Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

[jimnyc]

Looks like they are trying to bring Trump and any negative perceived actions into things too. I don't give a shit about him, Obama or anyone. To me, this is all about the judge only. They're going to try and obfuscate the issue as it's all they got. That, and condemning the hell out of her for being catholic. And lastly, pushing the idea that if she gets through, then they will vote out Obamacare. Ok, and? They got the votes, that simple.


--

Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

The Senate Judiciary Committee will kick off judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings on Monday.

Stay tuned to Breitbart News for live updates.

All times Eastern.

—

12:35 PM: Ernst opens by saying women were given the right to vote only a hundred years ago, and she says she is so proud what women have accomplished in this country. She says this is the first time she has been a member of the judiciary committee during a Supreme Court nomination process. She says she is not a lawyer and brings a different perspective. She says the Supreme Court is the defender of our Constitution and her test for a Supreme Court justice is whether she will defend the Constitution. Ernst says she hears about judicial activism from her colleagues on the left who want to turn the Supreme Court into a super legislature.

12:25 PM: Opening statements resume, with Hirono slamming the White House as a “Coronavirus hot spot” and ripping the GOP for not passing COVID relief legislation. She says these are “not normal times” and Senate Republicans are trying to put a justice on the Supreme Court to get rid of Obamacare. Hirono says Barrett aligned herself with Scalia, who voted twice to strike down Obamacare, at the White House “super-spreader event.” Hirono calls this a “hypocritical” and “illegitimate process” and accuses Republicans of wanting Barrett to be seated on the court to hear the Obamacare case a week after the election. She says repealing Obamacare is at the top of the GOP’s “hit list.”

11:34 AM: Tillis accuses Democrats of “fear-mongering,” saying Barrett will threaten healthcare and labor rights and get rid of Obamacare. He says his review of Barrett’s record is that she reaches conclusions dictated by law and not by personal preference. He tells Barrett to stand tall and proud when the left criticizes Barrett in the coming days.

Committee will be in recess until 12:20 PM.

11:21 AM: Blumenthal says Barrett’s nomination is about the GOP’s goal of repealing Obamacare, which he says they “detest so much.” He claims Barrett will become a judicial activist who will use originalism as a “smokescreen” to overturn Obamacare. He quotes GOP senators on the committee who have previously called for Obamacare to be replaced and says that COVID will now be a pre-existing condition that will put the health care of Americans at risk. He says an activist judge on the bench will strike down “common-sense gun safety laws” and a woman’s right to choose. Blumenthal now highlighting gun control and abortion issues. He calls Barrett an “extremist ideological judge” and speaks about the “unwritten rule” of keeping one’s words in the Senate re: election-year confirmations. Blumenthal says Republicans are doing it because they can and “right does not make might.” He claims they don’t have the American people and history on its side because Americans want a plan to fight the Coronavirus. He claims Trump and the GOP are destroying the “legitimacy” of the Supreme Court. He says Barrett must recuse herself in any election cases because it will damage the court’s and her legacy. -- This is not true, as polled release a few days ago show her support jumping 9 points and now it's like half the nation in favor and 31 percent against.

11:10 AM: Hawley welcomes Barrett and notices some of Barrett’s kids are taking a well-earned break. Hawley says there has been one hit piece after another in the liberal media about Barrett’s Catholic faith and family. He says these stories are questioning whether she has the “independence” to be a judge, and he specially calls out Harris for questioning the fitness of office of judicial nominees for their membership in the Knights of Columbus. She accuses Feinstein in a past hearing of using the language of anti-Catholic bigots. Hawley accuses Dems of wanting to bring back “religious tests” and the “veto power” of the powerful over people of faith. Hawley also calls out the left’s “pattern and practice of religious bigotry,” and says the “pattern and practice of religious bigotry” of Senate Judiciary Dems must stop and be renounced.

11:02 AM: Coons claims Dems will focus on Barrett’s legal reasoning (and not religious issues) and conclude that she will do “irreparable harm.” He says this confirmation is “wrong” and will harm what remaining trust senators have in one another. Coons says Trump is looking to the courts to overturn Obamacare because they couldn’t get it done legislatively. Coons says she believes Barrett was chosen because her selection will lead to the outcomes Trump wants on health care, abortion, etc. Coons says this is what he will lay out this week in the confirmation hearings.

