Law Justice Amy Coney Barrett Megathread

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
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:
Imagine claiming that you're on the right side of history when you support segregation, white power talking points about race mixing, and leaving 3rd worlders to suffer because you're not the right color.

But you know, we're the racists I guess.
 
In the same hemisphere as the topic, a brilliant summation of last night's debate:

debate-01-tweet.jpg
 
I like this plan, mainly because Bidens heart couldn't take any milliamps without exploding. I'm pretty sure it's not going to help with his obvious dementia either so it'll be much funnier than the first one.
What if the repeated shocks re-scramble his mind to operate at peak performance? We need to get Mike "Electric Fence" Pence to lend his expertise on this subject.
 
It's amazing how fast the democrats have tucked tail on this nomination. We've gone from an army of blue checks and democrat pols threatening to burn the country down and martyr themselves to a smattering of avoidance based whimpering about obamacare on twitter.

Should tell you all you need to know about how badly Trump and the turtle boxed them into a corner with this pick. They got nothing, and they know it. Also illuminating how all the concern trolls have gone radio silent right along side them. Guess no more marching orders are going out.
 
In the same hemisphere as the topic, a brilliant summation of last night's debate:

View attachment 1632199

"Chaotic"?

Wallace was supposed to be the moderator. I don't know if that retard has moderated a debate before (because previous debates between establishment approved candidates is not the same), but, like jannies here, he's supposed to... you know... not allow a verbal shitting street, or at least, make it organised.

Why did he lead with the most autistic question? And why did he allow Joe to ramble about fucking Obamacare when it had fuck all to do with ACB?
He should have told that anthropomorphic stick of beef jerky to stay on fucking topic. But no, no, no, he had to simp for him, let him ramble.

It goes without saying that the question is not a question that needed to be phrased that way or asked up first.
Trump has the right - nay, duty - to put in a judge. It's not even a debatable topic. RBG's "last request" is unconstitutional. It's not something for Biden to even ponder. It's none of his business.

He should have gone hard at Dementia Joe for the "stack the courts" malarkey.
 
It's amazing how fast the democrats have tucked tail on this nomination. We've gone from an army of blue checks and democrat pols threatening to burn the country down and martyr themselves to a smattering of avoidance based whimpering about obamacare on twitter.

Well, let's be reasonable here, do you think any of the celebrity class of Twitter would ever RISK themselves to affect any change on the world? That was all a call-to-arms for nonexistent armies to do as the "right side" commands, and when it didn't result in anything after 48 hours, they got bored, or starved for another dopamine hit of retweets, and moved on to the next perpetual crisis.
 
"Chaotic"?

Wallace was supposed to be the moderator. I don't know if that retard has moderated a debate before (because previous debates between establishment approved candidates is not the same), but, like jannies here, he's supposed to... you know... not allow a verbal shitting street, or at least, make it organised.

Why did he lead with the most autistic question? And why did he allow Joe to ramble about fucking Obamacare when it had fuck all to do with ACB?
He should have told that anthropomorphic stick of beef jerky to stay on fucking topic. But no, no, no, he had to simp for him, let him ramble.

It goes without saying that the question is not a question that needed to be phrased that way or asked up first.
Trump has the right - nay, duty - to put in a judge. It's not even a debatable topic. RBG's "last request" is unconstitutional. It's not something for Biden to even ponder. It's none of his business.

He should have gone hard at Dementia Joe for the "stack the courts" malarkey.

Every time Trump started to verbally whoop him, Wallace called for a change in topic.
 
RBG's "last request" is unconstitutional. It's not something for Biden to even ponder. It's none of his business.

It's not unconstitutional, it's irrelevant.


"Unconstitutional" would mean it had any ability to be legally binding in the first place.

It is, literally, below legal notice.

Unless we're in a probate court, what a person put in their will, let alone just expressed in their dying days, doesn't matter.
 


Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., led a group of Democrats to formally call for a delay in the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett until after the presidential inauguration, saying the process is too rushed to properly vet President Trump's pick.

Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, wrote Wednesday to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the chairman of the committee, to challenge the Oct. 12 date he set for Barrett's confirmation hearing.

“The timeline for consideration of Judge Barrett’s nomination is incompatible with the Senate’s constitutional role," Feinstein wrote. "We again urge you to delay consideration of this nomination until after the presidential inauguration. The Senate and the American public deserve a deliberative, thorough process, and this falls far short.”

