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:
Retarded cliche of a last line and I don't think right wing moralizing is back at all, but a pretty good take otherwise.
Right-wing moralizing isn't back, yet.

Give it another 10-20 years and unpredicted cultural/economic/geopolitical situations, an inevitable 4-8 years of some dem president (or two?) between then and now, and it will likely creep its way back in.
 
Retarded cliche of a last line and I don't think right wing moralizing is back at all, but a pretty good take otherwise.

ATM you are completely correct. However I'm getting older all the time and I've seen a couple of these pendulum swings so I'll lay out what I've observed about these political trends:

1) the Establishment shoot both feet off with a shotgun trying to be overly controlling and bullyshitty to Americans
2) Americans get increasingly angry as the Establishment fucks around, usually by starting wars, trying to nanny-state Americans with lots of whining about our behavior, a retarded as fuck set of laws is probably passed to further the agenda of the Establishment
3) the Underdog launches itself into the fray, it gathers energy from the anger seething in the underbelly of the constituents and the Underdog Movement gets voted in
4) Underdog movement takes a few years to fully solidify their hold on American politics
5) Around the 7-9 year mark the public begins to see the first signs of the Underdog's complacency. The Underdog begins to have delusions of grandeur regarding their place in American politics and the people who take the torch from the first figurehead of the Underdogs begin using the clout gained from the figurehead to start shaping the laws of the land and nannystate to Americans except this time It's Okay When We Do It
6) This picks up speed in the coming years. The Underdog fully becomes the Establishment.
7) the Establishment shoot both feet off with a shotgun trying to be overly controlling and bullyshitty to Americans.

More what I'm trying to get at is that these things are cyclical and while I like Trump and I think he's doing many great things to secure the long term future of the country, I'm also not naive enough to think that this won't eventually break down in the future.
 
There's pictures of coat hangers and talks of surgical procedures all over twitter but chemical abortion has been a thing for over 20 years. If you have a functioning brain and think you may be pregnant then you can take some pills. If you miss your first period there are other pills you can take. Abortion isn't going away, not in the age of the internet. You can literally do telemedicine with a doctor and get pills. All the liberals throwing a tantrum over a practicing Catholic woman being appointed to SCOTUS is ridiculous.

I see similarities with the cries the Voting Rights Act will be abolished. If getting an ID is so difficult and expensive maybe it should be easier and less expensive. After 9-11 it's impossible to function in society without one. It's just more Democratic fearmongering.
 
There's pictures of coat hangers and talks of surgical procedures all over twitter but chemical abortion has been a thing for over 20 years. If you have a functioning brain and think you may be pregnant then you can take some pills. If you miss your first period there are other pills you can take. Abortion isn't going away, not in the age of the internet. You can literally do telemedicine with a doctor and get pills. All the liberals throwing a tantrum over a practicing Catholic woman being appointed to SCOTUS is ridiculous.

I see similarities with the cries the Voting Rights Act will be abolished. If getting an ID is so difficult and expensive maybe it should be easier and less expensive. After 9-11 it's impossible to function in society without one. It's just more Democratic fearmongering.
All these motherfuckers complaining about not getting an abortion in their home state if it was fairly conservative...well I guess they know how gun owners in Blue states feel about assault weapons laws and other B.S.

True, they are not similar. One is about killing human life and is not found in the Constitution while the other is.
 
We-heh-hell, this thread has been a ride. Congrats to Justice Barret! Don't fuck it up! :drink:

This is fucking hilarious every single hope the dems had in those 4 years about removing orange man it always goes to the shit, lets enumerate here for quick memory you can add your own

  1. Pee Pee tape
  2. Stormy Daniels
  3. Russia Investigation
  4. Impeachment
  5. Literally nobodies writing fanfiction
  6. The Kavanaugh saga
  7. The Barret Saga
  8. The COVFEFE-19
  9. Him getting sick
and tons of tons of tons of others and they really believe packing the court is even a possibility?

10. The koi food thing.
11. All the one-hit wonder/hasbeen musicians throwing fits and lawsuits for their songs being (legally) used.
12. Saying he's the #1 suspect in Epstein's faux-icide before Veritas revealed that tape namedropping Clinton and the CROWN.
13. Spinning Obama's kid cages as an invention by him so hard it could power a state.
14. Trying to piss off Proud Boys by flooding the # with gay dudes fagging out only for them to surge in members and not care.

That's all I got.
Why are Americans so obsessed with abortions? Like are other western countries as gung-ho about shredding babies in utero? I get that there are points to be made about the pros for abortions but it's just weird that killing babies is the hill these chicks wanna die on.
Well depending on how these women got abortions they won't just metaphorically die on those hills.
that was terrible and i hate myself
 
If there's one thing that's proven every day by social media, it's that we don't teach people enough about civics. Everyone's acting like her being on board is the end of abortions.
No you idiots, it's the end of states not being able to legislate it like they fucking should because healthcare isn't written in the Constitution making it primarily a state issue courtesy of 10A. Not everything in this country needs to be done at the federal level for God's good sake.
 