10:48 AM: Sasse says he doesn’t know what any of Klobuchar’s comments have to do with today’s hearings and would be confusing to eight graders tuning in to learn about confirmation hearings. Sasse says they should agree on religious liberty, which is a positive grand unifying truth about America. He points out that religious liberty is the “default assumption of our entire system” and that’s why we don’t have “religious tests.”

Rest here - https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/10/12/live-updates-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-confirmation-hearings/

[jimnyc]

I knew this would be part of the plan and I wrote about it earlier expecting it. Their lives are now on the line. :rolleyes: Guaranteed though anything in their benefit and their story changes and/or they do the same they have done before, and which Harris herself is doing right now while complaining - simply attend remotely as they are having so many around the nation doing so. And as Biden himself has done since the beginning, and what so many others have done.

Remote voting is available to the senate judiciary committee but then is not permitted on the senate floor I guess from others. Due to the circumstances, I'm confident someone can send something forward in the senate that would allow for such remote voting under very very specific circumstances, and maybe even "pandemic" only related to minimize to no other options. Then vote on it, and anyone voting against that option would look foolish IMO. At any rate, it's happened left and right this year under many circumstances and at least 4 did so thus far. Don't act like they are forced into sitting within 6 feet of a sick person and no masks are allowed, especially an N95 which I believe are forbidden in senate? :rolleyes:

Now, and important, they all are allowed to attend remotely - but need to attend in person in order to vote. Quickly voting, wear an N95 and a mask (As they, Biden and Harris & MSM have been telling everyone anyway). For a quick vote, wear a pair of disposable gloves if you like. Vote, then when ya can, simply remove and discard them, and place the mask on that you would normally wear. Not difficult and not rocket science. - but so so so much better if they make it sound like their lives are on the line and it's all the fault of republicans. :rolleyes:

Sen. Ron Johnson, showing just that, is planning on only attending remotely as well. And he says he'll wear a "moon suit" if he has to on the floor in order to vote. Also states he believes he'll have tested negative by the time vote day is here.

Sen. Thom Tillis will be attending remotely and in person when negative, or for the vote.

They complain about Mike Lee - who's doctor provided a letter to clear him (attending physician of congress). Same as Trump's doctor did, but obviously he won't be there.

---

Kamala Harris Participating in Barrett SCOTUS Hearing Remotely: GOP Failed to Take ‘Commonsense Steps to Protect Members’

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is participating in Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings remotely because the GOP has failed to take “commonsense steps to protect members, aides, Capitol complex workers, and members of the media,” her spokesperson said over the weekend.

“Due to Judiciary Committee Republicans’ refusal to take commonsense steps to protect members, aides, Capitol complex workers, and members of the media, Senator Harris plans to participate in this week’s hearings remotely from her Senate office in the Hart building,” Harris spokesman Chris Harris said in a statement.

In a tweet on Sunday, Harris proclaimed, “[Lindsey] Graham and Senate Republicans are endangering the lives of not just members and our staff, but the hardworking people who keep the Senate complex running”:

https://i.imgur.com/0wmxs6p.png

Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) kicked off the hearing Monday morning, describing Barrett as existing in a “category of excellence” and asking his Democrat colleagues to conduct the week of contentious hearings with respect. Ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who attended the hearing in person, followed, using her opening statement to paint a dire picture of the future of health care in America. However, she said she hopes it will be a “very good hearing.”

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/12/kamala-harris-participating-barrett-scotus-hearing-remotely-gop-failed-take-commonsense-steps-protect-members/


CNN’s Toobin: ACB Hearing ‘Being Held in the Middle of a Pandemic’ in a Hotspot — ‘So Surreal and So Dangerous’

CNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin on Monday voiced his concern about the Senate Judiciary Committee holding Supreme Court justice nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

Democrats have pushed back against President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee given he is in the final year of his first presidential term.

Toobin said on CNN’s “New Day” ahead of the hearing that the confirmation process is “being held in the middle of a pandemic” in what he called a “hotspot” because Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Mike Lee (R-UT) have both tested positive. He argued it is “so surreal and so dangerous” that members of the committee, some of which he noted are in their 80s, are “exposing themselves to this virus.”

“[T]his is a hearing being held in the middle of a pandemic in the middle of a hotspot. I mean, Tillis has COVID, Mike Lee has COVID, Lindsey Graham refuses to get tested, Chuck Grassley also on that committee, refuses to get tested,” Toobin emphasized. “I mean, this is so unbelievable that they are doing this. There are three members of that committee, Grassley, Pat Leahy and Dianne Feinstein, who are in their 80s who are exposing themselves to this virus.”

