I try to avoid the silliness of the nation on weekends….but sometimes there is news that truly needs to be reported…….
Looks like Donald the Orange has made his much awaited decision on who he would nominate to replace Ginsburg on SCOTUS…….and the winner is…..Amy Coney Barrett.
It appears that President Trump has his new Supreme Court nominee. The Washington Post, Politico, the New York Times, and Axios all report that sources are pointing to federal appeals court judge Amy Coney Barrett as Trump’s pick to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a move that would significantly push the Supreme Court even further to the right, with a 6-3 conservative majority. The 48-year-old Barrett, who has served on the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit since 2017, would be the third relatively young conservative justice appointed by Trump to the high court, joining Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both in their 50s, on the bench.
Barrett, whom the Times calls a “polar opposite” to Ginsburg, was in the running to replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy when he retired in 2018. Trump, however, was said to be “saving” the devout Catholic, known for her deeply conservative views on such topics as abortion and LGBT issues, for when Ginsburg’s slot opened up. A caveat from the Times, though, on Trump’s supposed nominee: “As they often do, aides cautioned that Mr. Trump sometimes upends his own plans.” On Friday night, in response to questions from reporters on his pick, Trump would only say he’s made his pick “in my own mind, yes,” and that “I haven’t said it was [Barrett], but she is outstanding,” per Politico.
There is so much more……this pick is polar opposite to Ginsburg…..but what can we expect when we allow ideologues make the picks for the president.
The 48-year-old Barrett was appointed by Trump to the appeals court in 2017, and was also reportedly a finalist for Justice Anthony Kennedy’s seat in 2018. She has been portrayed as a favorite of social conservatives seeking to push against the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence. She is unusual, compared especially to famously (and perhaps strategically) tight-lipped recent nominees like Brett Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan, for her extensive paper trail on questions of constitutional law. As a legal academic, she’s written extensively on what obedience to the original meaning of the Constitution requires of judges and members of Congress; how to reconcile the importance of precedent with allegiance to the Constitution’s original meaning; and how precedent can be used to mediate deep disagreements about the law.
As a result, we know more about her jurisprudential beliefs than we’ll know about those of any SCOTUS nominee since, perhaps, Ginsburg. We know she identifies as an originalist who believes that the original public meaning of the Constitution is binding law. But we also know that she is skeptical of the radical libertarian originalist idea that economic regulation is presumptively unconstitutional, and that she believes some Supreme Court decisions that originalists may conclude are incorrectly decided nonetheless stand as “superprecedents” that the Court can abide by.
Her legal writing has also prompted heated reactions from detractors. One piece (with fellow law professor John Garvey) on when Catholic judges might be obligated to recuse themselves from death penalty cases, prompted criticism from Senate Democrats during her appeals court confirmation hearings, who suggested Barrett was unable to separate her faith from her jurisprudence (a charge she strongly rejected).
Read and weep……this is what our “impartial referee” of the Constitution has become a plaything of ideologues.
30+ days until the election and now the Dems have something else to bitch about…..which they need to focus on the vote and let this minor irritant go for the more they bitch and whine the more they turn people off.
I Read, I Write, You KNow
“lego ergo scribo”