Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

So many executive orders, so much twitter. What to do? Well, discuss it here for one...

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 18733
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by highdesert »

featureless wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:20 am
highdesert wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:19 am
It's high drama, the candidate is well prepped and the opposition asks questions to try and trip the candidate up. Since it's televised, both sides try to give their best performances for the home crowd. In our binary system of politics the two parties whip their followers into a frenzy in opposition or support and the media feeds it. Every issue, every person they reduce to "either/or", they practice KISS for their followers.
Yup. I tried watching some of it. It's a pretty disgusting show on all sides. No wonder this country is falling apart. All our "leaders" do is teach us to hate the other side.

To Barrett's credit, she appears well composed, very articulate and intelligent. I do hope she is able to separate her personal beliefs from her interpretation of the law, just like any good judge.
Disgusting is the right word and I too hope that she can separate her religion from the law. I was raised Catholic and I know that religion very well, Barrett is part of that traditionalist but vocal minority among church members. They dominated the church for 35 years, but not now. Pew did some interesting surveys.
https://www.pewforum.org/religious-land ... -ideology/

Hopefully Biden will broaden his picks for federal judges, Trump has been obsessed on selecting those from Ivy League universities like he attended. They are superb law schools but there are more than 8 universities and 5 law schools in the US. If Biden is elected he'll be the first president since Reagan who didn't go to the Ivy League, he went to Delaware and Syracuse Law.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
Mason
Moderator
Posts: 8243
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:27 am
Location: Hampton, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by Mason »

What I question most about this appointment is that she is willing to take it despite the highly questionable circumstances. I think it says not good things about her character that she won't hold the R's, like Lindsey Graham to their word about election year appointments.
'Sorry stupid people but there are some definite disadvantages to being stupid."

-John Cleese

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 7157
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by featureless »

Mason wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:10 am
What I question most about this appointment is that she is willing to take it despite the highly questionable circumstances. I think it says not good things about her character that she won't hold the R's, like Lindsey Graham to their word about election year appointments.
I understand the sentiment, but not sure someone else's actions would sway me from such an opportunity. Is it legal and constitutional? Yes. Is it politically charged? Yes. Politicians gunna politic, so...

Just to add a bit more to this, it would be turning down an opportunity of a lifetime to do meaningful work (we can quibble with her views, sure) over a political shitstorm someone else created. Would someone like RBG have turned down the opportunity? Hard to say, but I imagine she would not have under similar circumstances, all roles reversed. A judge's job is to interpret law, not politics. Obviously, some politics slips in. To err is human, right? :)
Last edited by featureless on Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 15590
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by sikacz »

Mason wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:10 am
What I question most about this appointment is that she is willing to take it despite the highly questionable circumstances. I think it says not good things about her character that she won't hold the R's, like Lindsey Graham to their word about election year appointments.
While I don’t like what is happening and what happened previously, what is happening now is to my understanding constitutional and within laws and the previous while unethical most likely also within the constitution and laws. If any of this is illegal or unconstitutional then someone with standing should or should have brought suit.

From my perspective not giving Obama’s appointment a hearing was shameful, but also indicates that perhaps the republicans could not have maintained a solid stance.
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 18733
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by highdesert »

featureless wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:30 am
Mason wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:10 am
What I question most about this appointment is that she is willing to take it despite the highly questionable circumstances. I think it says not good things about her character that she won't hold the R's, like Lindsey Graham to their word about election year appointments.
I understand the sentiment, but not sure someone else's actions would sway me from such an opportunity. Is it legal and constitutional? Yes. Is it politically charged? Yes. Politicians gunna politic, so...
Yes, there are plenty of lawyers who would kill for a slot on SCOTUS, especially an academic which Barrett basically is. McConnell's justification for not confirming Merrick Garland was always political bullshit, Republicans didn't really believe it though they gave it lip service. It's a polarized country and a million times more polarized in the shadow of this election.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 7157
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by featureless »