“I mean, the idea that they are doing this hearing now is so surreal and so dangerous that, you know, I think that’s worth mentioning, too,” he concluded.

Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT), one of the members Toobin expressed concern about because of his age, delivered his opening statement for the hearing remotely. Doctors cleared both Tillis and Lee to attend the hearings in person.

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/10/12/cnns-toobin-acb-hearing-being-held-in-the-middle-of-a-pandemic-in-a-hotspot-so-surreal-and-so-dangerous/

[Gunny]

I knew this would be part of the plan and I wrote about it earlier expecting it. Their lives are now on the line. :rolleyes: Guaranteed though anything in their benefit and their story changes and/or they do the same they have done before, and which Harris herself is doing right now while complaining - simply attend remotely as they are having so many around the nation doing so. And as Biden himself has done since the beginning, and what so many others have done.

Remote voting is available to the senate judiciary committee but then is not permitted on the senate floor I guess from others. Due to the circumstances, I'm confident someone can send something forward in the senate that would allow for such remote voting under very very specific circumstances, and maybe even "pandemic" only related to minimize to no other options. Then vote on it, and anyone voting against that option would look foolish IMO. At any rate, it's happened left and right this year under many circumstances and at least 4 did so thus far. Don't act like they are forced into sitting within 6 feet of a sick person and no masks are allowed, especially an N95 which I believe are forbidden in senate? :rolleyes:

Now, and important, they all are allowed to attend remotely - but need to attend in person in order to vote. Quickly voting, wear an N95 and a mask (As they, Biden and Harris & MSM have been telling everyone anyway). For a quick vote, wear a pair of disposable gloves if you like. Vote, then when ya can, simply remove and discard them, and place the mask on that you would normally wear. Not difficult and not rocket science. - but so so so much better if they make it sound like their lives are on the line and it's all the fault of republicans. :rolleyes:

Sen. Ron Johnson, showing just that, is planning on only attending remotely as well. And he says he'll wear a "moon suit" if he has to on the floor in order to vote. Also states he believes he'll have tested negative by the time vote day is here.

Sen. Thom Tillis will be attending remotely and in person when negative, or for the vote.

They complain about Mike Lee - who's doctor provided a letter to clear him (attending physician of congress). Same as Trump's doctor did, but obviously he won't be there.

---

Kamala Harris Participating in Barrett SCOTUS Hearing Remotely: GOP Failed to Take ‘Commonsense Steps to Protect Members’

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is participating in Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings remotely because the GOP has failed to take “commonsense steps to protect members, aides, Capitol complex workers, and members of the media,” her spokesperson said over the weekend.

“Due to Judiciary Committee Republicans’ refusal to take commonsense steps to protect members, aides, Capitol complex workers, and members of the media, Senator Harris plans to participate in this week’s hearings remotely from her Senate office in the Hart building,” Harris spokesman Chris Harris said in a statement.

In a tweet on Sunday, Harris proclaimed, “[Lindsey] Graham and Senate Republicans are endangering the lives of not just members and our staff, but the hardworking people who keep the Senate complex running”:

https://i.imgur.com/0wmxs6p.png

Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) kicked off the hearing Monday morning, describing Barrett as existing in a “category of excellence” and asking his Democrat colleagues to conduct the week of contentious hearings with respect. Ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who attended the hearing in person, followed, using her opening statement to paint a dire picture of the future of health care in America. However, she said she hopes it will be a “very good hearing.”

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/12/kamala-harris-participating-barrett-scotus-hearing-remotely-gop-failed-take-commonsense-steps-protect-members/


CNN’s Toobin: ACB Hearing ‘Being Held in the Middle of a Pandemic’ in a Hotspot — ‘So Surreal and So Dangerous’

CNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin on Monday voiced his concern about the Senate Judiciary Committee holding Supreme Court justice nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

Democrats have pushed back against President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee given he is in the final year of his first presidential term.

Toobin said on CNN’s “New Day” ahead of the hearing that the confirmation process is “being held in the middle of a pandemic” in what he called a “hotspot” because Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Mike Lee (R-UT) have both tested positive. He argued it is “so surreal and so dangerous” that members of the committee, some of which he noted are in their 80s, are “exposing themselves to this virus.”