Graham and Senate Republicans believe Barrett is supremely qualified and there's enough time to vet her, especially since she recently went through the rigorous process when she was confirmed in 2017 to become a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The question for the country is, is [Judge Barrett] ready to be promoted? I think the answer is yes," Graham said this week. "I think she’s done everything anybody could hope a nominee for the Supreme Court would do in their life.”

“I think [Judge Barrett] is one of the most qualified people to ever be nominated to the Supreme Court," he added.

Barrett already turned in her 65-page questionnaire to the committee on her professional and legal history. She also turned in hundreds and hundreds of pages of her writings and legal opinions for the senators to review before questioning her on the Oct. 13 hearing.

Democrats are already crying hypocrisy about the Senate GOP pushing through Trump's pick just weeks before the presidential election when the GOP held up President Obama's nominee of Merrick Garland eight months before the 2016 election under the argument that the American people must weigh in.

Now Democrats say there is not enough time to properly review Barrett's record.

"This timeline is a sharp departure from past practice," Feinstein wrote. "Even more, it undercuts the Senate’s ability to fulfill its advice and consent role and deprives the American people of a meaningful opportunity to gauge the nominee and her record for themselves."

All 10 Judiciary Committee Democrats signed the request. Joining Feinstein were vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Chris Coons of Delaware, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Dick Durbin of Ilinois and Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

Meanwhile, Barrett is on Capitol Hill Thursday for the third day of meetings with senators. GOP women have been rallying around Barrett and lauded her long list of accomplishments at a news event Wednesday.

"Folks, this is what a mom can do," said Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, marveling at Barrett's record while raising seven children.

But Feinstein said Barrett represents a threat to Americans' health care as the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a challenge to President Obama's Affordable Care Act on Nov. 10.

"It’s clear that Judge Barrett will deliver on the president’s promises [to overturn the ObamaCare] if confirmed to the Supreme Court, in no small part because Judge Barrett has specifically criticized the court’s opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act," Feinstein said Thursday.

She said it's "unsurprising" that Graham's Judiciary Committee "is dispensing with past practice and rushing a nominee through at breakneck speed."
 


Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., led a group of Democrats to formally call for a delay in the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett until after the presidential inauguration, saying the process is too rushed to properly vet President Trump's pick.

Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, wrote Wednesday to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the chairman of the committee, to challenge the Oct. 12 date he set for Barrett's confirmation hearing.

“The timeline for consideration of Judge Barrett’s nomination is incompatible with the Senate’s constitutional role," Feinstein wrote. "We again urge you to delay consideration of this nomination until after the presidential inauguration. The Senate and the American public deserve a deliberative, thorough process, and this falls far short.”

Graham and Senate Republicans believe Barrett is supremely qualified and there's enough time to vet her, especially since she recently went through the rigorous process when she was confirmed in 2017 to become a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The question for the country is, is [Judge Barrett] ready to be promoted? I think the answer is yes," Graham said this week. "I think she’s done everything anybody could hope a nominee for the Supreme Court would do in their life.”

“I think [Judge Barrett] is one of the most qualified people to ever be nominated to the Supreme Court," he added.

Barrett already turned in her 65-page questionnaire to the committee on her professional and legal history. She also turned in hundreds and hundreds of pages of her writings and legal opinions for the senators to review before questioning her on the Oct. 13 hearing.

Democrats are already crying hypocrisy about the Senate GOP pushing through Trump's pick just weeks before the presidential election when the GOP held up President Obama's nominee of Merrick Garland eight months before the 2016 election under the argument that the American people must weigh in.

Now Democrats say there is not enough time to properly review Barrett's record.

"This timeline is a sharp departure from past practice," Feinstein wrote. "Even more, it undercuts the Senate’s ability to fulfill its advice and consent role and deprives the American people of a meaningful opportunity to gauge the nominee and her record for themselves."

All 10 Judiciary Committee Democrats signed the request. Joining Feinstein were vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Chris Coons of Delaware, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Dick Durbin of Ilinois and Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

Meanwhile, Barrett is on Capitol Hill Thursday for the third day of meetings with senators. GOP women have been rallying around Barrett and lauded her long list of accomplishments at a news event Wednesday.

"Folks, this is what a mom can do," said Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, marveling at Barrett's record while raising seven children.

But Feinstein said Barrett represents a threat to Americans' health care as the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a challenge to President Obama's Affordable Care Act on Nov. 10.

"It’s clear that Judge Barrett will deliver on the president’s promises [to overturn the ObamaCare] if confirmed to the Supreme Court, in no small part because Judge Barrett has specifically criticized the court’s opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act," Feinstein said Thursday.

