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
---------------------------------------------
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Barnes today on Richard Baris' show "What are the Odds?" gave his opinion on Barrett. Main points are:

1) Much riskier choice than Lagoa, since Republicans bow to the Federalist Society and never think about what their actual enemies will aim against their nominations.

2) Barrett fanboys are fucking retarded pushing the idea that she is assured confirmation. Says it could be Trump's Bork.

3) Puts the odds at 1/3 that it blows up in Trump's face. 50/50 on confirmation.

4) The main attacks will be on healthcare and judicial excising of Obamacare, which Dems have represented after repeal & replace failure as being about preexisting conditions. You can already see this coordinated talking point happening right now.

5) They'll refrain from attacking her religion, though that doesn't mean the Twitterati won't.

Honestly I'm feeling much shakier on her than before. The polling shows it looks okay for her so far, but it's too early to know how it will really play into voting patterns. They haven't really defined her yet, and I 100% agree a lot of conservatives have the wool pulled over their eyes due to catholic faggot retards like Jack Posobiec.
Haven't you heard. What Barnes says is irrelevant due to him being biased against Barrett, archiving things other people have said by retweeting them on his twitter account, and caring about things the general public doesn't. And he's salty "his favorite" didn't get picked in Lagoa.

/sneed


I agree with you, and his concerns are legit. I've yet to hear anyone counter them. People arent giving the dems their due in thinking the attacks are going to be about Catholicism or her family. If the points Barnes has brought up about her legal decisions are true, she and the senators that vote for her are in for a bumpy ride.
 
Anglos really need to get their ilk under control. For all the mutt memes atleast it helps dilute the disgusting Anglo genes enough that we can enjoy some semblance of freedom and not be state mandated to own a loicense for every occasion and need.
Interesting fact, despite nominally cancelling the slave trade Anglos were a major supplier of funds (and some equipment, notably ships) to the Confederacy, even serving as the national equivalent of a money launderer for the Confederate cotton, and winning sufficiently for them to justify intervening on the Confederate side was pretty much the hope the Confederates pinned their victory to. When is cancel culture going to finally cancel the Anglo scourge for their financial supporting of evil Confederate Slavery? And when are patriotic Americans going to demand reparations from them for assisting in the killing of Americans by insurrectionists?

Edit: "The US realized that as well and made it clear that recognition of the Confederacy meant war and the end of food shipments into Britain." OI YOU GOT YOUR BREAD LINE LOICENSE?
South Africa also apparently made a theme song for the CSS Alabama, a renowned Confederate Raider, that has become a folk song. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp_0Dwg5tzM
The modern authoritarianism of Britain is quite sad, given they were the first to abolish Serfdom, and were practically the European equivalent of America throughout the early modern period. According to a 1498 Venetian diplomat, they were big patriots, big eaters, very rich, were perpetually suspicious of their current leaders but venerated their ancient ones, and had astonishingly low population density. Sounds very familiar!

Maybe that's what happens when all the English-speaking freedom-lovers go to one country.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
SCOTUS doesn't get protection from the SS or US Marshals, they have their own small security team in the Supreme Court Police, it's one of the smallest federal agencies and only numbers around 125 officers. When they're inside the Washington metro area they get protection by them at all times, when they leave they need to request them as security.

Like if John Roberts went to West Virginia for some matter or another he'd have to ask the SCP to accompany him if he felt it was necessary and requested it.
Supreme Court Judge security was always relatively lax because of their low profile by nature, but, of course, thanks to TDS tards, it's now relevant as it should.
 
Remember "Spy vs. Spy" in MAD Magazine? Well, we now have fake vews vs. fake news, as USA Today fact checks The Babylon Bee:

The claim: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
The headline of an article published by satire website The Babylon Bee is a nod to the contentious history between the Trump administration and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The Babylon Bee is "the world's best satire site," according to its website.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died of metastatic pancreatic cancer Sept. 18, is actually "alive," the article suggests, because the 9th Circuit overturned her death.

"In a close decision, the judges on the court have ruled RBG's death unconstitutional and will block Trump from nominating a replacement," the article says.

Ninth Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw was credited with issuing the ruling on the basis that Ginsburg's death was an "affront to the (Constitution)" and the "God-given right to abort as many babies as possible and sell their body parts for research." . . . [more there]
tbf I can also easily imagine there's some poor bastard stuck writing these every day for USA Today who found this bit of tongue-in-cheek fun a nice alternative to
"USA TODAY FACT CHECK GUY DIDN'T DO A FLIP" - he used a gun, he didn't jump off a high thing thus he couldn't perform any midair stunts
 
Barnes today on Richard Baris' show "What are the Odds?" gave his opinion on Barrett. Main points are:

1) Much riskier choice than Lagoa, since Republicans bow to the Federalist Society and never think about what their actual enemies will aim against their nominations.

2) Barrett fanboys are fucking retarded pushing the idea that she is assured confirmation. Says it could be Trump's Bork.

3) Puts the odds at 1/3 that it blows up in Trump's face. 50/50 on confirmation.

4) The main attacks will be on healthcare and judicial excising of Obamacare, which Dems have represented after repeal & replace failure as being about preexisting conditions. You can already see this coordinated talking point happening right now.

5) They'll refrain from attacking her religion, though that doesn't mean the Twitterati won't.

Honestly I'm feeling much shakier on her than before. The polling shows it looks okay for her so far, but it's too early to know how it will really play into voting patterns. They haven't really defined her yet, and I 100% agree a lot of conservatives have the wool pulled over their eyes due to catholic faggot retards like Jack Posobiec.
Barnes is papering over the issues with Lagoa to make her sound better from a political point. 1-3 are basically him being a salty bitch.