“[T]his is a hearing being held in the middle of a pandemic in the middle of a hotspot. I mean, Tillis has COVID, Mike Lee has COVID, Lindsey Graham refuses to get tested, Chuck Grassley also on that committee, refuses to get tested,” Toobin emphasized. “I mean, this is so unbelievable that they are doing this. There are three members of that committee, Grassley, Pat Leahy and Dianne Feinstein, who are in their 80s who are exposing themselves to this virus.”

“I mean, the idea that they are doing this hearing now is so surreal and so dangerous that, you know, I think that’s worth mentioning, too,” he concluded.

Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT), one of the members Toobin expressed concern about because of his age, delivered his opening statement for the hearing remotely. Doctors cleared both Tillis and Lee to attend the hearings in person.

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/10/12/cnns-toobin-acb-hearing-being-held-in-the-middle-of-a-pandemic-in-a-hotspot-so-surreal-and-so-dangerous/Can always count on the left for some drama.

Here's an idea: appoint the Justice. Screw the left and the circus they make of these hearings.

[SassyLady]

The more I see these public hearings the more I despise the Democrats. No wonder nothing gets done in DC.

[LongTermGuy]

The more I see these public hearings the more I despise the Democrats. No wonder nothing gets done in DC.


https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1315698099336036352/6eSQMG4g?format=jpg&name=900x900

[jimnyc]

Just some noteworthy updates from one site, I will add in other opinions from other sites as I visit them too...

---

***Live Updates*** Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearings Continue

Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearings continue on Tuesday. Senators will have two days of questioning.

Stay tuned to Breitbart News for live updates.

All times Eastern.

—

11:11 AM: Durbin asks Barrett if she has seen the George Floyd video and what impact that had on her.

She says it was very personal to her family because she has two black children. She says they wept together and her children so far have had the benefit of growing up on in her cocoon where they haven’t experienced discrimination.

Durbin wants to ask her as an originalist to reflect on whether there is implicit biases and systemic racism. She says racism persists in America but giving broader statements on the issue is beyond the capability of a judge.

He now asks about Kanter v. Barr. She says Heller was not about the scope of the right, and she applied Heller‘s originalist methodology to conclude one could not take away Second Amendment rights from non-violent felons. She says the government had to make a claim of “dangerousness” to deny Kanter of his gun rights.

11:05 AM: Durbin wonders where Democrats could get the idea that Barrett would violate her oath. He says it came from Trump’s words and tweets. Durbin says the idea that Barrett would be used for political purposes doesn’t come from Democrats. “Read the tweets,” he says. Durbin now focusing on Obamacare and pre-existing conditions.

Barrett says she is not hostile to Obamacare and wants to talk about the distinction between academic writing and judicial decision-making re: Burwell. She says she follows the law and applies the law and Senators make the policy.

10:52 AM: Cornyn says it’s impressive that Barrett is testifying without notes. He says it is understanding that the main objection to Barrett’s nomination from the left is that she will violate her oath of office to be unbiased, especially in case she hasn’t even decided yet. Cornyn speaking extensively about judicial independence.

Barrett says newspapers do courts a disservice when they say courts favor same-sex marriage without explaining the process. Barrett emphasizing that she does not have the power like a queen to impose policy preference, she has to go by what legislators have decided.

Cornyn asks Barrett about the establishment clause, and Barrett says she fell down a rabbit hole in her interview with Scalia about the balancing the establishment clause versus the free exercise clause.

10:40 AM: Left not happy with Democrats on the Committee. They want them to use their time to say this is illegitimate. Some are even criticizing Democrats for saying nice things about Barrett’s family because that is legitimizing the process.

10:21 AM: Leahy thanks Barrett for introducing her family and says family is the most important thing in his life.

Leahy says Vermonters have been concerned about the Obamacare lawsuit coming up before the Supreme Court would mean for them. He asks Barrett if she knows how many Americans have gotten insurance under Obamacare and Barrett says she does not. He asks Barrett if she knows how many people are covered under the Medicare extension and how many people have gotten to keep insurance under their parents’ plans. She says she does not. Leahy asks Barrett if she knows how many Americans have been tested positive for the Coronavirus. She does not, and Leahy says 7 million Americans have been tested positive and now have a pre-existing conditions. Leahy says Republicans have had the most zeal trying to overturn Obamacare and he asks Barrett how many Republicans have joined amicus briefs urging the courts to overturn Obamacare. Barrett says she is having a bit of trouble hearing Leahy. Barrett says she does not and Leahy says “it is at least nine.” Ten minutes into his allotted time, Leahy keeps ripping Republicans over Obamacare and says doesn’t think being in the Senate in person right now is safe. Leahy says he is concerned that Barrett has given every indication that she will overturn Obamacare when she has weighed in and “it isn’t even close.” Leahy, quoting Trump, says Trump has made it clear he expects Barrett to side with him on Obamacare and in any election disputes.