She said it's "unsurprising" that Graham's Judiciary Committee "is dispensing with past practice and rushing a nominee through at breakneck speed."

That's nice and thoughtful of them...tough shit.

She has already been vetted previously for our current judgeship.

This is a direct result of the calls earlier this week by the democrats to replace the walking corpse with "man" because they thought she was too old and week to effectively damage ACB.
 
That's nice and thoughtful of them...tough shit.

She has already been vetted previously for our current judgeship.

This is a direct result of the calls earlier this week by the democrats to replace the walking corpse with "man" because they thought she was too old and week to effectively damage ACB.

But they've "FORMALLY called for it"! 😆
 


Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., led a group of Democrats to formally call for a delay in the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett until after the presidential inauguration, saying the process is too rushed to properly vet President Trump's pick.

Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, wrote Wednesday to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the chairman of the committee, to challenge the Oct. 12 date he set for Barrett's confirmation hearing.

“The timeline for consideration of Judge Barrett’s nomination is incompatible with the Senate’s constitutional role," Feinstein wrote. "We again urge you to delay consideration of this nomination until after the presidential inauguration. The Senate and the American public deserve a deliberative, thorough process, and this falls far short.”

Graham and Senate Republicans believe Barrett is supremely qualified and there's enough time to vet her, especially since she recently went through the rigorous process when she was confirmed in 2017 to become a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The question for the country is, is [Judge Barrett] ready to be promoted? I think the answer is yes," Graham said this week. "I think she’s done everything anybody could hope a nominee for the Supreme Court would do in their life.”

“I think [Judge Barrett] is one of the most qualified people to ever be nominated to the Supreme Court," he added.

Barrett already turned in her 65-page questionnaire to the committee on her professional and legal history. She also turned in hundreds and hundreds of pages of her writings and legal opinions for the senators to review before questioning her on the Oct. 13 hearing.

Democrats are already crying hypocrisy about the Senate GOP pushing through Trump's pick just weeks before the presidential election when the GOP held up President Obama's nominee of Merrick Garland eight months before the 2016 election under the argument that the American people must weigh in.

Now Democrats say there is not enough time to properly review Barrett's record.

"This timeline is a sharp departure from past practice," Feinstein wrote. "Even more, it undercuts the Senate’s ability to fulfill its advice and consent role and deprives the American people of a meaningful opportunity to gauge the nominee and her record for themselves."

All 10 Judiciary Committee Democrats signed the request. Joining Feinstein were vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Chris Coons of Delaware, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Dick Durbin of Ilinois and Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

Meanwhile, Barrett is on Capitol Hill Thursday for the third day of meetings with senators. GOP women have been rallying around Barrett and lauded her long list of accomplishments at a news event Wednesday.

"Folks, this is what a mom can do," said Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, marveling at Barrett's record while raising seven children.

But Feinstein said Barrett represents a threat to Americans' health care as the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a challenge to President Obama's Affordable Care Act on Nov. 10.

"It’s clear that Judge Barrett will deliver on the president’s promises [to overturn the ObamaCare] if confirmed to the Supreme Court, in no small part because Judge Barrett has specifically criticized the court’s opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act," Feinstein said Thursday.

She said it's "unsurprising" that Graham's Judiciary Committee "is dispensing with past practice and rushing a nominee through at breakneck speed."
As scheduled, ACB's hearings will be 2 days longer than Ginsburg's.
 
Mitch McConnell can end this pointless theater at any time and call the vote. Why he won't is a mystery as no democrat is going to accept ACB even if she could bring about the ALGSC.

He wants to not give any RINOs any sort of excuse. The less excuses they have, the more likely they'll do what they should.
 
Mitch McConnell can end this pointless theater at any time and call the vote. Why he won't is a mystery as no democrat is going to accept ACB even if she could bring about the ALGSC.
its more painful to have the dems seem like they have a chance of stopping the confirmation rather than skipping to the end. This method will probably demoralize the left more than if Mitch just skipping it altogether.

Mitch is basically torturing the dems right now.
 
Last edited:
They also tricked people like Labor MP Jess Phillips, yes the one that Sargon said he wouldn't even rape, with the story about LeBron James and other NBA players wearing a lace collar to honor RBG.



They also got fact checked for this obvious satire story.

And here's the original piece of the Bee's website.

It's as if only A&N types and evangelicals know what the Babylon Bee is, so normies & journos keep falling for their bait.
 
Back
Top Bottom