highdesert wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:48 am
featureless wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:30 am
Mason wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:10 am
What I question most about this appointment is that she is willing to take it despite the highly questionable circumstances. I think it says not good things about her character that she won't hold the R's, like Lindsey Graham to their word about election year appointments.
I understand the sentiment, but not sure someone else's actions would sway me from such an opportunity. Is it legal and constitutional? Yes. Is it politically charged? Yes. Politicians gunna politic, so...
Yes, there are plenty of lawyers who would kill for a slot on SCOTUS, especially an academic which Barrett basically is. McConnell's justification for not confirming Merrick Garland was always political bullshit, Republicans didn't really believe it though they gave it lip service. It's a polarized country and a million times more polarized in the shadow of this election.
Yep, Garland was shafted and McConnell remains the biggest asshole in the country. Some things will never change.

RBG was also essentially an academic. There are some odd parallels.

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 23362
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by CDFingers »

Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse used his 30 minutes of allotted time during Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing not to ask questions of President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett—who repeatedly dodged the straightforward questions of other lawmakers—but to deliver a detailed presentation on the sprawling "dark money operation" fueling the right-wing takeover of the U.S. judicial system.

Displaying a number of visuals and flow charts, the senator from Rhode Island traced the dizzying array of special interests and advocacy groups—from the Koch network to the Federalist Society to the Judicial Crisis Network to the Pacific Legal Foundation—coordinating and pouring money into the effort to confirm Barrett and other far-right, corporate-friendly judges committed to rolling back reproductive rights, voting rights, climate regulations, and more.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/ ... ion-behind

CDFingers
ImageImage
And if a man among you got no sin upon his hand
let him cast a stone at me for playin' in the band.

User avatar
TrueTexan
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 19615
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:28 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: The "Crazy" part of Denton Texas
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by TrueTexan »

Loose Lips Linsey Graham is at it again.
Lindsey Graham references ‘good old days of segregation’ at Amy Coney Barrett hearing

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Wednesday made a reference to “the good old days of segregation.”

Graham opened the third day of Amy Comey Barrett’s confirmation hearing by defending the Supreme Court nominee’s refusal to answer questions. However, the South Carolina senator pointed out that Barrett could express an opinion about Brown v. Board of Education because it was not currently being challenged in the courts.

“One of the reasons you can’t tell us how you would rule is because there’s active litigation coming to the court,” Graham said. “And one of the reasons you can say with confidence that you think Brown v. Board of Education is super-precedent is you’re not aware of any effort to go back to the good old days of segregation.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/10/linds ... t-hearing/

Also more Loose Lips.
Lindsey Graham bashed for comparing same-sex marriage to polygamy

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) raised eyebrows by asking Amy Coney Barrett whether a constitutional right to polygamy existed.

President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused to give her opinion on same-sex marriage and other legal topics throughout her confirmation hearings, but she gave her opinion on polygamous relationships.

“Let’s see,” she said. “That might be a question that could be litigated at, you know — polygamy obviously in many places is illegal now, but that could be an issue somebody might litigate before the court at some point.”

Graham wove an example of such a litigious argument for Barrett to comment on.

“Somebody might make the argument it’s possible for three people to love each other genuinely,” Graham said, “and that would work its way to the court if somebody wanted to make that argument, is that correct?”

“Yes, somebody could make that argument,” Barrett agreed.

Many observers noticed that Barrett and Graham seemed to be comparing same-sex partnerships to polygamous relationships.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/10/off-t ... -polygamy/

The Supporters of Trump and the Republicans are want to be ale to roll back time to the early 1950s before the Warren Court.