Barrett reiterates that she has not spoken to Trump about Obamacare or election disputes.

Leahy says Trump has not been subtle about what he expects from his nominee.

Leahy asks Barrett whether

10:20 AM: Grassley asks Barrett if she has made any promises or guarantees to anyone about potential cases that could come before her. She says she wants to be very clear and her answer is “no.” She emphasizes that nobody on the “executive side” talked to her about any cases/commitments. She says just like she didn’t make any pre-committments to the Executive, she can’t make any commitments to the Senate.

Grassley asks if she has committed to Trump if she would repeal Obamacare. Barrett answers: “Absolutely not.”

Grassley reserves the rest of his time.

10:01AM: Grassley now begins his questioning talking about Barrett’s great understanding of the Constitution, great intellect, and mentoring of people in the legal profession. Grassley says Democrats yesterday accused Barrett of wanting to strip Americans of their healthcare rights and said Republicans want to only confirm Barrett so she can carry their policies forward.

Grassley says this only showed that Democrats fundamentally misunderstand what judges are supposed to do. Grassley says Republicans want judges who won’t impose their personal preferences in decision making.

Grassley asks Barrett about legislative history. She says what governs is the text of the statute and the legislative history should not supersede and substitute for the text of the statute. She says as a general rule she doesn’t look to legislative history but adds that there could be instances in which it would be appropriate to consult legislative history.

Grassley again and predictably says he thinks legislative history can be useful.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/10/13/live-updates-amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-hearings-continue/


‘They Are My Choices’ — Amy Coney Barrett Defies Critics of Her Faith and Family

Judge Amy Coney Barrett defended both her Catholic faith and large family during the Senate Supreme Court confirmation hearings on Tuesday.

Barrett said although she tried to be on a “media blackout for the sake of my mental health” she acknowledged she was aware of the caricatures the left had used to criticize her.

“Look, I’ve made distinct choices,” she said. “I’ve decided to pursue a career and have a large family, I have a multiracial family, our faith is important to us, all of those things are true but they are my choices.”

Barrett is a Catholic mother of seven children, two of them adopted from Haiti, and one special needs child with Down Syndrome.

She said she spent her life “brimming” with other people in her life that made different choices and respected those choices.

“I’ve never tried in my personal life to impose my choices on them and the same is true professionally,” she said.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/13/they-are-my-choices-amy-coney-barrett-defies-critics-of-her-faith-and-family/


Amy Coney Barrett: Judges Can’t ‘Walk in Like a Royal Queen’ and Impose Their Will on the World

Judge Amy Coney Barrett addressed the widespread misinformation that judges can brazenly make rulings based on the whims of the day, explaining the process and stressing judges cannot just “walk in like a royal queen” and “impose” their will on the world.

Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) prompted Barrett to explain how the process works, using the District of Columbia v. Heller as an example. Barrett briefly explained there has to be a law, lawsuit, appeal, and the court granting cert before it makes a ruling.

When asked if the process remains the same no matter the issue — including guns, health care, abortion, campaign finance — Barrett emphasized judges cannot just impose an agenda at random.

“Judges can’t just wake up one day and say, ‘I have an agenda. I like guns. I hate guns. I like abortion. I hate abortion’ and walk in like a royal queen and impose, you know, their will on the world,” she said.

“You have to wait for cases and controversies, which is the language of the Constitution, to wind their way through the process,” she continued.

Graham then asked Barrett another hypothetical. What if, he said, a state made a law only allowing individuals to own no more than six bullets.

In that case, Barrett said, parties would have to sue the state arguing that the law is unconstitutional. If it made its way to the Supreme Court and it decided to hear the case, “you hear arguments from litigants on both sides.”

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/13/watch-amy-coney-barrett-judges-cant-walk-in-like-a-royal-queen-and-impose-their-will-on-the-world/


Amy Coney Barrett on Obamacare, Voter Fraud: ‘I Don’t Think We Want Judges to Be Legal Pundits’

Judge Amy Coney Barrett told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she could not comment on pending cases before the Supreme Court in Obamacare or voter fraud because doing so would make her a “legal pundit.”