Logoa has a big issue in that she has literally a single year of experience on the federal bench, has not been vetted already (unlike Barrett), and has many of the same issues as Barrett in that she is also a catholic. She just recently refused to recuse herself on something she has written about before, and does in fact have some judicial skeletons in her closet. She has all the same political issues as Barrett, but with none of the benefits of expediency that Barrett has.

And Expediency, above all other concerns, is THE concern.

Even being pre-vetted, even with everything cleared to make way, even with the Senate chopping at the bit to get this done. Barrett will get out of the judicial commission on... October 22nd. There will be 12 days to confirm her, and only 12 days, despite everything speeding her along.

Barnes can go suck eggs for being a, salty, ass-mad idiot. He has utterly gone nuts on this, totally thrown out the issue of expediency, papered over Lagoa's own issues, all to portray Barrett as THE worst possible candidate Trump could have chosen. Its frankly stupid.
 
I would think the experience angle is a non-starter simply because of Kagan, who if I recall correctly had a grand total of 0 hours, 0 days, 0 years of experience of being a judge.
Unlike the democrats, the republicans tend to actually care about the qualifications of their judges. Kagan was only needed as a warm body to 'decide' yes on whatever fits the party line.
 
I agree with you, and his concerns are legit. I've yet to hear anyone counter them.
No they're not. Claiming she "could be Trump's Bork" is retarded on countless levels and proves he shouldn't be taken seriously at all. First of all, Republicans control the Senate, not the Democrats. Second, they won't sit back for months while Democrats slander her. And, if I'm not mistaken, every Republican senator who publicly came out claiming "w-we should totally wait until after the election because reasons" has since walked that back.
 
Barnes is papering over the issues with Lagoa to make her sound better from a political point. 1-3 are basically him being a salty bitch.

Logoa has a big issue in that she has literally a single year of experience on the federal bench, has not been vetted already (unlike Barrett), and has many of the same issues as Barrett in that she is also a catholic. She just recently refused to recuse herself on something she has written about before, and does in fact have some judicial skeletons in her closet. She has all the same political issues as Barrett, but with none of the benefits of expediency that Barrett has.

And Expediency, above all other concerns, is THE concern.

Even being pre-vetted, even with everything cleared to make way, even with the Senate chopping at the bit to get this done. Barrett will get out of the judicial commission on... October 22nd. There will be 12 days to confirm her, and only 12 days, despite everything speeding her along.

Barnes can go suck eggs for being a, salty, ass-mad idiot. He has utterly gone nuts on this, totally thrown out the issue of expediency, papered over Lagoa's own issues, all to portray Barrett as THE worst possible candidate Trump could have chosen. Its frankly stupid.

I agree that Lagoa is not as safe a choice as he made her out to be, if only because of the vetting that hasn't been done on her. We just don't know much about her life, and something negative outside of judicial decisions could really hurt her. So in that sense, ACB was a good choice. Still, a lot of conservatives (e.g. Fox news neocons) think she's a slam dunk when there is a significant chance it won't be. She's super smart, though, so hopefully she's prepared to cut through idiots like Hirono or Kamala.
 
I agree that Lagoa is not as safe a choice as he made her out to be, if only because of the vetting that hasn't been done on her. We just don't know much about her life, and something negative outside of judicial decisions could really hurt her. So in that sense, ACB was a good choice. Still, a lot of conservatives (e.g. Fox news neocons) think she's a slam dunk when there is a significant chance it won't be. She's super smart, though, so hopefully she's prepared to cut through idiots like Hirono or Kamala.

Hirono and Harris are nothing, there's nothing to hope for here.

If everything we should be glad Harris is supposedly being placed in front, because she is going to say something very stupid that indicates how unlikable she is. She hasn't been campaigning much for a reason.
 
I agree that Lagoa is not as safe a choice as he made her out to be, if only because of the vetting that hasn't been done on her. We just don't know much about her life, and something negative outside of judicial decisions could really hurt her. So in that sense, ACB was a good choice. Still, a lot of conservatives (e.g. Fox news neocons) think she's a slam dunk when there is a significant chance it won't be. She's super smart, though, so hopefully she's prepared to cut through idiots like Hirono or Kamala.
Neither candidate is necessarily 'good'. Both have some fairly big downsides, and simply put there was no great options with the kind of time crunch we have here. Barrett wins due to being pre-vetted, and being able to cut out weeks of time by that.
 
A bit longer thought, the federal courts have largely been democrat until.... well, Trump. Simply put, there isn't really a good pool to pull from that isn't A: Super Old or B: Super Young (In judicial terms)
 
Remember "Spy vs. Spy" in MAD Magazine? Well, we now have fake vews vs. fake news, as USA Today fact checks The Babylon Bee:

The claim: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
The headline of an article published by satire website The Babylon Bee is a nod to the contentious history between the Trump administration and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The Babylon Bee is "the world's best satire site," according to its website.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died of metastatic pancreatic cancer Sept. 18, is actually "alive," the article suggests, because the 9th Circuit overturned her death.

"In a close decision, the judges on the court have ruled RBG's death unconstitutional and will block Trump from nominating a replacement," the article says.

Ninth Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw was credited with issuing the ruling on the basis that Ginsburg's death was an "affront to the (Constitution)" and the "God-given right to abort as many babies as possible and sell their body parts for research." . . . [more there]
This can't be real. This is nanny state shit. They actually believe that democrat voters are idiots.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole