35 Burst results for "Amy Coney Barrett"
Which SCOTUS Justice Carries Judge Bork's Legacy? His Son Weighs In
"Court now, who do you see if you would say, would carry that, I guess, not mantle necessarily, but that thought process that your father had owned the court now? Well, without a doubt, clarence clarence. And Alito, I mean, I thought the opinion he wrote in Dobbs was masterful. I don't know how you take that apart from the other side. He answered all their questions. They just all knew his lie about him. But and I'd like to see more of from Amy Coney Barrett. I think Kavanaugh is perhaps a little more moderate, but give him time. Yeah. You know, they're all going to grow. I hope in the right direction.
Florida Governor Sends Migrants to Martha's Vineyard
"It started out a few weeks, a few months ago. As governor Abbott says, I'm going to take some busloads of migrants and send them to muriel Bowser's front doorstep there in D.C. to Eric Adams in New York that went well. And then to Lori Lightfoot's neighborhood in Chicago, where she promptly schlepped them over into conservative suburbs with Republican mayors. Cry more, cry more. And then Ron DeSantis, I guess day before yesterday, came up with the idea in Florida that says, let's have areas right there on screen and Salem news channel. Watch the entire proceeding zero in the Salem news channel. Let's take some migrants and let's send them to Martha's Vineyard. And then I can imagine governor Abbott there, the governor's mansion in Austin saying, hold my beer, I am now going to send a couple of bus loads to observatory circle in Washington, two Kamala Harris house. Now, this is an important distinction. I have often said, you remember when they were protesting at Brett Kavanaugh's house where they were protesting at Amy Coney Barrett's house, Supreme Court Justices, et cetera. And whether it's a national issue or a local issue, I am the guy who's always said in terms of protest, stay away from people's homes. Go to their offices, their workplaces, stay away from people's private homes. Ha ha. They're in lies the meaningful adjective because observatory circle is not a private home. That's
Supreme Court won't let Biden implement immigration policy
"The Supreme Court halts a Biden administration deportation policy and agrees to hear arguments this winter A Supreme Court order issued Thursday stops a Homeland Security directive that would have prioritized deportations of people in the country illegally who posed the greatest public safety risk The Biden administration tried to update a Trump era policy that deported people regardless of criminal history and ended up having to request an emergency ruling after conflicting decisions by two different federal appeals courts The order freezes the policy for now and the court says it will hear arguments in the case in late November The vote was 5 to four with conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett joining liberal justices and saying they would have allowed the new guidance the order was the first public vote for new justice katangi Brown Jackson Jennifer King Washington
We Must Acknowledge Trump's Role in the Overturning of Roe v. Wade
"We need to make sure we understand it. If it wasn't for somebody else, this would not have got done. And I know everyone has different opinions of this individual, but this is a fact, and you don't have to like one about to say. You don't have to like it, but if you like babies and you like the unborn, the misses a fact. How do I put this? Someone who lived a colorful life from New York City, who was once pro choice himself who once supported Planned Parenthood, God had a call on his life. Or maybe just one or two or three reasons. But to go down a golden escalator and win an election, he was not supposed to win. And again, you don't have to like the guy. I'm not saying you have to like it. It's a fact of life that God can use anybody for any reason. And he did a highly suspicious thing. He actually did what he said he was going to do. I know we're not used to that. Makes us all very freaked out, right? And we got Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. And I want to say, Kavanaugh's ruling on immigration was somewhat disappointing, but if you survive an assassination attempt on your family and you still rule correctly on roe V wade, that's worthy of appreciation and applause. It really is. That's courage. So it's a big moment for the church. We must now step into this and help the people that need our help and see this as a great
Article III Project's Mike Davis on the Transformation of SCOTUS
"With us right now is Mike Davis formerly chief counsel for nominations for the U.S. Senate committee on the judiciary and a law clerk formerly and also helped justice Gorsuch, get on the U.S. Supreme Court, Mike, welcome back to the program. Thank you for having me, Charlie. I always love when you do our interviews, you have that beautiful picture behind you. It's just, it's incredible. So Washington crossing the Delaware if I'm not mistaken. It is, yeah, and I've big, big, big admirer of that painting and what it actually means. So Mike ten years ago, I got my start in politics and I was pro life then as I am now, but I was told by people that roe versus wade would never be overturned. Ten years ago, justice Scalia was lamenting that the court had gone off the rails. What happened in a decade, where we went from a court that was insane and dominated by Sotomayor and Kagan and upheld ObamaCare is merely a tax, even though we know simply that that was an insane decision. We're ten years later, we now have restored constitutional sanity. What do you attribute the success to? I attributed this success to president Donald J Trump and Senate Republicans. President Trump in 2016 won an upset victory against Hillary Clinton in big part because he promised he would appoint constitutionalist Supreme Court Justices and federal judges who would follow the law instead of rewrite the law and what we saw with this Dobbs decision coming out was the culmination of that. It was because president Trump transformed the 5 to four John Roberts court to the 5 to four clarence Thomas court with the appointments of justices, Gorsuch, my former boss, justice Kavanaugh, who I helped lead through the Senate confirmation and then justice Amy Coney Barrett. So it is a fundamental transformation of the federal judiciary back to its constitutionalist origins, what is supposed to be before the liberals hijack the Supreme Court nearly 90 years
Dan Bongino: If Libs Want to Pack the Court, Conservatives Will Play
"Didn't work out well for the Democrats last time Taught him a lesson They wanted to dump the filibuster We said okay dump the filibuster Here's Amy Coney Barrett Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh How do you like them apples You want to make the Supreme Court 12 Let's make it 36 And we'll nominate well nominate 20 more You want to make it 36 We'll make it a 136 Next thing you know what it looked like a parliamentary system in the UK We can do that too I'm warning you now I will use every microphone and video camera in my power I'm not suggesting my word isn't any way dispositive I don't have an inflated sense of self worth But as I said in my podcast earlier and I'll say again now I've got a lot of friends and conservative media that agree with me some don't Many do I will make sure that if you decide to pack the court that all of us press every single person in a Republican or orbit from the activist space up on The donors and everyone else to press every single Republican to nominate three people for everyone they nominate back You may not like what you see after that Make it a national right to school choice You may get national pro life legislation codifying the right to life you may get a flat tax You may get a fair tax You're not going to like any of that You may get a balanced budget amendment You're not going to like any of that
House Dems Delay Voting for Increased Security for SCOTUS Justices
"So right off the bat, protesters have shown up outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices, which is a violation of the law. There are statutes on the books that protect federal judges from that kind of coercion and intimidation and threats. The very presence. How'd you like to have 200 lunatics on your lawn, screaming at you with a bullhorn? Brett Kavanaugh's got young children, Amy Coney Barrett has young children. The left wants this. And if you don't believe me, if you don't believe that the left wants violence, they want threats. They want people being intimidated, senator John cornyn. Had a bill that was unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate. That would increase and enhance security for Supreme Court Justices and their families. Seems pretty bipartisan, right? You want to know what steny Hoyer, steny Hoyer and the Democrats are doing in the house. They're holding it all up. The house Democrats have changed the bill with the express intent of delaying protection for the Supreme Court Justices, whose lives are at risk. I mean, let's not mince words here. We know how violent and crazed these radical activists can be. We saw it. We witnessed
Radical Left Organizations Encourage the Targeting of SCOTUS Homes
"Yesterday we talked about the group rise up for abortion, which is really just a front for a shadowy revolutionary Communist Party group. A Maoist organization founded in the 60s by bob, avakian. Now, interestingly enough, some on the left don't like that group because they call it a cult. Which seems very apropos. Now, another group that's actually getting probably more attention because they were the ones that actually doxxed the 5 out of the 6 conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, is a group called Ruth sent us. Ruth sent us is asking activists to target Supreme Court Justices who may overturn roe V roe V wade with demonstrations at their private homes. Now, can we just state it? As a simple, clean fact here that you should not protest at private homes. You should not confront or get in their faces as Maxine water says, when people are out in public with their families, this is not appropriate. If you don't like somebody, you vote them out of office. If you don't like somebody, you can go on Twitter and say something mean and nasty to them. That's fine. And there might actually be free speech on Twitter moving forward with Elon Musk taking down. You do not, and I repeat, again, do not protest at private homes. I think it's just important to say that it's idiotic. It's stupid. If you're a conservative and you're considering protesting in front of, I don't know, justice Kagan's house because you think it's respect that she or one of her clerks were the leaker. Don't do it. Stop. It looks bad.