“I don’t think we want judges to be legal pundits,” she said.

Her statement came during the second day of her confirmation hearing to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last month.

Barrett was responding to questions by Ranking Member Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who began by pressing Democrats’ argument that confirming Barrett would threaten Obamacare (also known as the Affordable Care Act).
Feinstein cited a law review article Barret published in 2017, in which she wrote that Chief Justice John Roberts had decided the 2012 Obamacare case, NFIB v. Sebelius, incorrectly:


Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did—as a penalty—he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress’s commerce power.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/13/amy-coney-barrett-on-obamacare-voter-fraud-i-dont-think-we-want-judges-to-be-legal-pundits/


Amy Coney Barrett on Originalism: ‘You Would Not Be Getting Justice Scalia. You Would Be Getting Justice Barrett’

Judge Amy Coney Barrett explained the judicial philosophies of originalism and textualism during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing on Tuesday, adding that Americans should expect her to express her own views within those approaches.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Barrett to explain originalism “in English.”

She replied: “In English, that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time, and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.”

Graham then asked about Barrett’s close intellectual identification with the the late Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked.

“People say that you’re a ‘female Scalia.’ What would you say?” he asked.

She replied:


I would say that Justice Scalia was obviously a mentor, snd as I said when I accepted the president’s nomination, that his philosophy is mine, too. You know, he was a very eloquent defender of originalism, and that was also true of textualism, which is the way that I approach statutes and their interpretation. And similarly to what I just said about originalism, for textualism, the judge approaches the text, as it was written, with the meaning it had at the time, and doesn’t infuse her own meaning into it.

However, Judge Barrett added: “I want to be careful to say that if I’m confirmed you would not be getting Justice Scalia. You would be getting Justice Barrett. And that’s so because originalists don’t always agree, and neither do textualists. … It’s not a mechanical exercise.”

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/13/amy-coney-barrett-scalia-originalism/

[del]

Personally, I think appointing someone who has very little experience in both private practice and on the bench is a bad idea.

The fact that she's a religious zealot with multiple axes to grind also bothers me. The good news is this has pissed off a lot of people who will vote out the weasels who are responsible. Works for me.

[jimnyc]

Personally, I think appointing someone who has very little experience in both private practice and on the bench is a bad idea.

The fact that she's a religious zealot with multiple axes to grind also bothers me. The good news is this has pissed off a lot of people who will vote out the weasels who are responsible. Works for me.

Are justices allowed to have personal opinions? Is it not their decisions that should matter, and whether they are applying those opinions to those decisions? And in any such cases, the weight of them? Surely you can post the cases where she has done such and let's look at the decision here.

[jimnyc]

Can always count on the left for some drama.

Here's an idea: appoint the Justice. Screw the left and the circus they make of these hearings.


The more I see these public hearings the more I despise the Democrats. No wonder nothing gets done in DC.

Like Hirono asking her if she is a sexual offender? No background, no context, no evidence. Hell, not even an accusation of such as they did with Kavanaugh. Just injecting it in there because she can. And she's no different than a pool full of others. And Olympic sized pool.

[Mr. P]

I've watch most of the three days....Judge Barrett has totally OWNED the judiciary committee!! Just sayin :2up:

[SassyLady]

Personally, I think appointing someone who has very little experience in both private practice and on the bench is a bad idea.

The fact that she's a religious zealot with multiple axes to grind also bothers me. The good news is this has pissed off a lot of people who will vote out the weasels who are responsible. Works for me.

If you want to talk about axes to grind, let's talk about RBG.

[Kathianne]

Personally, I think appointing someone who has very little experience in both private practice and on the bench is a bad idea.

The fact that she's a religious zealot with multiple axes to grind also bothers me. The good news is this has pissed off a lot of people who will vote out the weasels who are responsible. Works for me.
Really? Not from what I've read:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/10/14/poll-voters-back-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-confirmation-by-17-point-margin/#39bfcf5a4ce7


Poll: Voters Back Barrett’s Supreme Court Confirmation By 17-Point Margin
Alison Durkee
Alison DurkeeForbes Staff
Business



48% of poll respondents believe the Senate should confirm Barrett to the Supreme Court, while 31% believe they should not.


The poll was conducted Oct. 9 to 11, before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings began Monday.