Think Justice Thomas would vote to reverse Loving V. Virginia?
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 15590
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by sikacz »

I’ve contemplated several points about the Supreme Court over the years. One, the size of the court is left up to the legislature and two, nowhere does it actually say the appointment is for a lifetime. What it says is vague, and references the nature of the justices serve under good behavior. So bad behavior is grounds for dismissal. That is probably not a high standard. In some reading in the past, I got the distinct impression that perhaps there was another reason a limit was not mentioned, it could be the framers never envisioned a full time Supreme Court being necessary. It might just be that the idea was a court would be appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate as needed. So as a practical point, if courts begin to make rulings contrary to the needs and welfare of the people, the behavior is obviously bad and the court dismissed. Or if the court fails to take on cases that are obviously constitutional in nature then that could be construed as bad behavior as well. While my later point has not been discussed much and the expansion of the courts has, I think both avenues need to be look at. The Supreme Court was ever intended to be beyond the constitution and their failure to preform should be a test of good and bad behavior.
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11908
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by DispositionMatrix »

With regard to the RKBA, Everytown has been decorating the Internet with tales of doom certain to befall the nation if Barrett is confirmed--most of it centered on the nominee's support for the restoration of the RKBA to non-violent felons and her view of Heller. CNN has bleated the suggestion that because Barrett says she owns a firearm she cannot rule impartially on 2A cases, and Democratic stolen valor hero Blumenthal has stated Barrett's confirmation would "imperil common-sense state laws." The latter two have been carried along on social media by Everytown as well.

Everytown Statement: During Questioning, Judge Amy Coney Barrett Confirms Extreme and Dangerous Second Amendment Beliefs
NEW YORK –– Today, Everytown and its grassroots networks, Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, responded to the second day of hearings on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, during which Judge Barrett confirmed her belief that some people convicted of serious felonies should not be prohibited from owning guns. This belief first came to light in Judge Barrett’s 2019 dissenting opinion in Kanter v. Barr, which Judge Barrett repeatedly defended today.

“This morning, Judge Barrett confirmed what we already suspected: she is a gun rights extremist who has no place on the Supreme Court,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “Her belief that some people convicted of serious felonies shouldn’t be prohibited from owning guns is disqualifying, and Everytown unequivocally opposes her confirmation.”

“Judge Barrett confirmed this morning that she’s a dream come true for the NRA and a nightmare for the safety of the American people,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action. “Giving her a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court will make us all less safe, and our grassroots army of nearly 6 million supporters will fight like hell to hold President Trump and Senate Republicans accountable at the ballot box for trying to steal this seat.”
My guess is, if confirmed, Barrett will learn to punt 2A cases with the best of them.

User avatar
lurker
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 16649
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:00 pm
Location: spencer, nc.
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by lurker »

so much for the "party of law and order", pretty much the same as the "party of family values". oops, no, the party of mob family values.

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 23362
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by CDFingers »

Parties of Grift.

CDFingers
ImageImage
And if a man among you got no sin upon his hand
let him cast a stone at me for playin' in the band.

User avatar
wings
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1945
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:24 am
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by wings »

Article III Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The Supremes have jurisdiction over federal laws, but it takes two or more states to tango at that level. So there's why they punt on state level gun rights. There's a reason they heard DC vs. Heller, and it had more to do with jurisdiction than the RKBA.

But this also applies to a Supreme Court post-Barrett. Read that second paragraph again. "With such Exceptions, and under such Regulations, as the Congress shall make." A Democratic Congress can tell the Supremes to get stuffed on all appellate cases, and leave them with interstate arguments and the occasional fight over ambassadors.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 7157
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by featureless »

Wings,

How does that square with McDonald incorporating the 2nd against the states? Genuine question, not snark. :)

User avatar
wings
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1945
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:24 am
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by wings »

IANAL, but I struggle to understand that too. Something about Slaughter-House and extending the 14th to local jurisdictions, not just states?