The White House Ignores Harrassment of Supreme Court Justices
"Passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness, for many, many people across this country, about what they saw in that leaked document suck, he said. I don't have an official U.S. government position on where people protest. There's no official government position on where people protest. The government is mom is quiet on the issue of going to justice's homes and screaming, nobody screams like left the screen. This was a question asked by Fox News channels Peter doocy. Doocy was signing a Fox News report that said pro choice activists under the moniker Ruth sent us. After the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg a proponent of roe, published what are likely the home addresses of justices Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito Brett Kavanaugh, clarence Thomas Neil Gorsuch, and chief justice John Roberts. During the briefing she also suggested conservatives were making too big of a fuss about the leak. I think what is happening here and what we think is happening here is there is an effort to distract from what the actual issue here, which is the fundamental rights, so an abortion. You know?
Matt Whitaker Discusses the SCOTUS Roe v Wade Debate
"We spent 50 years with a court that has now been just bombarded with an issue that they take up. Maybe in the last 50 years, I took up three to four times. That's it. Yeah, and you're so right. Supreme Court politics have always fascinated me because when a justice is nominated, you immediately go to what have they said on life. What have they written on life? All those types of questions. And it really, to your point, ignores a lot of the other qualifications that you would look for to Supreme Court Justice. I think this is one of Trump's greatest legacies that he was able because in his unique way you know him, I know him. And his unique way, he was able to vet out, you know, people that were really conservatives. And, you know, I've had my complaints about Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, especially. I think Amy Coney Barrett is probably the ideal Supreme Court Justice out of those three that Trump appointed. But, you know, I mean, obviously, I was around in the Bush administration as well. And I was promised that John Roberts was a conservative. And you know, I mean, I still kind of scratch my head on that whole deal because I knew that a guy with his kind of pedigree and experience, you know, sort of inside the beltway, you know, institutionalist. It was going to be very dangerous. And it's proving exactly that. I mean, if you look, if you believe the leaked document, when I know we're going to talk about leakers and liars, but if you believe this leaked draft opinion, you know, Roberts is not in the majority. And that should tell, you know, I mean, I look at life as a litmus test for conservatism, you know? Somebody once told me on the campaign trail when I was a young candidate for state treasure in Iowa that, you know, I know that if they're right on life, they're going to be right on the economic issues as well. Right, right. And I think that is exactly what you see in the case of the three Trump appointees on the
Unpacking 'The Supreme Leak' and the End of Roe
"Reported that the Supreme Court was poised to decide that roe versus wade was going to be overturned. Now this is an unprecedented development because Politico received a leak. Now we're used to leaks in Washington, D.C., leaks happen all the time in leakers are rarely ever held accountable unless the leakers of course are leaking on Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. And so what appears to be a Supreme Court Justice clerk will get into that later in this program of who we think it is. They leaked a draft of the decision composed and written by Samuel Alito by justice Alito. Now the significance of this is, is that the decision is not done yet, is that the justices meet right after they hear oral arguments, they start to draft opinions, and the final decision, the final vote will be done based on how the opinion is written. And so based on the draft that looks like Amy Coney Barrett, clarence Thomas, justice Gorsuch, justice Alito, and justice Kavanaugh, 5 of them are going to vote against the four would be briar Sotomayor Kagan and Roberts saying that roe versus wade will be overturned. Now mind you. We'll get into the technical aspect of this. Does not mean that abortion will be outlawed as much as I'd like to see that happen. That just, it's simply means that states will be able to determine their own abortion laws. It will
Whoopi Goldberg: You're Racist if You Don't Support KBJ
"Katangi Brown Jackson? It simply because she's a black woman. Don't believe me? Check out Whoopi Goldberg on the view. Let me set up. Lest I start some new stuff. You know, this is the most ridiculous. Just saying, I don't trust a black woman to do the job. Because I know that y'all didn't have these same issues with Amy Coney Barrett. You didn't ask those questions. You didn't have those problems. And when Amy Coney Barrett answered the same way that judge had grounded when you asked her if you thought they were going to need more people on the Supreme Court. Nobody seemed to have a problem with her answer. No. But so many of you have problems with judge. You know what? I know what this is. Yeah. We all know what it is. We know what it is. We recognize it, we're used to this, but you know what? You can't take away what this woman is and who she is and what she says and how she
'The View' Host Says Republicans Don't Trust Black Women
"This is Whoopi Goldberg in her usual brilliant take wink wink. Audio clip number four profile Shan. You know, this is the most ridiculous. Just saying, I don't trust a black woman to do the job. Because I know that y'all didn't have these same issues with Amy Coney Barrett. You didn't ask those questions. You didn't have those problems. And when Amy Coney Barrett answered the same way that judge katana grounded when you asked her if you thought they were going to need more people on the Supreme Court. Nobody seemed to have a problem with her answer. No. But so many of you have problems with judge. You know what? I know what this is. Yeah. We all know what it is.
