Jump to content

SCOTUS nominee Amy Barrett


NOTW

Recommended Posts

USA Today has a good article on her views and philosophy.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/05/amy-barrett-we-watched-hours-her-speeches-heres-what-we-learned/3596731001/

Quote

 

An originalist tying Odysseus to the mast 

Barrett’s confirmation hearings could be political theater, but people deserve to hear a nominee’s judicial philosophy, she told an audience at Notre Dame last year. 

"Not having a philosophy is a philosophy. If your approach is grab-bag, that’s your theory,” Barrett said. A nominee "can’t answer about specific cases, but questions about judicial philosophy should be on the table. ... You have a right to know what yardstick you’re using to make those decisions.” 

Chief Justice John Roberts employed his hallmark baseball metaphor in his 2005 confirmation, "My job is to call balls and strikes and not pitch or bat. ... I have no agenda.” 

Similarly, expect to hear Barrett bring up the Greek mythological hero Odysseus, tied to his ship’s mast as the dangerous Sirens tempt him to jump overboard. Barrett has used that metaphor for those who might surrender to temptation to disregard the Constitution. She sees herself, and all good judges, as one of the crew members lashing him down.

But, she’s warned, that philosophy isn’t all-binding. 

"The Constitution and the courts function in that way; it ties transient political majorities and government officials, who in moments of weakness would violate the constitutional norms to which we’re committed,” Barrett told a group at Villanova Law School last year. 

"Is the Constitution a straitjacket? No, the Constitution itself leaves plenty of room for change — political, legal, social and otherwise. The Constitution is less than 6,000 words and makes no attempt to regulate every aspect of American life.” 

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, and Vice President Mike Pence arrive at the Capitol where Barrett will meet with senators Sept. 29 in Washington.
In her talks Barrett frequently addressed what she calls the "dead-hand objection” to originalism — seeking out the wishes and intentions of a "bunch of dead white men,” as she calls the founders.  

"The fact that we weren’t alive or didn’t have the ability to participate doesn’t render the law illegitimate,” Barrett said. "We accept the law as we find it, until we lawfully change it.”

Given the national conversation about racial injustice, senators could attempt to push Barrett on her originalism, said Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler, who hosted the judge last year for a lecture. 

"I would not be surprised if opponents misrepresent or caricature originalism on incendiary topics,” Adler said. "The fact that some founders had retrograde views on a range of subjects doesn’t control what the text itself means.”

Barrett falls into a faction of originalists who seek out the original meaning of the Constitution by asking what the generally understood meaning of the text was at the time of ratification, "as opposed to actually trying to get into the head of James Madison,” said Princeton University jurisprudence professor Robert George, who hosted Barrett at the school last year. 

Amy Coney Barrett:Amy Coney Barrett: Talented judge, popular professor brings solid conservative credentials

Six conservative justices:10 ways the Supreme Court could change

She is likely to face questions, as she did in several panels, about whether the Supreme Court should overturn rulings while maintaining stability in the courts. 

"A primary way that the Supreme Court contributes to stability is not to grant cert (accept a case for review) when the question presented is, ‘Do you want to overturn a precedent?’" Barrett said while moderating a Federalist Society discussion in 2018. 

"I think that if the court is looking to keep things calm, it will be in the nature of that,” she said. The court will decline "to take up cases in which overruling precedent would be on the table.”

Questions about Barrett’s position on overturning precedent are just veiled critiques about her views on Roe v. Wade, said Helen Alvaré, a law professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.

"I have no illusions the hand-wringing about her views on stare decisis are wedded to Roe,” Alvaré said, referring to the legal principle of following precedent. "But her comments on stare decisis are better read in context and they’re nuanced.” 

Hints at cases that may come before Barrett

Barrett describes the judiciary as an impartial body above the political fray, courageously pushing away the temptation of personal preferences. 

But those academic lectures could soon slam headlong into cases to be heard by the Supreme Court she hopes to join. They include the future of President Barack Obama’s signature health care law, which is being challenged for a third time. 

"A judge’s view about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act should not turn on whether he or she thinks the act is good or bad policy,” Barrett told the Princeton crowd. “(It) should turn on whether the Constitution permits or forbids it. A judge’s role is properly above the political fray, with a duty to the law before personal loyalties.” 

Barrett, who as a law professor was a member of a faculty group that opposes abortion, has provided rare glimpses at her views on the future of Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, which guarantee the right to an abortion.

She predicted in a 2016 talk at Jacksonville University’s Public Policy Institute that although the right likely wouldn’t go away, the Supreme Court could uphold further restrictions.

"I think the question is how much freedom the Court is willing to let the states have in regulating abortion,” Barrett said. "The Court has held in some circumstances the states can render partial-birth abortions illegal — very late-term abortions.” 

Groups opposing Barrett’s nomination have pointed to her Catholic faith, which opposes abortion, as evidence of how she will rule on the topic. 

But the judge has said like any other personal preference, judges need to guard against bias. 

"It seems to me the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law,” she said during a 2019 appearance in Washington, D.C., sponsored by Hillsdale College. "And I think people of faith should reject that premise. All people ... or most people, we hope, have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith.” 