The number marks an increase over when the question has been asked in the past: 37% wanted Barrett to be confirmed Sept. 26, the day her nomination was announced, and 46% backed her confirmation when the question was asked Oct. 2-4.


Barrett’s support is largely driven by Republicans—77% of whom support her confirmation—as compared with only 27% of Democrats and 38% of Independents, though both Democrats and Independents showed an increase in support since the question was last asked.


44% believe Barrett should be confirmed “as soon as possible,” regardless of the outcome of the election, while 36% think the Senate should only vote on her confirmation if Trump wins the election.


A Name That’s Long Overdue
That margin has also increased: 43% supported Barrett’s immediate confirmation and 37% said it should wait until after the election when asked Oct. 2-4, and on Sept. 26, 40% favored waiting while only 39% wanted the confirmation to immediately proceed.


CHIEF CRITIC
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have used their time at Barrett’s confirmation hearing to strenuously object to her confirmation, both due to the quick confirmation process while Americans are already voting in the election and Barrett’s history of social conservatism, which they believe threatens issues like abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act. “Republicans are scrambling to confirm this nominee as fast as possible because they need one more Trump judge on the bench before Nov. 10 to win and strike down the entire Affordable Care Act,” Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said during her questioning Tuesday. “This is not hyperbole.” In addition to lawmakers, faculty from Notre Dame University, where Barrett has served as a professor, have also called on Barrett to halt her confirmation process until after the election. “The politics of your nomination...will further inflame our civic wounds, undermine confidence in the court, and deepen the divide among ordinary citizens,” the faculty wrote in an open letter to Barrett, “especially if you are seated by a Republican Senate weeks before the election of a Democratic president and Congress.”


KEY BACKGROUND
Barrett’s confirmation process has been a major source of controversy, as Senate Republicans have pushed forward with the process despite the ongoing election—reversing their precedent set in 2016, when they blocked Merrick Garland’s confirmation—and a Covid-19 outbreak among several Judiciary Committee members after Barrett’s nomination announcement became a likely super spreader event. Barrett’s conservative views have also come under scrutiny, as her confirmation would give the Supreme Court a 6-3 conservative tilt and likely affect a range of issues, from health care and abortion to potentially the outcome of the November election. Despite the criticism, the Morning Consult poll is in line with other polling showing support for Barrett’s confirmation rising as the confirmation hearings approached, with a Washington Post/ABC poll released Monday finding that support for waiting to confirm the next Justice until after the election had dropped by five points. The small majority of poll respondents who favored Barrett’s immediate confirmation in the Morning Consult poll contrasts with a number of other polls, however, which have typically shown a majority favoring waiting until after the election.

[del]

Are justices allowed to have personal opinions? Is it not their decisions that should matter, and whether they are applying those opinions to those decisions? And in any such cases, the weight of them? Surely you can post the cases where she has done such and let's look at the decision here.

They're allowed to have opinions- they're not allowed to let those opinions affect their decisions.

I have no interest in posting her cases and discussing them. She's a done deal.

I thought it was pretty funny, and by that I mean pathetic, that she couldn't name the freedoms guaranteed by the 1st amendment when asked by Sasse.

That's some quality legal knowledge, right there.

[jimnyc]

They're allowed to have opinions- they're not allowed to let those opinions affect their decisions.

I have no interest in posting her cases and discussing them. She's a done deal.

I thought it was pretty funny, and by that I mean pathetic, that she couldn't name the freedoms guaranteed by the 1st amendment when asked by Sasse.

That's some quality legal knowledge, right there.

Correct, she IS a done deal, enjoy your new SC justice.

And no interest in posting/discussing the facts and decisions = she didn't make such decisions. :rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Correct, she IS a done deal, enjoy your new SC justice.

And no interest in posting/discussing the facts and decisions = she didn't make such decisions. :rolleyes:

The dems hate her because she stands for decency, morality and the Constitution.
All of which they despise.
As they in their insane chase for ever more power seek to destroy any and all that stands in their way of that maddening pursuit.
Seems to me that Del is also a firm and dedicated believer in that pursuit.. as are millions of other blinded followers.
Sad, but reality is -- the rest of us must face-- that these type of people want to destroy this nation.
To which we say--"Hell no"!----Tyr

[jimnyc]

Blind Former Student of Amy Coney Barrett Delivers Powerful Testimony During Nomination Hearing

Laura Wolk, former student of Amy Coney Barrett, delivered a powerful testimony during Barrett’s U.S. Supreme Court nomination hearing on Thursday, stating that “Judge Barrett will serve this country with distinction, not only because of her intellectual prowess, but also because of her ability to treat everyone as an equal, deserving of complete respect.”