The Totalitarian Truth Hidden Behind KBJ's "Biologist" Comment
"By now you've probably heard the back and forth between katangi Brown Jackson and Marsha Blackburn went into this in great detail. Yesterday and talked about how katangi Brown Jackson was unable to answer a very basic question. She was not able to answer the question of what is a woman. Now, katangi Brown Jackson, of course, has been mocked openly by almost every major conservative media outlet. You wouldn't even know she said this if you looked at CNN or The New York Times, the only way they describe it is right wingers pounce on tangi Brown Jackson to be unable to answer question or to yielding to experts and it kind of struck me as very interesting the way that she answered this question. And I listened to this tape over and over again. And first of all, katangi Brown Jackson has a smug attitude. She has a contempt for the entire process. She feels entitled to be the next Supreme Court Justice. You're going to see in her mannerisms, the way she's answering questions, she does not have any, I don't think she has any humility that prior nominees have had such as Amy Coney Barrett, who I thought was magnanimous and charming, contagion Brown Jackson has no such tone. And how she's approaching this. But I want you to re listen to this tape, because I think it's very telling. In fact, it's a unique window into how katangi Brown Jackson and the upcoming CRT regime or the new status, if you will, that we are going to be battling for the rest of my life, how they view the world. It's a window into who they think should actually have the power and why they think you should have almost none. Play cut 55. Can you provide a definition for the word woman? Can I provide a definition? No. Yeah. I can't. You can't? Not in this context. I'm not a biology. You have the word woman is so unclear in controversial that you can't give me a definition. She's not a biologist. Now, she should be mocked for that. She should be ridiculed for her inability to answer just the basic biological question, XX, XY chromosomes, not that hard, women can give birth, men can not. Pretty easy, pretty simple. What an opportunity for katangi Brown Jackson to have had a viral moment that might have had Republicans vote for, say, excuse me. I'm a woman. I'm a mother. I know what a woman is. You know what a woman is Marsha Blackburn. Instead, she almost says, no, I can't answer that because she knew, of course, the alphabet mafia would come after her, but the way she answered it, though, was more than just, I can't, which is, I'm not the specialist here. I'm just a judge trying to be on the Supreme Court.
Republicans Are Guilty of Putting Awful People on the Supreme Court
"Republicans have been just as guilty at putting awful people on the U.S. Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor, not exactly someone who was an appreciation, was a fan of the unborn. John Roberts as well. Someone under George W. Bush. Anthony Kennedy, who was okay on some decisions, but was also a Reagan appointee. Now we've had some phenomenal conservative justices over the last 20 or 30 years, justice rehnquist was phenomenal. Scalia was exceptional. Gorsuch looks to be one of the best we've ever had. Alito is terrific. And the jury is still out. Get it on Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. But this radical left turn where we don't really care if they're qualified. We don't care whether or not they love the constitution. We want fundamental transformation. What happened more explicitly and more transparently under Barack Hussein Obama than any other president.
A GOP Strategy for Dealing With Biden's SCOTUS Pick Ketanji Jackson
"I want to make the case for why Republicans should trash. The reputation and the record of Biden's Supreme Court nominee katangi Brown Jackson. Now, katon G Brown Jackson is a leftist. She is a known leftist and she was supported by the left wing of the Democratic Party. There was, for a while there, a lot of talk about another woman named Michelle childs who had been advocated by Lindsey Graham. And of course, that would be a great benefit to Biden if he could get Lindsey Graham. Maybe a couple of other Republicans then claim even with obviously two or three Republicans. This is a bipartisan vote. But the left was outraged because Michelle childs had said a couple of good things about business, had said that Noah's job is to interpret and not make laws, and so the idea was, oh, no, no, no, she might be a little too moderate. And so we get catan J Jackson. And here's an article in CNN. The theme of which is, hey, Republicans, you know, you don't really want to oppose this nominee. The argument is that the quoting Republican sources and so I it may be that there are some Republicans who think like this, we need to measure the approach. We need to yes, we need to vet this woman judge Jackson, but look, it's not really going to change the balance on the court. If it's 6 three now, with Robert's maybe, so it's 5 four. Maybe 6 three. This isn't going to change things. So why create a big fuss about it? The Democrats don't need Republican votes if they can get a solid 50 democratic senators. Obviously Kamala Jackson can break a tie. And so the Democrats are pushing for, let's call it an uneventful nomination process. But here's why I think that's a mistake. First of all, there's plenty of fodder with this woman. She's inexperienced. She's got decisions that were slapped down by the higher courts and on the idea that she had overreached her judicial authority. So this is not exactly the top drawer nominee. Basically, Biden sort of admits that because he's kind of saying, well, listen, I'm going to limit the search to black women, so kind of this is the smartest black woman I could find. And but Republicans need to teach Democrats to lessen for the way that they treat our nominees. That is the point here. And it's a critical point because if we don't do this, then the Democrats will take the lesson. And rightly so, look, we can bruise and trash their nominees, however qualified. Doesn't matter how good Kavanaugh is, we will destroy that guy's reputation by going back to stuff that he might have done in a high school or at some party. And make stuff up, allegations completely unsupported by someone who has a political axe to grind. And in the case of Amy Coney Barrett, someone who has an impeccable record, a kind of spotless personal life. No, that's okay. We're gonna pile on Amy Coney Barrett. So that's how the left operates and why should we operate any differently if we do, we're basically going to be saying that we're the weaklings who don't mind being bullied in the schoolyard, go right ahead and keep doing it because we're not going to do it to you. I think we need to do it to her. Brown Jackson and in that sense, even if she goes through, that's all right, but nevertheless we will have taught the Democrats a very valuable and memorable
Biden Nominates Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court
"Biden will nominate judge Kate Brown Jackson to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. It would be, of course, of course, the first black woman nominated to be a justice on the nation's highest court, fulfilling his promise. She's 51 years old. She serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit. Interestingly, she is has only served and she'd be the youngest second youngest justice on the current court justice Amy Coney Barrett turned 50 in January. She only David souter. Came to the Supreme Court with less time on the federal appeals court. She is only served on the federal appeals court for 8 months. She was nominated a district court 8 months ago, you know what's an interesting fact, she's related by marriage to Paul Ryan. The former House speaker, who gave her a hearty endorsement. Paul Ryan of all people, the former House speaker, her husband's twin brother, is married to Paul Ryan's wife's sister.
