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:
That's not propaganda, that's an army recruitment ad.

Unless you think ads are propaganda by nature, in which case I have no real response.


"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of."[6]

Bernays places great importance on the ability of a propaganda producer, as he views himself, to unlock the motives behind an individual's desires, not simply the reason an individual might offer. He argues, "Man's thoughts and actions are compensatory substitutes for desires which he has been obliged to suppress."[9] Bernays suggests that propaganda may become increasingly effective and influential through the discovery of audiences' hidden motives. He asserts that the emotional response inherently present in propaganda limits the audience's choices by creating a binary mentality, which can result in quicker, more enthused responses.[10

Do note that Edward Bernays is the "father of public relations" so come to your own conclusion why he's using advertising and propaganda interchangeably.
 
A Senate judiciary committee vote with the Democrats missing is a whole lot more boring than whatever the hell circus they did with Kavanaugh.
This being 2020, I could do with a bit of boring for once.

Maybe they're thinking the circus act did more harm than good to themselves, And the end result was the same anyways, So best to just skip it?
 
archive

Murkowski says she will vote to confirm Barrett to Supreme Court on Monday​

By Jordain Carney - 10/24/20 03:19 PM EDT

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said on Saturday that she will vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Monday, despite objections to taking up the nomination before the Nov. 3 election.

"I have no doubt about her intellect. I have no doubt about Judge Barrett's judicial temperament. I have no doubt about her capability to do the job. ... I have concluded that she is the sort of person we want on the Supreme Court," Murkowski said from the Senate floor.

Murkowski, the only GOP senator to oppose then-nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, was one of the last senators whose vote was in doubt.

Leadership indicated earlier Saturday that the moderate senator had privately told them what she intended to do, but Murkowski had kept her thinking closely held after meeting with Barrett earlier this week where they discussed, among other things, the Affordable Care Act, precedent and voting rights.

Murkowski, during her floor speech, reiterated that she does not believe Republicans should be holding a vote on Barrett before the Nov. 3 election. Murkowski voted against proceeding to the nomination on Friday and said she will oppose ending debate on Barrett's nomination on Sunday.

"I do not believe that moving forward on a nominee just over a week removed from a pitched presidential election when partisan tensions are running about as high as they could, I do not think this will help our country become a better version of itself," Murkowski said.

But Murkowski added, "Frankly, I've lost that procedural fight" and said she was making a decision on confirming Barrett based on the judge's legal philosophy.

"I believe that the only way to put us back on the path of appropriate consideration of judicial nominees is to evaluate Judge Barrett as we would want to be judged, on the merits of her qualifications. And so when we do that, when that final question comes before us ... I will be a yes," Murkowski said.

"While I oppose the process that has led us to this point, I do not hold it against her as an individual who has navigated the gauntlet with grace, skill and humility. I will vote no on the procedural votes ahead of us, but yes to confirm Judge Barrett when the question before us is her qualification to be an associate justice," Murkowski added.

Murkowski's decision makes GOP Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) the only Republican senator expected to vote against Barrett.

Collins, like Murkowski, said she did not believe her party should take up a nominee before the election. Collins, who is facing a difficult reelection bid, has also vowed that she will oppose Barrett because the vote is happening before Nov. 3.

Murkowski, part of the Senate's limited moderate faction, has been one of the Republican senators most willing to break with her caucus and President Trump. In addition to opposing Kavanaugh, Murkowski was one of three GOP senators who opposed a GOP plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

Murkowski, on Saturday, voiced frustration with the debate over the Supreme Court, saying "I just regret that we are in this place."

"I have looked inward, considering in these difficult days what I believe is best for the institutions of our government, and I recognize that confirming this nominee is not going to heal, it's not going to salve the wounds that these institutions have endured," Murkowski said.

She then tipped her hand to the ongoing discussion among Democrats about nixing the legislative filibuster and expanding the Supreme Court if they win back the chamber.

"But neither will threats that should the balance of power in this chamber change everything is on the table," Murkowski said.
 
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.
murkowski.jpg
 





Do note that Edward Bernays is the "father of public relations" so come to your own conclusion why he's using advertising and propaganda interchangeably.

That could be because of the year. (1928) Note that propaganda is the spanish term for "advertising" and indeed originally the two terms were interchangeable. But much like "machismo" (which is the spanish term for "mysoginy" btw. If you wonder what the spanish term for what the english call "machismo" would be. It'd probably be best translated as "bravuconería" or maybe "ponerse gallito" although it has no solid direct translation) the english version has indeed shifted meaning, in the case of propaganda to mean specifically political forms of advertising. Ironically enough the spanish language has seen no shift in meaning and does not distinguish propaganda from advertising.
 
archive

Murkowski says she will vote to confirm Barrett to Supreme Court on Monday​

By Jordain Carney - 10/24/20 03:19 PM EDT

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said on Saturday that she will vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Monday, despite objections to taking up the nomination before the Nov. 3 election.

"I have no doubt about her intellect. I have no doubt about Judge Barrett's judicial temperament. I have no doubt about her capability to do the job. ... I have concluded that she is the sort of person we want on the Supreme Court," Murkowski said from the Senate floor.

Murkowski, the only GOP senator to oppose then-nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, was one of the last senators whose vote was in doubt.