User avatar
TrueTexan
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 19615
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:28 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: The "Crazy" part of Denton Texas
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by TrueTexan »

Does Barrett have an opinion on anything?
Does Trump Have Power to Pardon Himself? His Supreme Court Nominee Won’t Say.
https://truthout.org/articles/does-tru ... -wont-say/
Barrett Sparks Outrage With Claim That She Has No “Firm Views” on Climate Crisis
https://truthout.org/articles/barrett- ... te-crisis/
Amy Coney Barrett Refuses to Answer If Trump Can Delay the Election or Not
https://truthout.org/articles/amy-cone ... on-or-not/
Barrett Decried Roe’s “Barbaric Legacy,” But Now Says She Doesn’t Have an Agenda
https://truthout.org/articles/barrett- ... an-agenda/

She has ducked and dodged almost all questions during the hearing. I can see why the Reptilians want her on the bench. She is the ideal Republican woman. No opinions just will do as she is told, the perfect handmaiden.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

User avatar
TrueTexan
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 19615
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:28 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: The "Crazy" part of Denton Texas
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by TrueTexan »

More undisclosed talks by Amy Coney Barrett emerge as hearings reach final day

Amy Coney Barrett will not appear at the final day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, which is too bad, since she has some explaining to do. CNN has uncovered still more public talks Barrett failed to disclose in her Senate paperwork, including yet another one with an anti-abortion group.

Of course, the fact that this is far from the first such thing Barrett failed to disclose means that we already know her explanation: shrug, it's hard to remember stuff. And since Republicans aren't any more interested in honesty or transparency than she is, she's not feeling any pressure.

At the final day of hearings, senators on the Judiciary Committee will speak again, Republicans will move to advance to the full Senate for a vote, and Democrats will call for a week's delay, which Lindsey Graham, the committee chair, has said he will honor.

"That would put the committee's vote to approve Judge Barrett's nomination on Oct. 22," The New York Times reports. "A vote on confirmation by the full Senate is expected the following week, as early as Oct. 26." "As early as" is an interesting phrase here, since it speaks to how quickly Senate Republicans have jammed this nomination through, but the fact that October 26 would be one week and one day before Election Day highlights the other side of the rush: It's incredibly last-minute.

Also at Thursday's hearing, members of the American Bar Association's standing committee on the federal judiciary will come to say that Barrett is qualified. Then Democrats will bring witnesses to illustrate the dangers Barrett poses to regular people by limiting access to abortion and other health care, and Republicans will bring witnesses to say that Barrett is a very nice lady whose niceness means we should pretend she won't strip tens of millions of people of key healthcare protections and send women to back alleys for abortions.
https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/more-u ... final-day/

We can hope she get a revelation from her God that turns her ideals into another Earl Warren.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

User avatar
TrueTexan
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 19615
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:28 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: The "Crazy" part of Denton Texas
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by TrueTexan »

Graham blows up Judiciary Committee rules and proceeds with Barrett’s confirmation hearing sans Democrats

Chairman Lindsey Graham is ignoring the official rules of the Senate Judiciary Committee, proceeding to conduct business on the final day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing. Long standing rules require at least two members of the minority party to be present for any committee business to take place. Senator Dick Durbin was the only Democrat on the committee present.

Durbin warned Graham that he was violating the rules, but Graham pressed forward.

Saying "I know what awaits us," Graham claimed, "we've had this problem in the past, we're dealing with it the way we are today. If we create this problem in the future you're gonna do what I'm gonna do."

Chairman Graham then proceeded with the committee's business and called for a motion to hold a vote on Barrett's nomination on October 22.
Rules! We don't need no stinkin' Rules! We just what we want and there is nothing you can do about it.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 18733
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by highdesert »

Democrats are desperate to derail Barrett's nomination, I expect their offices are blowing up with calls, e-mails...from all the usual groups such as pro-choice, anti-gun... More political drama similar to the Kavanaugh hearings and the media just loves political drama because it's revenue that keeps them running. Democratic senators are playing to their supporters. Republicans control the Senate and the Judiciary Committee and they have the votes to confirm Barrett, it was over when Trump nominated Barrett. It's bare knuckles politics and Democrats play it too.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 7157
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by featureless »