Rep. Mike Johnson Reflects on the Appointment of Amy Coney Barrett
"I think it's an interesting, maybe not beautiful's word, but I think it's very proper that the architect of the strategy going back to griswold then roe and others was Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And the seat that Ruth Bader Ginsburg hill, which was a pro abortion seat because of her views, was taken by Amy Coney Barrett, who we know fully understands is not if I were right. It's sort of a cosmic karma about that. Don't you like that? I think God smiling there. Well, I think he is. And I spent a lot of time with president Trump on Air Force One. During his term, he went to Louisiana 9 times as a sitting president. And I think I went on most all of the trips, but a lot of the conversations I had with the president was about the Supreme Court because as a former constitutional law litigator, I understand the greatest longest lesson legacy of any president is who that individual puts on the Supreme Court because they sit for life, right? All their federal judges appointments, but particularly the Supreme Court. And he had already had Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, but we anticipated because Ruth Bader Ginsburg was in frail health that there was a chance that there might be another opening before the end of his first term. And so each time we were with him, I would try to pivot back to that point and I would always bring up Amy Coney Barrett because I've known Amy since we grew up together in Louisiana. I've known her since high school. She's from the New Orleans area down south Louisiana. I'm from Shreveport northwe, but we would meet up at these nerd student leadership camps around the state and we came fast friends and so when she was on the short list, I was very excited because I've known her, you know, we turned 50 this year. I've known her for almost a half century. 40 years or more, and I've known that she has always been intellectually consistent. She's always been a person of deep moral character, you know, genuine faith in God and very subtle principles. She was a law clerk to justice Scalia, and as I told president Trump, she'll be the female Scalia, sir, you know? And so when she finally did get the nomination, we were
"amy coney barrett" Discussed on Trumpcast
"So it's not clear to me if her concurrence really mattered or whether she was kind of playing everybody and manage to help craft narrative in classic john roberts style to make her conservatism. Seemed like centrism. Part of my ongoing beef with supreme court coverage is it is so personality driven the personalities of the justices and whether that was the cultivar. Bg raid the tote bag indication of how we think about feminism and progressive activism or the attempt on the right to co-opt the cult of rv g. for justice barrett. I think part of the retired justice briar thing again puts way too much importance on individuals as opposed to systemic change. Right like things that you can do. That are probably in the long term if this is indeed a long game decades long game as you point out much more effective than harassing individual jurists off the court but i think part of the problem also is that it allied is really complicated questions like voting and so maybe let's end on voting only because all the focus on Barrett and cavanaugh. Are these centrists after all. I think distract so profoundly from what just happened to voting rates. And just to teed it up i will say this is another thing that was happening and the shadow docket long before we got to burn vich. We were seeing a orders that were changing really really changing doctrinal positions. They didn't necessarily command five oats and change the outcome of the twenty twenty election but we were seeing faints at fundamentally. Changing how states can oversee their own elections happening on the shadow docket and then the term ends with i think to incredibly consequential decisions both six three by the way that really in a systems way that cannot be lashed to anyone justice or their personality or their face on a t. Shirt really really. I think imperils the project of democracy right absolutely. You've got all six justices in berna vich. Dnc the big case of the term. Really gutting the voting rights act and sort of neutering this decades old law that prohibits any voting restriction that results in disproportionate disenfranchisement of racial minorities. So the six conservative justices take this revolutionary law. That was supposed to stamp out. The last vestiges of jim crow and prevent states from passing any kind of voter suppression measure that has a disparate impact on racial minorities and turns it into nothing. Right flattens this. Law and demure symbolism creates this multi factor test that has no relationship to the text of the law and just manipulates it to ensure that lower courts will uphold essentially all restrictions on the franchise under what remains of the voting rights act and barrett joined that opinion in full and kavanagh joined that opinion in full. They didn't write anything else. They didn't have any concerns or qualifications and yet despite casting the fifth and sixth votes they got almost no attention right. That was not. Oh look at these. Two justices dragging the court far to the right. It was an aberration in an otherwise agreeable term which strikes me as a fundamentally wrong way to think about a decision that constitutes an attack on the one right that is preservative of all other rights. Yeah and i think. I think that very last thing you said is the thing that i would ask listeners. To take away from this conversation..
"amy coney barrett" Discussed on Trumpcast
"A few months ago. I was talking to mary. Ziglar about amy. Coney barrett's mary's fantastic professor of law at florida state university. She covers abortion law and abortion history and she told me that she thinks amy coney barrett wants to be perceived as a serious intellectual that amy conybeare doesn't want to be perceived as sort of instrumental transactional votes dot republicans sort of crammed onto the court at the last minute to further their agenda that she is a really brilliant person who wants to be perceived as an independent neutral thoughtful 'institutionalised and for that reason she wasn't going to be in a rush to affect her own agenda which would include probably ending the right to an abortion. Now mary send out to me just a few weeks before. The supreme court took up a case that is a direct challenge to roe versus wade which the court will hear next term and may well use to end the constitutional right to abortion with a makoni. Barrett's vote as potentially decisive one. But i still think that. Mary was onto something there. And this is really informed my own view. I do think that barrick cares about how she perceived unlike somebody like. Sam alito neal gorsuch. Who truly do not care how the press and the public think about them. I do think that barrett wants to be seen as kind of professorial thoughtful. Maybe under but quietly brilliant jurist. I don't know though if that's the person we've seen in action over the last nine months on the bench. And i'm very curious what you think i do. Think that what was seen as resounding statesmanship and centrism was barrett's decision to write a concurrence in what ended up being a nine zero decision. That looked as though. Hey the courts not making any definitive claims about this balancing of religious liberty on the one hand civil rights on the other. It looked like that was happening. And what barrett got feted for was the centrist moderate concurrence. She wrote saying. I'm not going to overturn a decades old president. That's what she did. She got feted as you've been saying throughout for not doing the thing that people thought she was going to do and then instead of saying well. Okay as you're saying why was that strategic and be. Did she effectively do that. In the shadow docket anyway in the cova places. We're just sitting here saying man. She's no different from our bg. And i think that is a function of as we've said from the beginning you know the way we do confirmation hearings unfortunately on both sides is a lot of sort of sky is falling projections about what's going to happen. And when that doesn't materialize it's like. Hey maybe she really is for the adoptive same sex parents in this case which is like absolutely materially not true but i think that there is a very very cartoonish sense still going into next term when abortion as you say is on the chopping blog that if amy conybeare it doesn't right. The sentence roe v wade is overturned. She will have been a moderate. And that's just the way we construct the narrative around the court..
