One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Profile of the Most Competitive Nominee to the SC - Amy Coney Barrett
Sep 23, 2020 16:20:47   #
Radiance3
 
[i]Barrett surpassed the claimed achievements of the late Justice Ginsburg. Confident of her superb qualifications and achievements, I emailed the president morning of Sept 19th, suggested to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett. She is a conservative-constitutionalist, excels qualifications among all the candidates on the list. I doubt if any L*****T, could challenge her superb qualifications and constitutional justice decisions. She was a top contender with Justice Kavanaugh in 2018. I believe the president will nominate her. The president announced he will nominate 5:PM Saturday Sept. 26th.

Profile of a potential nominee: Amy Coney Barrett
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, is currently a judge on the Chicago-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. These are just partial list of her achievements.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, University of Notre Dame.
This is not the first time that Barrett’s name has been mentioned in connection with a possible Supreme Court seat: . Barrett became a hero to many religious conservatives after her 2017 confirmation hearing for her seat on the court of appeals, when Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee – most notably, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California – grilled her on the role of her Catholic faith in judging.

Early life and career
The 48-year-old Barrett grew up in Metairie, Louisiana, a suburb of New Orleans, and attended St. Mary’s Dominican High School, a Catholic girls’ school in New Orleans. Barrett graduated magna cum laude from Rhodes College, a liberal arts college in Tennessee affiliated with the Presbyterian Church, in 1994. Other high-profile alumni of the school include Abe Fortas, who At Rhodes, she was a member of Phi Beta Kappa and was also recognized as the most outstanding English major and for having the best senior thesis.

After graduating from Rhodes, Barrett went to law school at Notre Dame on a full-tuition scholarship. She excelled there as well: She graduated summa cum laude in 1997, received awards for having the best exams in 10 of her courses and served as executive editor of the school’s law review.

Barrett then held two high-profile conservative clerkships, first with Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, from 1997 to 1998, and then with the late Justice Antonin Scalia, from 1998 to 1999.
After leaving her Supreme Court clerkship, she spent a year practicing law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, a prestigious Washington, D.C., litigation boutique that also claims as alumni former U.S. solicitor general Seth Waxman, former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick, and John Elwood, the head of Arnold & Porter’s appellate practice and a regular contributor to SCOTUS blog. In 2001, Miller Cassidy merged with Baker Botts, a larger, Texas-based firm, and Barrett spent another year there before leaving for academia. To the chagrin of Democratic senators during her confirmation process for the 7th Circuit, Barrett was able to recall only a few of the cases on which she worked, and she indicated that she never argued any appeals while in private practice.
A prolific stint in academia.

Barrett spent a year as a law and economics fellow at George Washington University before heading to her alma mater, Notre Dame, in 2002 to teach federal courts, constitutional law and statutory interpretation. Barrett was named a professor of law at the school in 2010; four years later, she became the Diane and M.O. Research Chair of Law. Barrett was named “distinguished professor of the year” three times.

While at Notre Dame, Barrett signed a 2012 “statement of protest” condemning the accommodation that the Obama administration created for religious employers who were subject to the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate. The statement lamented that the accommodation “changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on individual liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy.” Barrett was also a member of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, from 2005 to 2006 and then again from 2014 to 2017. In response to written questions from Democratic senators during her 7th Circuit confirmation process, Barrett indicated that she had rejoined the group because it gave her “the opportunity to speak to groups of interested, engaged students on topics of mutual interest,” but she added that she had never attended the group’s national convention.

During her 15 years as a full-time law professor, Barrett’s academic scholarship was prolific. Several of her articles, however, drew fire at Barrett’s confirmation hearing, with Democratic senators suggesting that they indicate that Barrett would be influenced by her Catholic faith, particularly on the question of a******n.

Barrett co-wrote her first law review article, “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” with Notre Dame law professor John Garvey now the president of the Catholic University of America; the article was published in the Marquette Law Review in 1998, shortly after her graduation from Notre Dame. It explored the effect of the Catholic Church’s teachings on the death penalty on federal judges, and it used the church’s teachings on a******n and euthanasia as a comparison point, describing the prohibitions on a******n and euthanasia as “absolute” because they “take away innocent life.” The article also noted that, when the late Justice William Brennan was asked about potential conflict between his Catholic faith and his duties as a justice, he responded that he would be governed by “the oath I took to support the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Barrett and Garvey observed that they did not “defend this position as the proper response for a Catholic judge to take with respect to a******n or the death penalty.”