Those remarks amount to a fuller response to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who pushed Barrett to answer how her faith impacts her views on Roe during her 2017 appeals court confirmation hearing. "The dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said, drawing criticism and energizing conservatives who put that line on T-shirts. 

"Roe and Casey and its progeny has been affirmed many times and survived many challenges, and it’s more than 40 years old,” Barrett responded at the time. "It’s not open or up to me challenging that; it would bind.” As an appeals judge, Barrett is bound by precedent. As a Supreme Court justice, she would have latitude to overturn rulings deemed unconstitutional. 

Barrett spoke more broadly about faith when she delivered the diploma ceremony address for the Notre Dame Law School class of 2006. She suggested departing students should strive to fulfill the promise of being "a different kind of lawyer.” 

"And that is this: that you will always keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and ... that end is building the kingdom of God," said Barrett, according to a Notre Dame transcript.  

"You know the same law, are charged with maintaining the same ethical standards, and will be entering the same kinds of legal jobs as your peers across the country. But if you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love, and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.” 

Who would Trump appoint to the court? 'Who knows?'

Barrett has been on the national radar for the Supreme Court for years, particularly after she was added to Trump’s list of possible picks in 2017. She was considered to succeed Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who held a swing seat between the liberal and conservative sides. Kavanaugh was nominated instead. 

During her speaking tour, some people have asked her to comment on presidential candidates who say they would choose nominees based on how they would rule on particular issues. 

"Those kinds of answers are, I think, what is wrong with our nomination process,” Barrett said at the Jacksonville University event, several days before the 2016 presidential election. "To say I want someone who is pro-life or I want to appoint someone whose primary focus is protecting minority rights, the candidates are talking to their bases and talking to the electorate.” 

"We shouldn’t be putting people on the court who share our policy preferences,” she said. "We should be putting people on the court who want to apply the Constitution.” 

During that event, Barrett was asked about the type of nominees Trump or Hillary Clinton would appoint to the Supreme Court if they won. "Who knows?” she said of Trump, as the audience laughed. Then she tried to look into the future if he were president. 

"I think maybe Trump would appoint some in the mold of Scalia, some more in the mold of Kennedy,” said Barrett, who was still a Notre Dame law professor at the time. "I think we may well end up with a moderate to more conservative court on judicial rule. I think it's safe to say it wouldn't be hard to the left-leaning side on the approach to constitutional questions.” 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

WASHINGTON —  

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has close ties to a charismatic Christian religious group that holds that men are divinely ordained as the "head” of the family and faith. Former members of the group, called People of Praise, say it teaches that wives must submit to the will of their husbands.

5d128f389c510112de7ff8c3?width=1100&form

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good thing she got Covid already this summer and got that part of being in Trump’s orbit out of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I heard she had 7 kids, I definitely got some quiverfull vibes, but then I found out two of the kids are adopted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gannan said:

5d128f389c510112de7ff8c3?width=1100&form

 

Very much the same as the Amish and Mennonite faiths that are spread all over rural Pennsylvania and the United States ,,,I went to a Mennonite friend of mines wedding and wow was it a eye opener

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gannan said:
Quote

WASHINGTON —  

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has close ties to a charismatic Christian religious group that holds that men are divinely ordained as the "head” of the family and faith. Former members of the group, called People of Praise, say it teaches that wives must submit to the will of their husbands.

Tried  to post this not the pic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TEW said:

What an upgrade she will be over RBG. 

Trigger.gif.9eb7a3707ed0d730baa5aa7126c48ad5.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bill said:

michael-keaton.gif

 

7 minutes ago, Bill said:

michael-keaton.gif


:roll:  :roll: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's already obvious that the Democrats know that they have no chance of stopping this nomination, and are just using their time at the hearing to campaign against Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The_Omega said:

It's already obvious that the Democrats know that they have no chance of stopping this nomination, and are just using their time at the hearing to campaign against Trump.

They're just pointing out the obvious fact that a far right court will strip civil rights and heath insurance protections from the American people.  That seems like something people should know.  I'm sure you'd prefer Republicans ram her nomination through in the dark of night, but we're still a representative democracy for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zero Democrats voted against Scalia 

Zero Democrats will vote for ACB his protégé 

30 years later why has our country gone to crap? Answer is clear. Democrats. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Zero Democrats voted against Scalia 

Zero Democrats will vote for ACB his protégé 

30 years later why has our country gone to crap? Answer is clear. Democrats. 

If you dont like it here you can move to Canada

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Zero Democrats voted against Scalia 

Zero Democrats will vote for ACB his protégé 

30 years later why has our country gone to crap? Answer is clear. Democrats. 

I'm sure it has nothing to do with Republicans politicizing the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Zero Democrats voted against Scalia 

Zero Democrats will vote for ACB his protégé 

30 years later why has our country gone to crap? Answer is clear. Democrats. 

And Merrick Garland was considered someone who would be a consensus nominee.  The country has gone to crap because of partisanship. The problem is people like you put on blinders and think this is 1 sided.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So crazy having this woman on tv getting grilled while being forced to wear that mask hiding her expressions 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

So crazy having this woman on tv getting grilled while being forced to wear that mask hiding her expressions 

Agreed. Should wait until there is a vaccine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...