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:
It’s terrifying how many people do not understand that the Supreme Court is not the legislative branch of the government.
That's like saying Rome was a Republic right up until Diocletian. Sure, it may have been that in theory but almost everyone knows how things stand in practice.
These dumb asses do realize that you gotta actually control both houses and the presidency (or have at least a two-thirds majority in both houses) to do any of this shit, right? And no matter what shitty polls say, the democrats ain't getting that. In fact, I think they may be in for a rude awakening come November.

Also, breaking California up? They do realize that California would actually have to sign off on that right? There have already been two separate attempts to break up California and both failed miserably. This is probably the stupidest idea I've seen anyone come up with for how to try to stack Congress.
All they need is Trump 2016 victory margins and they'll theoretically have this power, right? Of course this all runs on the assumption that they'll cement a de facto single-party state like Mexico or South Africa.
That's the great thing about single-payer. The amount of healthcare a person requires hinges enormously on their lifestyle, and if the government has to provide all of that healthcare, that means they have a very good justification to get involved in the minutiae of a person's lifestyle.

Oh, and the taxpayers who pay for the healthcare have to pay for the consequences of people's questionable lifestyle choices.
Sure, the incentive is there, but countries like Canada and the EU would rather have 6 month lineups at the hospitals than actually social engineer for health. It's probably because promoting healthy lifestyles in a serious manner would be seen as "literal fascism" by the usual suspects, and they might actually be right for once depending on how extreme it gets.
 
Last edited:
Obama didn't fill the seat because he couldn't. The senate wasn't with him and actively stonewalled the process for purely partisan reasons. This is fine; all's fair in love war and politics, but lets not pretend this was somehow Obummer's fault for getting cucked by the senate. If anyone is to blame its Schumer for making this possible.
Actually, in Obama's first two years in office he had a majority in the congress and if Ginsburg had retired then like she should have he could have gotten a replacement through.
 
While I suppose the Dems do regret the change I think it was for the best. The requirement that everything be a super majority to pass has rendered the Senate mostly useless as it slowed the required busy work down to a crawl. I wish they went as far as to remove the current filibuster as well.

It served critical purpose, back when the Senate was still what it was designed to be. The Senate and Senators were intended to be the States Representatives/Ambassadors to the Federal Government. Senators we’re appointed by the State Governments. Not direct election. The Senate was to insure that any and all Federal Law served the interest of the majority of the States. Wilson undid that. He disconnected the Senators from the States they are supposed to represent and instead made them wholly owned by political party.
 
Listening to Chuck Schumer claim that "a generation of unborn Americans will pay for this confirmation." made me realize once again that Hitler was right.

The party of abortion claiming the unborn are victims of anything less than their ideology's enrichment and championing of killing the innocent is as hilarious as it is disgusting.

View attachment 1689569
Maybe he's alluding to having your class disrupted by an increasing number of retarded and/or neglected children, and having to pay a higher tax rate to support them once you grow up. But then his own party would excoriate him for the "Racist and ableist dogwhistle" . Though you'd think the Dems would welcome the change, maybe the 13% would become 20% if they didn't have the highest rate of abortion.
 
Actually, in Obama's first two years in office he had a majority in the congress and if Ginsburg had retired then like she should have he could have gotten a replacement through.
Also, Republicans have been polite in their acceptance of Democrat nominees -- Kagan, Soto -- as long as they were legally qualified. It's Democrats who have imposed the whore protection test. So even Republican Senate would have probably confirmed a liberal RBG replacement. What it would not do is confirm a liberal Scalia replacement. Nor should it have.
 
That feeling when you have it all and it triggers millions of eggless leftist women who have barren wombs from their scraped uteri as they return home to their empty apartments because they thought their meaningless careers in their useless fields were more important than building a relationship with someone and creating a family that will last beyond their time on Earth.
1603814394537.png
 
Last edited:
She's not a Dem-approved cafeteria "Catholic". She takes her faith seriously. And because of that, she detests the Church of Liberalism's highest sacrament, abortion.

As far as Orthodox goes, well, they tend to be insular and parochial. It's hard to find Orthos that aren't Greek, Slavic, or Ethiopian.

its getting better. oca/antioch are full of american converts as well blacks and asians.
 
Hek, name me one justice the Left was able to appoint that proved unreliable when they needed them? You can't.
Maybe Felix Frankfurter? He was a Roosevelt appointee who became more conservative as time went on, or at any rate apprehensive about "bigger is always better" government. Other than that I got nobody. If it is even applicable. And it was a long time ago.
 
I think I remember this thread mentioning RBG held the record for Supreme Court confirmation at 50 days. What's ACB's score?

Thread would be wrong, the OG Supreme Court got confirmed in two days under Washington. It only took a couple of days for most of the 1800s too. Even in modern times John Robert took only 23 days.

Sep 29th to October 26, so it took her 27 days.
 
That's like saying Rome was a Republic right up until Diocletian. Sure, it may have been that in theory but almost everyone knows how things stand in practice.
By that train of argument, every branch other than Congress serves as a legislature. Barrett's confirmation should hopefully make it less likely that the Court will be legislating from the bench if she's as much of a Scalia clone as we've been led to believe.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: EmuWarsVeteran
Back