"amy coney barrett" Discussed on Trumpcast
"What the rule was. We just saw the rule change as you said Now any state or municipality that puts into an effect a lockdown order in an existential global pandemic if they make an exemption for nail salons or bike shops the exemption goes to churches to and that is profoundly without getting into the weeds of employment division and religious liberty cases but i think it is a profound up ending of how religious liberty has been analyzed at the court and it happened with nobody noticing and a lot of what happened in the shadows. This year was so so so consequential in profound and because it just slipped out in late night orders. The press didn't necessarily give it the attention it needed and the court kind of ignored it when the court analyzed fulton. They act as though they hadn't already fundamentally altered the rules of religious liberty and radically altering those rules in shadow docket. Five to four decision is not something a moderate would do right so that alone. That data point alone should be proof enough to put to bed. The canard that amy conybeare it is a moderate. No no moderate no judge with a genuine moderate bent would ever manipulate a courts rules. Philly break a courts rules to affect such a radical shift and yet that's what barrett did and we know she was the fifth vote here because even chief justice roberts who's genuinely good friend to religious freedom and even religious exemptions. He dissented from from tannin from the decision. We're talking about And i noticed in so many of these end of the term up pieces when journalists were giving their breakdown of how divided the court was and how unanimous the court was excluded shadow docket decisions so they say oh there were so few five to four decisions but that's only in the normal cases. These shadow daca cases were quite frequently five to four. But because they aren't being factored into the stats. Nobody notices them and the end of term rapa pieces create the false impression the false narrative that the court is more unanimous and more in agreement on major major issues than it actually is. So we're going to take a break here but if you like what you're hearing and you wanna hear more from dalia and myself on another topic checkout our sleep.
"amy coney barrett" Discussed on Trumpcast
"And as you noted democrats chose to make it all about the affordable care act and say well if this individual is confirmed she could take away healthcare from tens of millions of people including all of these wonderful children and individuals who are so deserving of healthcare and. I'm curious looking back now. What what do you make of that. Strategy of that introduction of amy coney barrett to the world by democrats. yeah. I've been really thinking about that mark and i think in some sense. It goes to that predictive foresight and hindsight in other words. The democrats made a choice. They didn't quite know how to attack judge barrett. They knew we should note that from her confirmation hearings for her job at the seventh circuit. The federal appeals court where she had sat for three years. They couldn't touch a lot of the issues that were at the heart of what they were really worried about right. Which is her religious views and what she's written about the right to abortion generally but also just things that surfaced during the confirmation hearings about how early and often she was saying things like life begins at conception and how really involved she was both in a judicial project to say. That story decisive or president just doesn't matter so there's that she just doesn't have a lot of qualms about reversing cases. They weren't willing to talk about how she thought about precedent also she. She wouldn't answer. They weren't really willing to say. How does your view about reproductive freedom of and reproductive rights braid into the way you think about your job as a jurist. She had explicitly written about that right. We know that she has put that into evidence. Before dem's didn't wanna touch that either and that combined with the fact that she's simply wouldn't answer questions mean questions like very fundamental questions about. Can the president stop the election fundamental questions about things that totally orthogonal to her own job as a justice. And so i think all of that men that dem's were sort of boxed in that they chose to make this about the affordable care act because they wanted it to be kitchen table objection to bear it that everybody could understand. It's not complicated. I don't have to explain. Section two of the voting rights act. I can just say she's taking your healthcare away. But in the end the fact that that didn't materialize the fact that she happily signed on with the seven to two majority. That kicked away the affordable. Care act case. I think made the dem's look a little dumb you..
"amy coney barrett" Discussed on Slate's Double X Gabfest
"We head out. We want to give some recommendations and dolly. I'm curious what are you loving right now. So this is gonna sound corny. But i just want to root it in the fact that i am somehow on my v rental home in four years and just completely as so so many of our listeners are still upside down ish in this interregnum between ovid's and having my kids go out into the world the thing that believe it or not has been giving me sanity. The last couple of weeks is my gorgeous supreme court women mug that i got from resistance by design. And i know it's just ridiculous to show for a company that makes the a mug with the faces of the four supreme court female justices. This was the one actually. It came out before justice. Ginsburg died and also before amy kuney barrett was on the court. But somehow that has been giving me life. And i'll just say resistance by design partners with a whole bunch of amazing amazing amazing projects including all bunch of voting rates projects. Y'all probably saw that. Vote mask that was everywhere last full. That's there were but portions of the the money from the sales of these things go to all sorts of good projects. It helped each people really wacky complicated. Things like what gerrymandering is so. I am a big fan of my mug. And i have to say particularly in the last week. Mark as you and i have been staggering around hollow-eyed and leaf razi about the state of the supreme court. My little funny mug with the faces of the i four women on the supreme court has been giving me life. What's your thing mark. What's your recommendation. Well i guess keeping loosely with this theme. I'm going to recommend an awesome tanktop recently. That has the dc flag on it and it says douglas commonwealth which is the name that the district of columbia will have when it does become the fifty first state. because i'm choosing optimism. Here it will stay dc but it will be douglas commonwealth instead of the district of columbia as proud washingtonian. I feel it's important to both sort of flaunt my support for statehood. But also normalize the idea of statehood because a lot of republicans. I think exploits the fact that we're also used to a fifty star flag by the way there's a fifty one star flag flying outside my house right now they say oh how could it possibly be a state it sounds so weird douglas commonwealth who couldn't even pronounce that well i can and i'm proud to show it off on my dog walks around the neighborhood and i got this shirt from a company called dc statehood gifts in apparel. The name is what it is. They've got a ton of stuff online. That's all in keeping with the statehoods theme. And i definitely encourage everyone to go normalize douglas commonwealth which will be our fifty. I mark if there's a through line here it has to be me walking around in my gerrymander. Sucks by resistance by design and you walking around in your in your dc statehood t shirt. I think maybe the through line here is friends. Purchase apparel that makes people ask hard questions. About what the hell you're.