Leadership indicated earlier Saturday that the moderate senator had privately told them what she intended to do, but Murkowski had kept her thinking closely held after meeting with Barrett earlier this week where they discussed, among other things, the Affordable Care Act, precedent and voting rights.

Murkowski, during her floor speech, reiterated that she does not believe Republicans should be holding a vote on Barrett before the Nov. 3 election. Murkowski voted against proceeding to the nomination on Friday and said she will oppose ending debate on Barrett's nomination on Sunday.

"I do not believe that moving forward on a nominee just over a week removed from a pitched presidential election when partisan tensions are running about as high as they could, I do not think this will help our country become a better version of itself," Murkowski said.

But Murkowski added, "Frankly, I've lost that procedural fight" and said she was making a decision on confirming Barrett based on the judge's legal philosophy.

"I believe that the only way to put us back on the path of appropriate consideration of judicial nominees is to evaluate Judge Barrett as we would want to be judged, on the merits of her qualifications. And so when we do that, when that final question comes before us ... I will be a yes," Murkowski said.

"While I oppose the process that has led us to this point, I do not hold it against her as an individual who has navigated the gauntlet with grace, skill and humility. I will vote no on the procedural votes ahead of us, but yes to confirm Judge Barrett when the question before us is her qualification to be an associate justice," Murkowski added.

Murkowski's decision makes GOP Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) the only Republican senator expected to vote against Barrett.

Collins, like Murkowski, said she did not believe her party should take up a nominee before the election. Collins, who is facing a difficult reelection bid, has also vowed that she will oppose Barrett because the vote is happening before Nov. 3.

Murkowski, part of the Senate's limited moderate faction, has been one of the Republican senators most willing to break with her caucus and President Trump. In addition to opposing Kavanaugh, Murkowski was one of three GOP senators who opposed a GOP plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

Murkowski, on Saturday, voiced frustration with the debate over the Supreme Court, saying "I just regret that we are in this place."

"I have looked inward, considering in these difficult days what I believe is best for the institutions of our government, and I recognize that confirming this nominee is not going to heal, it's not going to salve the wounds that these institutions have endured," Murkowski said.

She then tipped her hand to the ongoing discussion among Democrats about nixing the legislative filibuster and expanding the Supreme Court if they win back the chamber.

"But neither will threats that should the balance of power in this chamber change everything is on the table," Murkowski said.
Sounds like she needs her voters to actually want her again and not think she's a Cuckservative RINO
 
Maybe they're thinking the circus act did more harm than good to themselves, And the end result was the same anyways, So best to just skip it?

Notice that Antifa/BLM went away shortly after the MSM started complaining it was "showing up in the polls". Who knew systemic racism would be fixed so soon?

If Trump wins, I expect them to unleash the crazies again tho. Same thing if he loses, progressivism has reached its terminal phase and really has nowhere else to go except escalating psychodrama. Conservatism is supposed to be the stupid ideology (and tbf it kinda is) but progressivism is now just a public nervous breakdown by chronological adults who literally can't even and are constantly looking for new petty bullshit to be furiously outraged by.

I thought it was interesting how Joe Biden closed off the last debate with 2008 Obama-era platitudes about uniting Americans, etc. as if his side hasn't spent much of the year burning down cities and accusing half the country and all its founders of racism. You'd need to be an Alzheimer's patient not to notice the disconnect between his rhetoric and what Democrats have actually been doing since 2016, so to be fair maybe Joe really meant it.

If you want a picture of the progressive future, imagine a fat white woman screaming incoherently into TikTok from her car, forever.
 
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.
Its actually very easy to point out where things went off the rails. To quote Obama: "Elections have consequences, and you lost." The Republicans in Congress had taken the L and put forth an olive branch, since they had lost and badly, and rather understandably so after the Bush years. The Dems however took that election as an unquestioned mandate from the American people to ram through whatever the hell they wanted, thinking they'd have a total supermajority for all time for whatever brain-dead reason. I do wonder if Obama regrets ever taking that position. Not out of any sense of moral wrongness obviously, but simply because it came back to bite him and his party in the ass.
 
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.
I’m pretty sure he’d lose his seat if he did.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Dante Alighieri
Just saw on r/politics that the Dems are planning a "digital filibuster" protest tomorrow - even the article itself stated it wouldn't have any affect on the outcome and was essentially an outlet for feels about why orange man's pick is bad. It's over folks, they've resigned themselves to defeat, though I'm sure we'll still hear plenty of griping and self righteous bullshit after the hearings tomorrow. Expect to see some more fiction-based salt like Star Wars memes or Muh Handmaid Stories
 
I'm starting to get really tired of this 'we need more justices to rebalance the court' shit. Its usually couched in the same language of justification spouse abusers will spout 'the republicans forced us to do this with their actions!' Like the electoral college 'reforms' they propose its all just butthurt shit about losing, and wanting to change the rules afterward so they win. Just part of their arrogance in thinking only their big brains can run things, and deserve to be 'benevolent' dictators.

The solution for both is the same, just ask them:
"So if Trump wins you think he needs to appoint X more justices?" or "If Trump won the popular vote would you want the EC abolished?"

They can't actually wrap their heads around the hypothetical but it can be funny to watch them try.
 
Back