When questioned about the article at her 7th Circuit confirmation hearing, Barrett stressed that she did not believe it was “lawful for a judge to impose personal opinions, from wh**ever source they derive, upon the law,” and she pledged that her views on a******n “or any other question will have no bearing on the discharge of my duties as a judge.” She acknowledged that, if she were instead being nominated to serve as a federal trial judge, she “would not enter an order of execution,” but she assured senators that she did not intend “as a blanket matter to recuse myself in capital cases if I am confirmed” and added that she had “fully participated in advising Justice Scalia in capital cases as a law clerk.”

Barrett’s responses did not mollify Feinstein, who suggested that Barrett had a “long history of believing that religious beliefs should prevail.” In a widely reported exchange, Feinstein told Barrett that, based on Barrett’s speeches, “the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”

In another article, “Stare Decisis and Due Process,” published in the University of Colorado Law Review, Barrett discussed the legal doctrine that generally requires courts to follow existing precedent, even if they might believe that it is wrong. Barrett wrote that courts and commentators “have thought about the kinds of reliance interests that justify keeping an erroneous decision on the books”; in a footnote, she cited, among other things, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision reaffirming Roe v. Wade. Barrett’s detractors characterized the statement as criticism of Roe itself, while supporters such as conservative legal activist Ed Whelan countered that the statement did not reflect Barrett’s views on Roe itself, but instead was just an example of competing opinions on the reliance interests in Roe.

Path to the federal bench
Trump nominated Barrett to the 7th Circuit on May 8, 2017. Despite some criticism from Democrats, she garnered bipartisan support at her confirmation hearing. A group of 450 former students signed a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, telling senators that their support was “driven not by politics, but by the belief that Professor Barrett is supremely qualified.” And she had the unanimous support of her 49 Notre Dame colleagues, who wrote that they had a “wide range of political views” but were “united however in our judgment about Amy.”

After Barrett’s confirmation hearing but before the Senate v**ed on her nomination, The New York Times reported that Barrett was a member of a group called People of Praise. Group members, the Times indicated, “swear a lifelong oath of loyalty to one another, and are assigned and accountable to a personal adviser.” Moreover, the Times added, the group “teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority for their family.” The newspaper quoted legal experts who worried that such oaths “could raise legitimate questions about a judicial nominee’s independence and impartiality.”

Barrett declined the Times’ request for an interview about People of Praise, whose website describes the group as an “ecumenical, charismatic, covenant community” modeled on the “first Christian community.” “Freedom of conscience,” the website says, “is a key to our diversity.” In 2018, Slate interviewed the group’s leader, a physics and engineering professor at Notre Dame, who explained that members of the group “often make an effort to live near one another” and agree to donate 5% of their income to the group.

On Oct. 31, 2017, Barrett was confirmed to the 7th Circuit by a v**e of 55 to 43. Three Democratic senators – her home state senator, Joe Donnelly; Tim Kaine of Virginia; and Joe Manchin of West Virginia – crossed party lines to v**e for her, while two Democratic senators (Claire McCask**l of Missouri and Robert Menendez of New Jersey) did not v**e.