"amy coney barrett" Discussed on Slate's Double X Gabfest
"Bb king and more join them and relive joyous celebration of black and latte next culture now playing in theaters and on hulu so dolly. Let's talk about that confirmation. Hearing back in october a somewhat traumatic time justice. Ginsburg just died. The election was right around the corner. And as you noted democrats chose to make it all about the affordable care act and say well if this individual is confirmed she could take away healthcare from tens of millions of people including all of these wonderful children and individuals who are so deserving of healthcare and. I'm curious looking back now. What what do you make of that. Strategy of that introduction of amy conybeare it to the world by democrats yeah. I've been really thinking about that mark. And i think in some sense. It goes to that predictive foresight and hindsight in other words. The democrats made a choice. They didn't quite know how to attack judge barrett. They knew we should note that from her confirmation hearings for her job at the seventh circuit. The federal appeals court where she had sat for three years. They couldn't touch a lot of the issues that were at the heart of what they were really worried about right. Which is her religious views and what she's written about the right to abortion generally but also just things that surfaced during the confirmation hearings about how early and often She was saying things like life begins at conception and how really involved she was both in a judicial project to say. That story decisive or president just doesn't matter so there's that that she just doesn't have a lot of qualms about reversing cases so they weren't willing to talk about how she thought about precedent also she. She wouldn't answer. They weren't really willing to say. How does your view about reproductive freedom of and reproductive rights braid into the way you think about your job as a jurist. She had explicitly written about that right. We know that she has put that into evidence. Before dem's didn't wanna touch that either and that combined with the fact that she simply wouldn't answer questions questions like very fundamental questions about. Can the president stop the election fundamental questions about things that totally orthogonal all to her own job as a justice. And so i think all of that men that dem's were sort of boxed in that they chose to make this about the affordable care act because they wanted it to be a kitchen table objection to bear it that everybody could understand. It's not complicated. I don't have to explain. Section two of the voting rights act. I can just say she's taking your healthcare away. But in the end the fact that that didn't materialize the fact that she happily signed on with the seven to two majority. That kicked away the affordable. Care act case. I think made the dams look a little dumb you. I think it's worth noting that dem's did touch the religion issue during barrett's confirmation hearing to the seventh circuit to the lower court and it was like an electric fence and they got electrified. Dianne feinstein said the dogma lives loudly within you and Celebrity of the right was born. There were mugs and shirts and headbands. You could buy that said. The dog lives within you. She became a makoni. Barrett became a kind of hero to the right because she was supposedly persecuted for her religious beliefs. For belonging to a religious organization called people of praise. Some commentators ask questions about and immediately the white house and its allies framed. all of that as anti-catholic animus right until a few years later by the time she was there for a job interview for the supreme court. Democrats had been so scarred by that. I think that they really would not touch it with a ten foot pole as you noted and that did leave them boxed in and i guess they made the choice. Let's talk about healthcare because like you said it's not complicated and also it doesn't raise these fraud issues. The way that abortion reproductive freedom does we don't have to get into the whole question of anti-catholic annemasse and no one will be able to accuse us of hating her because she's catholic. Of course conservatives did still accuse democrats of hating her because she's cop but that's just completely unavoidable. Let's put a name on that. That was josh. Holly setting up the confirmation hearings to say democrats are going to ask about griswold versus connecticut. And that's a dog whistle about how much they hate. Religious people right that was explicitly shot across the bow. And what holly did. I think was scummy but i think it was also relatively canny because it worked and scared democrats away from asking hard questions so all they asked about with healthcare and i guess we should get into the case this term essentially this was a i think a really frivolous ridiculous case where the state of texas joined by a bunch of other conservative states argued that the entire affordable care act became unconstitutional after congress zeroed out the penalty for people who don't purchase health insurance. We don't need to get into the details. Because i think just. A brief description illustrates why. It's such a nutty theory. And i will say at the time. I was harshly critical of democrats for seizing on this case. Because i said look this is a ridiculous case. And the mere fact that total partisan hacks in the lower courts have embraced texas. Theory does not mean that this is going to get five votes on the supreme court and my fear was she would say okay. This is too nutty for me. I'm just gonna kick this case to the road. And then republicans would jump up dance around and say hey democrats you accuse this woman as being out to kill the affordable care act but guess what she had the opportunity and she didn't so she must be moderates and that just framing feels totally wrong to me. But it's the inevitable result of democrats using the case as the litmus test for any coney barrett's radical nece this term..
"amy coney barrett" Discussed on Slate's Double X Gabfest
"Welcome to the waves slates podcast about gender feminism and the supreme court every episode. You get a new era feminists to talk about the thing. We can't get off our minds and today you've got me. Marc joseph stern a staff writer for sleep covering courts in the law and me die elliptic. I am senior editor at slate. And i cover the courts today. We're talking about amy. Coney barrett's first term which just wrapped up this month just as bear. It notoriously replaced ruth bader ginsburg on the court solidifying a six to three conservative majority. And today we'll be talking about what impacts her votes had on the cases that the court decided and also the case is that the court chose not to decide. You know. I'm sitting with two things and and it's sort of interesting to me. One last october november. You and i were running around houses on fire houses on fire. She's going to do all these dreadful things and to now. We're sitting in the midst of a raft of mainstream media views that barrett turned out to really moderate intemperate and centrists and maybe not all that different from our bg. After all so maybe just in terms of table setting where we wrong then or are we wrong now. I don't think we're wrong at all. Let's recall at justice barrett than judge. barrett's confirmation hearings. The senate democrats chose to make it about the affordable care act and so what we saw right was days and days and days of senate democrats holding up. You know huge posters of children who were going to be thrown off their health insurance because of justice barrett and that didn't materialize for reasons. We're gonna talk about in a minute. The affordable care act was not struck down. But i do think there is this problem with hindsight and foresight in other words. The choice to say. We're going to litigate amy. Coney barrett's possible impact on the court before she's on the court really does think a clued. What the real conversation was and two. We spend a lot of time talking about roe and it didn't materialize because there was no abortion giving on the took it because i just think the point. Let's make this as a sort of leaping off point a lot of the things that are allowing people to say right now. Look how shockingly temperate and moderate and centrist justice barrett is our because either the kinds of things. We've been worried about all along barrett on guns barrett on abortion barrett on dismantling. The administrative state didn't really happen this year. Oh by the way they might happen next year and to because some of the things that we used as templates amy coney barrett is gunning for health. Insurance actually didn't happen. Is that fair. I think so absolutely. I think it's important to step back and say that. She has been on the bench for about nine months right. She may well be at the supreme court for the next thirty years and so the fact that we are all racing to take in a few data bytes and conclude that she is one way or another. That is our problem. That is our desire to craft a narrative right out of the gate. She has decades to build her legacy and to await the big cases to come before her. She doesn't need to reach out and grab every single one and so the fact that she had a somewhat limited buffet of options. This term does not mean that in the future she will not swing far to the right and drag the court with her so. I'm very glad that you teed that up for us. And i really am looking forward to getting into it but before we do. We have a brief word from our sponsors..