It would be nice if there was an honest attempt to discuss her qualifications rather than campaigning theatrics by both parties. What a disgusting process. Any other "employer" would be hit with a massive lawsuit for some of the things they're slinging around in there. Could you just imagine that interview? :)

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 18733
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by highdesert »

featureless wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:37 am
Any other "employer" would be hit with a massive lawsuit for some of the things they're slinging around in there. Could you just imagine that interview? :)
HR where I worked insisted on reviewing all interview questions, even if managers were conducting the interviews. Civil service so no informal interviews, standard questions that everyone was asked. But anything goes in politics, yes it is a disgusting process.

____________________________________
Just how conservative is Amy Coney Barrett?
We can look to her track record on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, though, for clues. Barrett has served on that court for almost three years now, and two different analyses of her rulings point to the same conclusion: Barrett is one of the more conservative judges on the circuit — and maybe even the most conservative.

University of Virginia law professors Joshua Fischman and Kevin Cope analyzed more than 1,700 cases that the 7th Circuit has heard since Barrett joined the court in 2017, including 378 where Barrett cast a vote,1 and according to their analysis, Barrett is part of a cluster of conservative judges at the rightmost edge of the 7th Circuit.
However, even though her ideological estimate was furthest to the right of the judges currently on the 7th Circuit, Barrett was statistically indistinguishable from the three other Trump appointees and three judges appointed by other Republicans, including prominent conservative Judges Diane Sykes and Frank Easterbrook. “[Barrett is] clearly near the right side of the conservative spectrum on the court,” Fischman told us. “She’s not off the charts, though — she’s in line with other well-known, well-respected conservative judges on the court.”

But there are some differences between Barrett and her current conservative colleagues. Fischman and Cope also dug into how judges ruled on various types of issues and found that Barrett is closer to the middle of the court on cases involving employment discrimination, labor and criminal defendants, but much more conservative in cases involving civil rights — a category that is mainly composed of cases involving prisoners’ rights and civil rights claims against government employees, but also includes hot-button issues like gun rights, voting rights and abortion rights.
Barrett’s record on abortion has come under a lot of scrutiny, but Fischman noted that she might also be especially conservative on gun rights. She only heard a handful of cases involving Second Amendment rights during her time on the 7th Circuit, but she came out strongly against several of her conservative colleagues in a case involving a law stripping felons of their gun rights, arguing that the Second Amendment doesn’t allow such a blanket ban. Those views could be especially relevant on the Supreme Court, which hasn’t heard a major case involving gun rights in almost a decade.

We can also look at how Barrett has ruled in special cases known as “en banc” hearings, which are used when there’s a serious disagreement among the judges about an outcome, or when circuit precedent is being reconsidered. These cases are not very common — Barrett, for instance, has only sat on six en banc panels in her three years on the court — but they can offer a clearer snapshot of a judge’s ideology, as judges often have more freedom in how they rule in these cases, in part because they are not constrained by circuit precedent as they normally would be. En banc hearings are also more comparable to cases the Supreme Court might hear because the legal issues are knottier. And they’re more similar to how the Supreme Court works, because they require all the circuit judges to vote together rather than splitting them into smaller panels of three judges, which is how the appeals court normally operates.

An analysis of 7th Circuit en banc cases by Tom Clark, a political science professor at Emory University, mirrored what Fischman and Cope found: After just six cases, Barrett fell on the rightmost edge of the court, along with two other Trump appointees and Sykes. (There was considerably more uncertainty in her estimate, though, since Clark’s model was drawing on less data for judges who have been on the court for less time.)