“In part because of her unwavering support, I am the first blind woman to serve as a law clerk on the Supreme Court of the United States,” affirmed Wolk during her testimony. “It is now my immense privilege to appear before you in support of Judge Barrett’s nomination to that same great institution.”

“Should you confirm Amy Barrett, the country will receive something far greater than simply an unparalleled legal mind; it will gain the service of one of the kindest individuals I have ever known,” continued Wolk. “Her brilliance is matched only by her compassion, and her integrity is unassailable.”

“I am not speaking in mere abstractions here, rather, I have experienced these characteristics firsthand, with life-changing results,” she added. “Because I am completely blind, I rely heavily on assistive technology to compete on a level playing field with my cited peers.”

Wolk continued, telling her story:


Before arriving at Notre Dame Law School in 2013, I worked hard to ensure that the university would purchase backup copies of the technology I use, but upon arrival, I discovered that bureaucratic glitches left me without access to that technology, and on cue, my personal laptop immediately began to fail. Overnight, I found myself struggling to keep up in class, falling increasingly behind with each passing hour. I needed help, and I needed it fast.

Based [on] my past experience, I assumed that Judge Barrett would simply direct me to the proper bureaucratic channels, which could still take weeks, if not longer to navigate. But Judge Barret did something altogether different. She silently listened with deep attention as I explained my situation, giving me the freedom to let down my guard and come apart. As a disabled person, I am accustomed to acting as if I have everything under control, when in reality the world feels like it is spinning out from under me.

But in front of Judge Barrett, I was able to let the mask slip and indeed to disappear completely. I poured out all my concerns, not just about technology and my worries about failing classes, but all the burdens I currently carried as a disabled woman navigating a brand new environment. When I finished, Judge Barrett leaned forward and looked at me intently. “Laura,” she said, with the same measured conviction that we have seen displayed throughout her entire nomination process, “This is no longer your problem; it’s my problem.”

I can’t capture [adequately] the relief that washed over me in her words, her offer was rare enough in its own right, but even when such offers are extended, many unfortunately do not follow through. It’s hard to trust an offer of assistance, no matter how desperately it is needed or earnestly it is given. Not so with Judge Barrett.

Anyone who has interacted with her knows that she is a woman of her word. She means what she says and she says what she means. When she promised to advocate for me, she commanded my trust. To this day, I do not know what Judge Barrett did to solve my problem — all I know is that the technology arrived promptly, which in turn allowed me to excel and to place me in a position that would eventually allow me to apply for clerkship on the Supreme Court.

“This encounter was the first in which Judge Barrett demonstrated the depth of her generous spirit, but it was far from the last,” said Wolk. “She has remained a constant source of strength, encouragement, and solace, as I have pursued professional and personal opportunities with no roadmap to guide me.”

“Those who have had the benefit of knowing Amy Coney Barrett understand that she possesses a boundless font of energy and a radical sense of love that she is ever ready to pour out upon those who are lucky enough to call her teacher, boss, family, and friend,” the former student added.

“Judge Barrett will serve this country with distinction, not only because of her intellectual prowess, but also because of her ability to treat everyone as an equal, deserving of complete respect,” she said.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/16/watch-blind-former-student-amy-coney-barrett-delivers-powerful-testimony-during-nomination-hearing/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erIxxlB8-II

[jimnyc]

Mitt Romney: ‘I Intend to Vote in Favor’ of Amy Coney Barett to the Supreme Court

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) has announced that he intends to vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Romney, a staunch critic of President Donald Trump, offered praise for Barrett in a statement, saying she is “impressive” and “exceptionally well qualified.”

“After meeting with Judge Barrett and carefully reviewing her record and her testimony, I intend to vote in favor of her confirmation to the Supreme Court,” Romney said. “I am confident that she will faithfully apply the law and our Constitution, impartially and regardless of policy preferences.”

Romney’s statement on Barrett further strengthens the judge’s chances of being nominated to the highest court in America after the Senate Judiciary Committee advances her nomination to the entire Senate for a vote.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/16/mitt-romney-i-intend-to-vote-in-favor-of-amy-coney-barett-to-the-supreme-court/