"amy coney barrett" Discussed on The Takeaway
"How Americans should live their lives. So it it's interesting Christian meantime, the problem is as you mentioned, there are you know, a million Americans have been pushed into poverty. And while the GOP has gotten its Victory. It has kept its promise President Trump in particular has kept his promise to make sure that they seat as many judges as I possibly can they have done that but they have abdicated their moral responsibility to the American public that is suffering right. Now. How do they expect to stand? Maybe this is to Amy's earlier point that they're betting on the short-term versus the long-term precisely, you know, and and that's why it's interesting because right now based on this evident power grab the question is will voters respond with birth. Voters punish them and and we need to see what happens after the election. How big if if biting winds how big he wins and also if he takes back the Senate how big that take back is because based on that mandate they will now have to make a decision. What do we do to reverse this trend? Yes, of course, they have this whole eject Biden. I'm sure has all these things he wants to do but the question is will the courts to push back on those policy agendas. And if the courts begin striking down Democratic wage legislation, which is what many progressives and many Democrats fear that Amy Coney Barrett in the consumer majority. Now, let's say there's a new Voting Rights Act that will protect the right of right to vote moving forward will an activist Supreme Court go and do away with that then, you know, then what's even the point of passing Democratic legislation if you're going to have courts to suck. Making it all down. What is the concern about this word? Court-packing? Yeah. I think I'm not sure that there's that much of a concern right now. I think that Democrats are so upset at about the way that things have played out, you know, the the idea that the the Gorsuch seat was a stolen seat. You know that Mitch McConnell said were not going to confirm wage adjusted during the presidential election year. And then now that the Republicans are in the White House and they have the opportunity to confirm a justice during the presidential election year and they went ahead and did it, you know, but it was it was taboo for a long time. I think that there was a sense that that you know talking about court-packing might somehow hurt the Democrats in in the upcoming election. And you know, I'm I'm not sure that there's a sense that that there is much of a harm right now from talking about it the idea that what about term limits Amy. What about that? What about implementing or yep? Hitting the power of support. Is that something that Democrats could do it is something it's interesting because term limits too many people I was actually talking about this is my seventeen-year-old daughter this morning, like it sounds like a much more reasonable wage. Yeah, too many people, you know, the idea that you know eighteen years or so sounds very very civilized, you know, and then you would know when Justice was going to roll off and in advance of an upcoming presidential you need say okay this President would get depict the next nominee, but that actually my understanding is that it would be hard and Christian can correct me if I'm wrong would be harder to do because the Constitution gives Supreme Court Justices life tenure whereas the Constitution does not set the number of justices on the Supreme Court. So, you know, it seems somewhat counterintuitive that that adding justices to the court might actually be easier as a constitutional and legal matter than limiting their terms. Christian in terms of the way that what we know about Judge Barrett and I'm not going to get into how she will rule on a or b topic cuz we don't know how she's going to rule and we can't predict that off. The the question I have is how little we took away from her after these confirmation hearing she answered less than 20% of the questions that were posed to her. And I would love if you could help us understand that in the contract. For example, Sonia Sotomayor is confirmation hearing how different were the two. Yes. She was not forthcoming at all. I mean there were basic questions that she got as like his voter intimidation illegal and she wouldn't answer that when the reality is it is illegal. What what does she have to say about the peaceful transfer of power or you know other authoritarian Tendencies of the current president and she wouldn't answer those things. And of course the reality is that she was just protecting her own nomination because we know that the president tends to you know, not take kindly to people who Crossed him and so she was shrewd in that sense. But the reality is is that you know, she took part in this process. She accepted it for all it is for all his Rush. She appeared on the balcony of White House South lawn last night for what looked like a campaign event because Donald Trump tweeted video a video of it off and that's not typical or behavior for a Supreme Court Justice is yeah. It's it there are a lot of things that we're a typical about this process and the fact that you know, she kind of took it all in and she played along I mean she was in the middle of that super spreader event when she was announced for covet mean it just tells you something that she was pretty much in the tank with this whole thing and and I think people should draw their own conclusions from that. The the reality is that she is on the court right now. There are cases before the court dealing with this very election whether mail-in ballots will be counted well, You know it everyone would she be forced to recuse herself from those cases? She won't be forced to do anything Supreme Court Justices call their own shots when it comes to recusal. And the question is well Amy Coney Barrett Barrett do the right thing and and the reality is is that there's already a majority in the court that is hostile voting rights. The question here is well, she joined them or will she step aside and just last night. There was a huge number of opinions from the Supreme Court dealing with voting in Wisconsin. There's another case from Pennsylvania pending another one for North Carolina. And and this is where the rubber will meet the road and and what she does in those cases will be dispatched a demonstration of whether she is independent or not. And and I think if she recuses at least she will be shown the public that you know, that that the stakes are high in their own Integrity off. Line Amy as we close out the segment. What does this do the whole process the way that this that the path that you mentioned Merrick Garland and Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. And now we've got Amy Coney Barrett very contentious nomination processes and yet like as I mentioned President Trump kept his promise to the American public by by seating as many judges as he could. How is this changed the court for the foreseeable future. We've got about a minute-and-a-half to go. Yeah, so interestingly until before the death of Justice Ginsburg the Supreme Court sort of was doing actually fairly well in these polls involving public, and so, you know, my impression has been that when you have something like this the Supreme the sort of perceptions of the Supreme Court do tend to take a hit and then the Supreme Court you usually come to recover but then it will will take a hit again and but it will be, you know, the combination of this and the possibility that the Supreme Court could be drawn into election-related litigation. And you know, I think it could certainly affect the Public's perception and and you know, we saw this after Bush.
"amy coney barrett" Discussed on The Takeaway
"Judge Barrett now Justice Barrett submitted her questionnaire. They had been really considering birth for a vacancy for a couple of years. And you saw when she submitted her questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee that within a day or two after just as long as death on September 18th. They had contacted her about the possibility of filling the vacancy and had offered her the job on September 21st. I believe they didn't announce it until September 26th. And then, you know just moved forward at at lightning speed. There is a an editorial the editorial board of the New York Times wrote to talk about this process and I have to say Amy. It's one thing to have a remarkably fast confirmation process and it's another thing in the words that they use in this editorial to use quotes. Brute-force here. I think that's what's frustrating to watch is how a lot of this feels less about the American public and its citizenry and more about brute force and Power on the part of the Republicans home. Yeah. I mean there was not a lot that the Democrats could do. Once the nomination had been made to stop her and the the Democrats sort of recognized that and the strategy at the confirmation hearing was really less about any sort of procedural maneuverings to try to stop her and they really focused on you know, some of their differences and what her confirmation would mean for the court rather than than trying to change the minds of any senators or such Christian. I want to bring you in here because to Amy's point there wasn't a lot that Democrats could do. What did they do enough. I feel like there was a lot of grandstanding. There were a lot of photographs left there. They protested by not showing up but I don't know. I mean could they have asked more questions wage? Judge Barrett now Justice Barrett only answered about less than 20% of the questions. She was posed. So what could the Democrats have done differently here? They actually did everything they could do given a circumstances as Amy pointed out there in the minority their options were limited and really they hammered home the point that they've been trying to hammer even since the last election that the Affordable Care Act is on the line and indeed the the law is on the Supreme Court's docket at the moment and their point. I don't know if they were successful. They try to paint her as a sure-fire