SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Amy Coney Barrett: Who is Trump's Supreme Court pick?:
Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the US Supreme Court comes as little surprise.
[...] 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.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) is facing considerable controversy about his plans to move the nomination forward quickly:
"President Trump could not have made a better decision," Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the majority leader, said in a statement. "Judge Amy Coney Barrett is an exceptionally impressive jurist and an exceedingly well-qualified nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States."
He added: "First, Judge Barrett built a reputation as a brilliant scholar at the forefront of the legal academy. Then she answered the call to public service. For three years on the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, she has demonstrated exactly the independence, impartiality, and fidelity to our laws and Constitution that Americans need and deserve on their highest Court... As I have stated, this nomination will receive a vote on the Senate floor in the weeks ahead, following the work of the Judiciary Committee supervised by Chairman Graham."
This is in sharp contrast to McConnell's actions following US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's passing away on February 13, 2016. McConnell waited less than 2 hours to make the first of 5 statements to urging delay in nominating a new Supreme Court justice:
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president
That statement was made with 342 days (over 11 months) remaining in Obama's term as President. There are 124 days (just over 4 months) remaining before the end of Trump's term.
President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) followed McConnell's lead and never allowed the confirmation process to begin. Thus, no nomination was ever brought to the Senate floor and thereby leaving the vacancy open.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @01:44AM (5 children)
And yet, it was the right that gave us corporate personhood in spite of people behind the 14th amendment stating that it there was no intent to give personhood to corporations. In fact, it was just a clerk who claimed to be present during the debates on the 14th amendment stating that the original intent was corporate personhood. But, all the right-wing judges since pretend that it is precedent.
The right gave us money = speech. No precedent led to this decision, just a bunch of far right activist judges deciding that they wanted an oligarchy and not a democracy.
The right gave us the Dredd Scott decision in which African Americans were decided to not be human.
The right interfered in an election, stopped the vote count (without any valid legal justification) and gave the election victory to one of their own in Bush v Gore.
You should notice a trend. Right = racist, pro-rich, pro-corporate, anti-democratic and corrupt
Also, that the right wing judges are very activist, and use their positions to create racist, pro-rich, pro-corporate and anti-democratic law without regard to things like constitutionality.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @03:00AM
Did you actuallly follow the Florida count? There was a very clear legal justification:
The law on voting in Florida covered conditions for recounts, limits on the number of recounts and so on. It wasn't a legal black hole; it was a clearly set forth law.
A judge in Florida decided to tear that up because the Gore campaign went judge-shopping, and he was on their side.
The supremes looked at it and said: "This is bullshit, the law means what it says, judges don't get to make it up. You've had your counts, we're done here."
I know it's all warm and fuzzy like an old wool blanket to feel that you're crucified next to baby Jesus and the weight of the world is on you because you're such a martyr and everybody should totally agree with you because your feelings are so hurt, but you spoil it when you wreck your credibility with fairytales like that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @07:52PM
the Dredd Scott ruling didn't even address the classification of Africans in america at the time. SJWs always lie.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @08:02PM
Race is just an extension of your family and we have been separated by *nature* and *evolution* for many thousands of years. It's only due to the Jews that White preservation is called Racism and White nations must be invaded by darker breeds of human, likely different subspecies of homo sapien.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 29 2020, @01:22PM
Well, then it'll be interesting to see if you are "Right" under this definition. I guess we can rule out pro-corporate, but the rest seem up in the air.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 29 2020, @02:38PM
It was the Romans who invented the idea of a "corporation" by which the law could consider a group of people as one person. "Personhood" is what "Corporation" means. So it's no surprise that a clerk stated as much, it's probably what he learned in law school.
1. people with money can pay other people to say something
2. interference with these payments is interference with speech
That's not exactly a right-wing interpretation.