Barrett as a judge: Gun rights and a******n
In a story in the National Review in August 2020, conservative legal activist Carrie Severino described Barrett as a “champion of originalism” during her short tenure so far on the 7th Circuit. In the 2019 case Kanter v. Barr, the court of appeals upheld the mail fraud conviction of the owner of an orthopedic footwear company. He argued that federal and state laws that prohibit people convicted of felonies from having guns violate his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The majority rejected that argument. It explained that the government had shown that the laws are related to the government’s important goal of keeping guns away from people convicted of serious crimes.
Barrett dissented. At the time of the country’s founding, she said, legislatures took away the gun rights of people who were believed to be dangerous. But the laws at the heart of Kanter’s case are too broad, she argued, because they ban people like Kanter from having a gun without any evidence that they pose a risk. Barrett stressed that the Second Amendment “confers an individual right, intimately connected with the natural right of self-defense and not limited to civic participation.”
During her time on the court of appeals, Barrett has grappled with the issue of a******n twice – both times in dealing with requests for the full court of appeals to rehear a case, rather than as part of a three-judge panel. In 2018, the full court ordered rehearing en banc in a challenge to an Indiana law requiring fetal remains to be either buried or cremated after an a******n but then vacated that order and reinstated the original opinion blocking the state from enforcing the law.
Barrett joined a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc written by Judge Frank Easterbrook. Easterbrook began by addressing a separate provision of the law that had also been struck down but was not at issue in the rehearing proceedings: It would bar a******ns based on the race, sex or disability such as Down syndrome, of the fetus. Characterizing the provision as a means of preventing prospective parents from “[u]sing a******n as a way to promote eugenic goals,” Easterbrook expressed doubt that the Constitution bars states from enacting such laws.
Indiana later went to the Supreme Court, which reversed the 7th Circuit’s opinion on the provision governing fetal remains. States have an interest in the proper disposal of fetal remains, the justices reasoned, and this law “is rationally related to” that interest. But the justices did not weigh in on the part of the 7th Circuit’s decision that struck down the ban on a******ns based on race, sex or disability, leaving the state unable to enforce that provision.
In 2019, Barrett indicated that she wanted the full 7th Circuit to hear a challenge to an Indiana law requiring young women to notify their parents before obtaining an a******n after a three-judge panel ruled that the law was unconstitutional. She joined a dissent from the denial of rehearing by Judge Michael Kanne, who wrote that “[p]reventing a state statute from taking effect is a judicial act of extraordinary gravity in our federal structure.” The state asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, and the justices sent the case back to the lower courts this summer for another look in light of their ruling in June Medical Services v. Russo, which struck down a Louisiana law that requires doctors who perform a******ns to have the right to admit patients at nearby hospitals.
Also in 2019, Barrett joined an opinion that upheld a Chicago ordinance that bars anti-a******n “sidewalk counselors” from approaching women entering an a******n clinic. The Chicago ordinance was modeled after a Colorado law that the Supreme Court upheld in 2000 in Hill v. Colorado, but challengers argued that later decisions by the Supreme Court “have so thoroughly undermined Hill’s reasoning that we need not follow it.” Judge Diane Sykes – who is also on Trump’s list of potential nominees, although now an unlikely candidate at age 62 – wrote that “that’s a losing argument in the court of appeals. The Court’s intervening decisions have eroded Hill’s foundation, but the case still binds us; only the Supreme Court can say otherwise.” The Supreme Court denied the challengers’ petition for review in July 2020.[/i]

Reply
Sep 23, 2020 16:30:46   #
Liberty Tree
 
If she is not 100% pro a******n then she is disqualified as far as Democrats are concerned. All the great qualifications you have mentioned mean nothing to them.

Reply
Sep 23, 2020 16:35:37   #
Radiance3
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
If she is not 100% pro a******n then she is disqualified as far as Democrats are concerned. All the great qualifications you have mentioned mean nothing to them.

===============
It does not matter, we follow the constitution. But you are right, the radical DIMS will still ferociously attack her. Just like Justice Kavanaugh. Radical DIM are now desperate. I am afraid their lawless violence will get worst.

Reply
 
 
Sep 23, 2020 16:42:26   #
Liberty Tree
 
Radiance3 wrote:
===============
It does not matter, we follow the constitution. But you are right, the radical DIMS will still ferociously attack her. Just like Justice Kavanaugh. Radical DIM are now desperate. I am afraid their lawless violence will get worst.


I know it will get worse no matter who wins in November.

Reply
Sep 23, 2020 16:53:24   #
Radiance3
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
I know it will get worse no matter who wins in November.

===============
Ladies and gentlemen, please be prepared. Before the e******n, ensure that you have enough supplies of food and essentials for at least 2 weeks or more.
The desperate democrat c*******ts with their army B*M's, may try to launch violence and destructions all over our country. Please stay home safe after v****g.

I think the Justice Dept. must be prepared for this, and the law enforcement must be prepared as well.
I pray it won't happen.

Reply
Sep 23, 2020 16:56:50   #
Liberty Tree
 
Radiance3 wrote:
===============
Ladies and gentlemen, please be prepared. Before the e******n, ensure that you have enough supplies of food and essentials for at least 2 weeks or more.
The desperate democrat c*******ts with their army B*M's, may try to launch violence and destructions all over our country. Please stay home safe after v****g.

I think the Justice Dept. must be prepared for this, and the law enforcement must be prepared as well.
I pray it won't happen.


I am getting prepared.

Reply
Sep 23, 2020 16:58:20   #
Auntie Dee
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
If she is not 100% pro a******n then she is disqualified as far as Democrats are concerned. All the great qualifications you have mentioned mean nothing to them.


In other words Dem's believe it is okay to have a President who is Catholic, like Kennedy and Biden, but do not want a Catholic on the SC!! But, luckily, in this case, their opinion will NOT matter!

Reply
 
 
Sep 23, 2020 17:25:19   #
Radiance3
 
Auntie Dee wrote:
In other words Dem's believe it is okay to have a President who is Catholic, like Kennedy and Biden, but do not want a Catholic on the SC!! But, luckily, in this case, their opinion will NOT matter!


==============
That witch Pelosi is an excommunicated Catholic, so as Biden. But they don't follow the rules, and when attending other Church services, and other lay Ministers may not even know them, they still get the Eucharist. They are demons swallowing the Christ.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.