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:
Well, California still needs to be broken up regardless.

While I agree with that genuine sentiment, it shouldn't be broken up in the way the Democrat want it to be. They want to split California up into two or three Democrat dominated states to damage the balance of power, instead of breaking it up based on culture, political realities, and geography. I would actually break it up the way ynot1989 did, like this.

I would make some minor changes, like having Orange County be included in Mojave, since it actually leans Republican, including Democrat leaning Santa Barbara County into Los Angeles and including Democrat leaning Yolo County in San Francisco. Jefferson and California would be solidly Republican, Mojave would lean Republican and San Francisco and Los Angeles would be solidly Democratic. What the Democrats want to do though is ensure that any successor states to California would Democrat leaning all the way around. Its such an utterly naked power grab, that it would cause an uproar if proposed and many Democrats would have to oppose it on principle, less they piss off their own constituents by giving more power to California Democrats.
 
Last edited:
You can't imagine the torrential downpour of salt coming from spanish media today. I swear they aren't this gridlocked even when it comes to our own politics. (NOTE: Spanish media is all owned by the catalonian A3media monopoly, they are super POZZED, but even by their standards, this is a new level. Only issue they are THIS openly unanimous about is the EU. Ironic because most spaniards are against them on that topic.) Makes me question if the globalists got something prepared for after the election and they're seeking justification in the eyes of the public.

If they are, well as I said, it's a catalonian monopoly, and thanks to the EU the population knows damned well the kinda games they play, so they should know by now whenever they march lockstep that is good reason for most of the population to join the opposite side... then again maybe that's the plan and this is another 4d chess move by trump to wait no sorry catalonians are not clever enough for that shit.


Did... Did the House Judiciary just actually go ahead and shitpost on their official account? What the fuck is with this timeline?
 
You haven't figured it out? Dems operate on the axiom of "if you can't win, change the rules".

And the obvious response is, to quote AnCap:

"It's not a system of opression just because you're bad at it."

Get fucked, scum.

And this is coming from someone that agrees that FPTP is bad for america. (Then again I don't think these idiots realize usually systems which give more power to 3rd parties tend to result on the right getting more power (because they stay united while the left quickly fragments and starts eating itself.) I mean, really, the Dems are the ones that benefit the most from FPTP.)

(Also, as always,they get one right and immediately pad it with 2 awfuls. Because god forbid we didn't use legitimate issues as trojan horses for bullshit.)
 
It's far worse, even if they win fairly without fraud, the grand "societal reboot" plans they were going to have senile President Joe sign off on by telling him it was just the WaPo crossword? They're dead on arrival.

Not to piss on the parade here but she's said herself that she'll respect any legislation that actually gets passed.

And I for one fully expect her to decide in favor of the "counting ballots days after election" bullshit.
 
i'm so excited to live in an America where 13 year old rape victims are forced to birth retard babies
everyone who neg rated this post has made an unironic joke about communists and helicopters before
I'm a commie and I'd take 13 year old rape victims and retard babies over mandatory sexual harassment, sex assault and child castration any day. The individual horror of the former does not outweigh the aggregate damage of the latter. Mothers whose financial and physical safety will have been destroyed by troons will not be able to protect their children.
These people are weird and broken. Crying over a Supreme Court appointment? Fucking hell.
Even worse, posting on the interwebs about crying over a Supreme Court appointment. Showing off how utterly defeated and owned they are. Why.
Ahhh, yes. Getting invasive outpatient surgery to... own the Conservatives? I don’t have a uterus, so I can’t imagine exactly how bad that would hurt, but I had a chest tube once, and I’d rather never have to go through that again, and I imagine an abortion would be significantly less pleasant than that. Not to mention all the non-immediate-physical-pain effects.
Medical abortion and early-stage surgical abortion after the anaesthesia wears off are about as painful as menstruation without the pill.
 
You can't imagine the torrential downpour of salt coming from spanish media today. I swear they aren't this gridlocked even when it comes to our own politics. (NOTE: Spanish media is all owned by the catalonian A3media monopoly, they are super POZZED, but even by their standards, this is a new level. Only issue they are THIS openly unanimous about is the EU. Ironic because most spaniards are against them on that topic.) Makes me question if the globalists got something prepared for after the election and they're seeking justification in the eyes of the public.

If they are, well as I said, it's a catalonian monopoly, and thanks to the EU the population knows damned well the kinda games they play, so they should know by now whenever they march lockstep that is good reason for most of the population to join the opposite side... then again maybe that's the plan and this is another 4d chess move by trump to wait no sorry catalonians are not clever enough for that shit.



Did... Did the House Judiciary just actually go ahead and shitpost on their official account? What the fuck is with this timeline?
The only thing missing is a Hillary Rage Wojak
I'm a commie and I'd take 13 year old rape victims and retard babies over mandatory sexual harassment, sex assault and child castration any day.
I don't think the former necessarily means the latter. Exceptions in cases of rape were the rule, even before Roe v Wade.
 
Last edited:
Of course a white woman gets the post! We need more trans bi-racial black gay MtF nignog jews on the supreme court. Only then will we get proper equality.
Nah bigot. It's close to 2021. We need a bi-species Jewish W̷̢̡̢̡̙͔̩̲̫̟̗̥̬͎̼͙̖̖͈̙̥̥͙̭̲͖͖͇̳̞̯̝̮̩̦̳̪͖͕̗̺͎͐́̎̊͋͐̀̀̅͜͠͠͝x̸̧̧̨̛̛̛̘̗̭̳͇͔̭̥̏͂̓́̎̎͆́̔̈́̾̇̈́̐̽̔̏̅́͛̕m̵̛̗̘̖̉̈́̇̄̊̿̃͑́̑̾͂̏̑̿̿̂̇̇̉̀̅͑͗̑̆̇̌̓̎̈̔̽͘̚̕ͅi̷̢̨̮̲̺̺̩̬̭̪̱̱̤̺̠̺͈̱͕̜͇̯̭̤̔͌͊̆͆̋̓̐̍͒̾̐̀̓̈́̍́̕͜͜͝͝͝͠͠ͅn̶̢̢̧̢͍̭͕̰̫̪̟̟͚̝͙̺̰̟͈̥̰͖̩̓͆̈́̀̈́͋̈́̎̐̐̔̑̀͋͑̑͐͛͑̀̈́̒̃̏̈́̎͐̅̅̌̿͒̃́͘̕̕̚͠ with so many sex change surgeries they have to be carted around in a wheelchair.
 
Was there any mention in that wall of text how the Democrats have to own this due to them changing the rules from sixty votes to a simple majority?

I think Mitch McConnell even roused himself from his usual stupor to warn them that this sort of thing would now be on the table.

edit: I came here for posts of tik-tok and twitter sperging. Am disappointed, though too lazy to post the crap I'm seeing myself.
 
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.
Now while I hate Obama, to be fair even if he tried he would have gotten shot down because the GOP controlled the Senate.
 
Counting the days until she starts supporting abortion and gay rights like all the other republicans who only seek to conserve the GDP.

I doubt that specifically will happen but the sentiment bears merit. That's what makes all the fake outrage or the enthusiasm so silly. Republicans have a record of appointing awful judges they thought would be conservative. Hek, name me one justice the Left was able to appoint that proved unreliable when they needed them? You can't.
 
Back