GOP Senate confirms Trump Supreme Court pick to succeed Ginsburg​



The Senate confirmed Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Monday, providing President Trump with a last-minute political victory just days before Nov. 3.

The 52-48 Senate vote on Barrett's nomination capped off a rare presidential election year Supreme Court fight sparked by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Sept. 18. GOP Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was the only Republican to oppose Barrett, saying she doesn’t believe a nomination should come up before the election.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who previously voted against advancing Barrett because of the election, supported her nomination on Monday. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) returned from the campaign trail to oppose Barrett's nomination.

Barrett’s nomination marks a new record for how close to the presidential election the Senate has confirmed a Supreme Court nominee. She’ll also be the first justice in modern history to be confirmed without bipartisan support, underscoring Democratic frustration with the GOP push to confirm her and misgivings about her judicial philosophy.

Despite the high stakes of her nomination fight, there was little doubt that Republicans would fill the seat. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) vowed within hours of Ginsburg's death to give whomever Trump nominated a vote, and GOP senators quickly coalesced behind the strategy.

McConnell, speaking to Republicans on the Senate floor, touted Barrett’s nomination as a long-lasting legacy of the past four years.

“We made an important contribution to the future of this country. A lot of what we’ve done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later. ... They won’t be able to do much about this for a long time to come,” he said.

In many ways, Barrett’s confirmation caps off a generations-long goal for Republicans of a top-down overhaul of the federal judiciary.

Barrett will lock in a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, but beyond that, Trump has appointed a total of 220 judges, including 53 to the influential circuit courts and 162 district court judges. That puts him behind only former President Carter for the most judges confirmed at this point in his White House tenure.

Republicans view the courts as an issue that fires up their voters and are hoping for a redux of 2018, when several Democrats who opposed then-nominee Brett Kavanaugh went on to lose their reelection bids. The court fight comes as Trump is trailing Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden in a litany of polls and several GOP incumbents are fighting for their political lives. Political handicappers give Democrats good odds of winning back the Senate majority for the first time since 2014.

“How do you say yes?” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said when asked if he thought the vote helped him in the final stretch of his reelection campaign.

McConnell, who is facing his own reelection bid, gave two thumbs up as he left the Senate chamber after the vote.

Democrats dialed down the temperature for Barrett’s nomination fight, compared with Kavanaugh’s, and stayed away from Barrett’s Catholicism after a controversial hearing for her 7th Circuit nomination in 2017.

Instead, they’ve warned that Barrett, if she’s confirmed, would have negative consequences for health care and reproductive rights, including reining in Roe v. Wade and striking down the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Court watchers believe the Supreme Court could hear an abortion-related case this term if it decides to take up a review of Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, which was struck down by a federal court. The Supreme Court is also expected to hear a case the week after the election that could determine the fate of ObamaCare.

"My Republican colleagues know they can count on her to provide the decisive fifth vote on the Supreme Court to strike down the ACA," said Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii).

Barrett has been critical of the 2012 ruling that upheld the Affordable Care Act, but Republicans are quick to note that she hasn’t ruled on the health care law. She also hinted during her confirmation hearing that she thought the law could survive the individual mandate being struck down — a key issue in the case coming before the court next month.

Barrett sidestepped several questions during her days-long hearing, refusing to weigh in on the looming election and whether she would recuse herself from election-related cases. Trump has said he wanted to fill the seat quickly so that his pick could be on the court to help resolve election-related matters.

Democrats held an all-night talkathon to protest the GOP decision to fill Ginsburg’s seat before the November election. The current Supreme Court fight comes four years after McConnell refused to give Merrick Garland, former President Obama’s final nominee, a hearing or a vote.

Republicans argue the political shift from 2016, when a Democrat was in the White House, to 2020, when the GOP holds both the Senate and the presidency, as a key distinction that’s in line with history. The last time a vacancy was filled in an election year was 1916. And the latest election year confirmation before Barrett was in July.

“You lost this vote, but please don’t burn down this institution. Again, you lost this vote under the rules that Harry Reid created in 2013,” said Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), referring to the decision to nix the 60-vote filibuster for lower court and executive nominations. Republicans nixed the 60-vote filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

Shortly after Monday's vote, Barrett received her official constitutional oath, administered by Justice Clarence Thomas, during an event at the White House.

“It is the job of a senator to pursue her policy preferences. In fact, it would be a dereliction of duty for her to put policy goals aside. By contrast, it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences. It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give into them,” she said.

“The oath that I have solemnly taken tonight means at its core that I will do my job without any fear or favor, and that I will do so independently of both the political branches and of my own preferences,” she continued.

Her confirmation will pour fuel on calls from progressives for Democrats to nix the legislative filibuster and expand the Supreme Court if they find themselves back in the majority next year. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has been careful not to take anything off the table as he’s tried to keep his party united going into the Nov. 3. election.

Democrats, if they are in the majority, will also need to decide what they will do with a series of precedents they upheld in the Obama years, including the blue slip, a piece of paper that has been used to allow home-state senators to block a nominee. Republicans have done away with honoring the blue slip for circuit court judges, while keeping it intact for district court picks.

Democrats, throughout the debate on Barrett’s nomination, warned that Republicans could come to regret their decision to fill the seat.

"If that is the rule that Republicans are prepared to adopt here, that what matters around here ... isn't what is right but is just because we can, then please don't feign surprise in the months and years ahead if we on the Democratic side follow that same rule," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), viewed as key vote to watch on both nixing the filibuster and expanding the Supreme Court, warned that there was “pearl clutching” over expanding the Supreme Court even though the number is not specified in the Constitution.

“Oh no! Somebody is talking about breaking the rules and packing the court. Well, of course, Article 3 of the Constitution doesn't establish how many members of the Supreme Court there should be,” King said. “I don't want to pack the court. I don't want to change the number. I don't want to have to do that. But if all of this rule-breaking is taking place, what does the majority expect?”

McConnell, during a lengthy speech ahead of Monday’s vote, laid the blame for the escalating judicial wars at the feet of Democrats and urged them not to “scorch the ground rules of our government," in an apparent hat tip to the discussion about nixing the legislative filibuster and expanding the court.

“I understand my Democratic friends seem to be terribly persuaded by their version of all of this. All I can tell you is: I was there, I know what happened. And my version is totally accurate,” he said.

Schumer warned that the GOP majority was “lighting its credibility on fire.”

"You may win this vote. But in the process you will speed the precipitous decline of faith in our institutions, our politics, the Senate and the Supreme Court. ...You walk a perilous road," Schumer said.

Asked about McConnell’s rhetoric after the vote, he told reporters: “I have two words for McConnell’s speech: Very defensive.”


 
All the liberals throwing a tantrum over a practicing Catholic woman being appointed to SCOTUS is ridiculous.
For all the anti-Catholic rhetoric that has surrounded ACB's confirmation, there is one thing everybody overlooks:

John Roberts - Roman Catholic
Bret Kavanaugh - Roman Catholic
Samuel Alito - Roman Catholic
Clarence Thomas - Roman Catholic
Sonia Sotomayor- Roman Catholic

So why is it such a big deal that Barret is a Catholic?

ps. For completions sake- Gorsuch is Episcopalian, and Breyer and Kagan are Jewish.

edit: Orthodox gang needs to step up their lawyering game it seems.
 
You got to love the sperging and crocodile tears of the Left claiming this was an illegitimate process when its literally one of the Constitutional responsibilities of the sitting president. The term is for 4 years not 3 years and some change. Obama didn't fill a previously vacant seat because he thought Hillary would win (whoops). That was a mistake that clearly wouldn't be made again.
 
Oh yes don't worry this time the GOP did a booboo and will now lose all support. No no forget about how we said that every single week for the last 6 years every time a republican coughed the wrong way, this time they screwed themselves over for real.

I'm pretty sure if anything, this is probably just going to get voters more hyped up to vote for the GOP. Established red voters just get a morale boost, and the thinning amount of undecided votes might just go red just to be with the winners.
 
Why are Americans so obsessed with abortions? Like are other western countries as gung-ho about shredding babies in utero? I get that there are points to be made about the pros for abortions but it's just weird that killing babies is the hill these chicks wanna die on.

Our emerging culture encourages women to act as much like men as they can, to pretend there's no difference between men and women at all (even biological), and to pretend that consequence free semi-anonymous sex (r-selection breeding) is a sustainable replacement for marriage (K-selection breeding), despite the latter being the only one that worked for the entirety of human history.

Among other things, by pushing women into the workplace, the available pool of employees is (mostly) doubled, which means wages are completely destroyed. More people working and having unfulfilling lives in comparison to getting married and having a single parent home means that consumer goods and pharmaceuticals must be bought to shore up everything else. Having households be two income by default also increases spending and churn. Low paid workers who have to buy shit to fix their lives constantly and have double the income and double the expenditures... All things that corporations fucking LOVE.

By removing a caregiver from the home, it gives other opportunities for indoctrination into leftist ideology because the family unit is weakened. You aren't going to notice your teachers telling kids about the evils of the White Race or how Marx solved the Capitalism problem if you're at work all the time. And in certain ethnic enclaves in the US, it traps families in a welfare trap where there is a direct economic incentive to remove any and all parental figures, leading to, well, black Americans becoming niggers.
 
Untitled.png
 
Republicans view the courts as an issue that fires up their voters and are hoping for a redux of 2018, when several Democrats who opposed then-nominee Brett Kavanaugh went on to lose their reelection bids.
The problem with that, is that Kavanaugh's nomination took centre-stage of the political news cycle. People were hyper-focused on it.

ACB's is but a sideshow to the main event that is the presidential election.
 
Back