't care about on a personal level. That's my read, anyway.

I'd more expect Romney to vote no, since he can easily outspend any challenger and the Mormons will vote for him no matter what he does.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Clockwork_PurBle
What the fuck are they doing? What is the supposed reason for them doing this boycot and looking like a bunch of clowns instead of showing up and voting against her? I'm not big brained enough to understand why they are making a performance out of this.
Showing up and voting 'no' would mean they lost. Not showing up is their attempt to say the vote should never have happened in the first place.

I'd more expect Romney to vote no, since he can easily outspend any challenger and the Mormons will vote for him no matter what he does.
If the people of Utah want to vote for a Mormon, surely they can find a better one than Mittens.
 
I was/am surprised as well, I thought the Supreme Court nomination would have far more media attention but there has been surprising silence on the subject.

I mean there is the usual histrionics, but I was expecting a Kavanaugh level reactions.

I don't really know what to make of it.

It's because they know they have nothing, drawing attention to it will only expose the democrats for the niggers they are.
 
The MSM is downplaying the vote because it makes the Democrats look powerless and the fact the more they spin the "GoP are breaking the rules" schitck the more people post the McConnel speech where he plainly tells the Dems they will regret changes the rules.

The media has abandoned all pretenses of being the 5th estate and have fully embraced their chosen role as a propaganda arm of the Democratic party.

When the doors finally start closing on the big name newspapers and newsrooms across America because they lost the people's trust when those journalists cry out at how needed they are for a functional democracy we can whisper back...no your not. Propaganda has no place in a free and open society, only in some manner of authoritarian regime can it find a home.

Also, I hope they can learn how to code. I hear it's a ticket to a better job so who knows.
 
I was/am surprised as well, I thought the Supreme Court nomination would have far more media attention but there has been surprising silence on the subject.

I mean there is the usual histrionics, but I was expecting a Kavanaugh level reactions.

I don't really know what to make of it.
A Senate judiciary committee vote with the Democrats missing is a whole lot more boring than whatever the hell circus they did with Kavanaugh.
 
Back