“Things could be different with more data, of course,” said Clark. But overall, he thought her ideological profile was remarkably clear. “She’s voting very consistently in these cases so far. Even with this small number of cases, she’s showing up on the far right edge of the court.” It’s hard, of course, to directly extrapolate from Barrett’s record as an appellate judge to how she might rule as a Supreme Court justice, but it’s reasonable to expect she will be reliably conservative. That said, Barrett has not always ruled in line with fellow conservatives on the 7th Circuit, and even the conservative justices on the Supreme Court disagree with each other on some topics or differ on which issues are more important. It remains to be seen just how persuadable Barrett might be if she’s confirmed, or how her perspective might change after a few years on the bench.
This is important, too, because to keep the Supreme Court from moving quickly to the right on hot-button issues, Chief Justice John Roberts may try to peel off another conservative vote. Whether Barrett might be amenable to such overtures is hard to say, but we do know that during her time on the 7th Circuit, Fischman and Cope found that she has voted in a liberal direction about 20 percent of the time when at least one Democratic nominee is on the panel but only about 9 percent of the time when the panel is composed of three Republican nominees. That could indicate that Barrett is open to the arguments of her more liberal colleagues — or that she is choosing not to dissent in some cases for the sake of collegiality. Either way, though, it’s a sign that she does vote slightly differently depending on the composition of the panel, rather than being consistently conservative regardless of who she’s voting with.

Clifford W. Berlow, a partner at the law firm Jenner & Block who specializes in appellate litigation, said that this is in line with the 7th Circuit’s general reputation as a polite, respectful circuit. “I don’t think you’ve seen from Barrett or any of the other [Trump appointees] the sort of scathing, scorched-earth dissents or biting concurrences that you might see in some other circuits,” Berlow said. He added that he wouldn’t be surprised if Barrett carried this sense of collegiality with her to the Supreme Court.

Overall, though, it’s plain from Barrett’s record why Republicans are eager to confirm her before the election and why Democrats are dead-set against her. With only a few years under her belt as a judge, she’s established herself as one of the most conservative members of a court that already has a lot of Republican appointees. If she’s confirmed, it seems fairly safe to assume that she would continue that pattern — even if she’s occasionally willing to break from her fellow conservatives.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ho ... y-barrett/
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 7157
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by featureless »

"occasionally willing to break from her fellow conservatives" is abut all we can ask, of any judge, on either side.

wooglin
Been around awhile
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by wooglin »

Not conforming to senate rules during confirmation hearings would be a good justification to overturn the confirmation at a later date, assuming the senate flips.

User avatar
TrueTexan
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 19615
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:28 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: The "Crazy" part of Denton Texas
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by TrueTexan »

wooglin wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 1:07 pm
Not conforming to senate rules during confirmation hearings would be a good justification to overturn the confirmation at a later date, assuming the senate flips.
Who is going to overturn the confirmation? The Senate or the Courts. I did a quick search and I could not find where a Senate Confirmation was ever overturned. Judges have been impeached, but that was due to actions of the judge not of the Senate.

I sure don’t want the idea the Senate can ever overturn a confirmation at will. Because It would set a very bad precedent. Better we live with the devil we know than the devil we don’t know.

Better we haul Graham up on Federal Election Campaign violations charges and have him removed in disgrace from the Senate if he is re-elected. Even if he loses he still needs to be charged and tried.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/10/a-cri ... -building/
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

User avatar
TrueTexan
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 19615
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:28 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: The "Crazy" part of Denton Texas
Contact:

Re: Trump Plans To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Post by TrueTexan »

Trump boasts Amy Coney Barrett was ‘toying’ with ‘evil’ Democrats


President Donald Trump is bragging that his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, the supposedly non-partisan and non-political branch of government, was “toying” with the Democratic U.S. Senators on the Judiciary Committee this week.

He also took a swipe, Thursday afternoon at a campaign re-election rally in North Carolina, at the opposing party, calling Democrats “evil.”

“She’s toying with those Democrat, evil people. They’re evil”
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/10/trump- ... mocrats-2/

As my older relatives would say, "That boy's gate is totally unhinged and all his sense has got lost." or "Bless his heart, that boy ain't got no brain."
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests