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:
I like Thomas and he seems reasonably healthy, he should easily have another 12 years on him at least. Sotomayor heart attack is what I'm hoping for.

Ever notice how everyone attacks ACB's credibility, whereas Sotomayor was nominated purely for the color of her skin and nothing else.
 
The phrase "pack the court" has a negative connotation. "Packing" anything in the fashion in which they suggest implies underhanded methods and dishonesty. These are not the right words to be using when you're claiming to be trying to restore a perceived loss of "fairness" and "justice".
Obviously, but these people have extra chromosomes.
Untitled.pngUntitled.png
 
They're really going all in on this "expand the court" stuff.

Why you have to break the system?
Because they didn't win one election. They've flipped the game table over, wrecked the house, and threatening to burn down the house and spend all the money in the savings account. Because they lost a game.
 
They want to pack the court lol. Why do they never stop to think about how actions can bite them in the ass in the future. Republicans will just pack it again once they get back into power.
They intend to do everything to make Republicans or anyone else having any power ever again completely impossible. That's why.
 
You know how you keep the Supreme Court out of your issues? Don't push for unconstitutional laws and don't use the courts in such a way that your stupid ass ends up there because you tried to force some poor schmoe to bake you a cake you ordered to be an asshole. They can't make decisions without a case being there.

By saying you need to pack the court with ideologues who will ignore the constitution you're admitting what you are doing is unconstirutional.
 
A federal judge named Tom Porteous is the one case I'm most familiar with. Judge Porteous was a supremely corrupt judge in New Orleans who sold judgments. He was a big fat drunk, too. Anyway, after half a decade of investigations the House of Representatives impeached him on four counts. The Senate held an impeachment trial and convicted him on all four charges and removed him from office. Really lopsided votes, too. Think 94-6 type votes. They barred him from ever holding office in the United States. You might ask why he wasn't imprisoned or disbarred. This is because, in the second case, that's a state-level function, not a federal function. He wasn't imprisoned because an impeachment is not a criminal trial and the Senate cannot impose criminal penalties on defendants in an impeachment trial. All of those idiots who were screaming for the Senate to sentence Trump to death were wasting their time.
Would theprohib against Double Jeapardy apply to findings of an impeachment hearing, thus disqualifying evidence found there rom being used in a subsequent crim trial?
 
"we forced this 8 year old trailer park girl to give birth to a rape baby. but here's why liberals are pedophiles"

The sad thing is that you actually believe this. I know you may think it's cute trolling "da conservatards" and perhaps you'll impress the other trannies in chat who hate the *Orange Con-Man so much*, but tbh, this kind of idiocy only reflects poorly on you.

Anyone who reads what you've said - trolling or not - will think you're a genuine retard. Like genuinely unable to understand politics, law, social mores and norms. Just generally uneducated. Being uneducated isn't cute or trolling. It's a position completely lacking in power. A position of exceptional pity.
The US is already under educated as it is. Americans are already seen as dumb and fat. Why would you add to that under the veneer of sticker farming?
It's just embarrassing, fam.

----
Salty Cracker's vid on ACB : he reads some faggots reddit salt.

 
I love reading Reddit comments because they have no idea how case and controversy works, let alone the broad points of the legal system.

Even if Republicans in every state started conspiring to bring forth cases that would ban abortion forever, it would still probably take them half a decade to even reach SCOTUS.
 
Last edited:
These people are weird and broken. Crying over a Supreme Court appointment? Fucking hell.

If Donald Trump loses I'm going to say "well that sucks", feel bummed for a little bit, and then get on with my life. What the fuck.
It's because they're narcissists and they're only mad that something they didn't want to happen, happened. This confirmation, just like Trump's presidency, doesn't remotely affect their lives in any aspect.

I know we laugh at these people, but we should rather feel sorry for them instead. Despite they live comfortable lives, their fancy education has give them teachers who have scared them to death about some imaginary enemy that doesn't exist, it's pathetic.

I hear this narrative a lot when it comes to abortion where a cackling religious cleric forces a 12 year old girl to bear and deliver a rape baby and as someone who spends a large amount of time on the internet and reading news I have never heard of this happening even in the most backwards hickish parts of America, Pakistan maybe, not America.

It happens, but it's rare, rarer than what most abortion activists would let us believe and not enough to make a law out of it. Personally, I'd be open to make this the only exception and allow abortion for raped minors, because the damage would be minimal. Also, the sperging after a bunch of hoes realize they'd have to be more careful choosing birth control and partners would be legendary.

Now, the fun part about this is that last time I heard of a case like this, it was a 14 years old girl whose parents were FORCING to have an abortion and she didn't want to. Guess how many feminist groups showed up to help her.

"we forced this 8 year old trailer park girl to give birth to a rape baby. but here's why liberals are pedophiles"

8 year old girls can't get pregnant. Try to make better strawmen next time.
 
Back