vote against the law given her past statements. And the question is will she go with that? Yes or no. Was that a pre-election strategy to drive out people to the polls more so than the feeds her. I think that's that's a question that the election is going to answer because depending on how well this strategy worked and how big a turnout Amy Coney Barrett confirmation page. Result and I think they'll then decide do we have a mandate to do something else? I think it's less about stopping her confirmation. But whether more about whether voters have it in them to truly, you know exact and almost feared as word revenge for what happened, you know, because Millions as the opening said were ready voting 60 million as of yesterday and in a sense, there's something quite anti-democratic about pushing through a nomination as votes are being cast and as people maybe already voting off because Ruth Bader Ginsburg died because they want a Justice that is kind of in her mold and the fact that Amy Coney Barrett is the exact opposite of that page that may itself result in political retribution and I want to pick up on that point Amy because the idea that this is anti-democratic the Christian just pointed out I think wage. And pointing back to this New York Times editorial. We're essentially, you know, it feels in many ways that the American that the United States is somehow being held hostage by a very Miami leave you quite frankly and pointing out here that Republican presidents have appointed 14 of the previous eighteen justices on the court. The Americans have voted for Democratic nominees in six of the last seven presidential elections and yet this is what our Supreme Court looks like a me. How do we explain that? I mean, I think that is what sneakers so many people and you know, I think for the Republicans that it really is as Christian said you're talking about, you know, there's the ongoing election and it seems like Republicans Republican Senators at least May well have made a calculation that they are going to take the you know, and to be sure I'm not a congressional reporter, but at the takes the short-term And that they may well lose their majority in the senate for the long-term gain of controlling the Supreme Court for you know possibly decades to come, you know, you had Senator McConnell off the other day talking about, you know, how even if Democrats take the the White House and both houses of Congress. They'll have this Supreme Court that's able to sort of push back against the you know the acts of Congress and that is what's frustrating Democrats so much and is you know part of the what's underlying the place, you know, the calls for possibly expanding the court, you know, the Vice President Biden has said that he wants to appoint a commission to sort of study the courts but you know the idea to keep pointing. I mean just when I hear that we're thinking about appointing a commission. It just feels like that's another piece of Washington rigmarole and just you know getting caught in the month. Of of Washington when Americans are saying you may want to appoint a commission but we this this Administration has just appointed three judges in less than four years. I'm sure I mean, I mean, I think you have to look back that way. I think people that the idea that people are talking about corn tech support expansion sort of in the mainstream. Now I think is has come a long way like two years ago even sort of whispering the word Court package was completely taboo or want to get I want to get into court packing in a minute because I want to talk about that strategically, but before we get to that stand by Amy Christian one of the things we hear over and over again is how judges should not legislate from the bench and yet scotus has in many ways because Congress is so broken has had to become in many ways of legislative body and plugged back to this New York Times editorial today. It says today's conservative majority and I'm quoting here is among the most activists in the courts history. How do we explain the hypocrisy their Christian faith? It's interesting because the Republican agenda legislatively is so unpopular the American public just doesn't want what Mitch McConnell and his party have to offer in terms of solutions for the American people that the party turns to the courts to kind of enshrine their vision of society their vision of how the world should work, So it's it's kind of his interesting interplay, you know, we don't have any bills to offer. We've already adjourned the Senate McConnell last night. I turned the set it and so after the election without a covert refill, you know again because his view of how that relief bill should look it is is not what people want. So rather than actually come to the table and offer Solutions you rather, you know takes all his toys and go home and and the fact that he's now insisting instead on this new Justice that will deliver outcomes for decades to come a conservative majority no choice. Just in at the Supreme Court, but also in the federal appeals courts, which also decide many very important cases related to legislation and social policy. You know, it just shows kind of odd how they're play. They're planning to kind of cement their vision for.
"amy coney barrett" Discussed on The Takeaway
"The oath that I have suddenly taken tonight means at its core that I will do my job without any fear or favor and that I would not do so independently of both the political branches and of my own preferences. Last night Amy Coney Barrett became the 9th United States Supreme Court Justice in one of the most partisan displays of power. We have witnessed in the past few decades Republicans use their political majority to force Barracks confirmation before election day. So far sixty million votes have already been cast in the 2020 election embarrassed nomination process was one of the fastest ever for Supreme Court nominee lasting a little more than a month after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg Barrett answered less than 20% of the questions posed to her during her sneering leaving many Americans unclear about how the new Justice might lean and frustrating Democrats who remember how President Obama scotus nominee Merrick Garland wasn't even granted a hearing the current team was the culmination of nearly four Decades of work on reshaping the court Mitch McConnell starkly said this on Sunday a lot of what we've done over the last four years would be undone. gamer later by the next election won't be able to do much about this. for a long time to come while Republicans bask in the glory of their third Supreme Court Justice in less than four years millions of Americans continue to face eviction hunger unemployment and a third wave of coronavirus off sections and Congress remains deadlocked on a stimulus package. I'm tanzina Vega. This is the takeaway and that's where we start today with the new supreme court and how it has changed for the foreseeable future may join.
"amy coney barrett" Discussed on The Young Turks
"Ab Coney Barrett is still undergoing <hes> her Senate confirmation and she refuses to answer any questions which is definitely problematic when she gets asked questions that should be considered lay ups <hes>, , for instance, , when it comes to electoral issues or the possibility of Donald Trump. . You know really flexing his muscle and attempting to turn this country into full a full-blown dictatorship she seems to be open to some of the maneuvers that he has floated. . So for instance, , when it comes to the possibility of Donald trump delaying an election, , something that trump again has considered in the past coney gave a concerning answer. . President trump made claims of voter fraud and suggested he wanted to delay the upcoming election does the constitution gives the president of the United States cs thority to unilaterally delay general election under any circumstances does federal law Well senator if that question ever came before me, , I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion writing process. . So you know if if I give off the cuff answers than I would be basically illegal pundit. . And I don't think we went judges to be legal pundits I. Think . we went judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind. . Yeah except I mean people like Amy Coney Barrett consider themselves constitutionalists who take the constitution and interpreted <hes> verbatim literally <hes>. . So let's take a look at what article two section one of the United States constitution says about the possibility of delaying a presidential election. . The Congress the Congress not the executive branch the Congress may determine the time of. . Choosing, , the electors and the day on which they shall give their votes, , which day shall be the same throughout the United States. . So long story, , Short Congress gets to make that decision not the incumbent president. . John. . It's clear and the only thing clearer than that is that she will answer questions <hes> very forthrightly and very quickly and perfectly happily about things that don't reveal that she is nothing but a right wing ideologue because being put into the Supreme Court to take away your healthcare and take away your right to practice reproductive freedoms and if necessary give the election of Donald trump that's. . That's they're for. . Those are the things that she sort of cloak and there's a side of not accepting the science on climate change of course as well. . But mostly, , it's that she doesn't want to reveal that all the things that the left and even the center fear she'll do on the Supreme Court. . She totally being chosen for that. . The right doesn't need to ask detailed questions because they already know that that's why she was chosen on the election related stuff trump wouldn't have. . Nominated her if he asked her, , hey, , if I bring a case to you asking you to shut down the mail in ballots you. . GonNa. . Are you GonNa do that and she'd say we'll know that would be unethical. . I'm certainly not GonNa shut that down. . Yeah. . He's still would've nominated her totally he has no interest of his own heart. . All of that is is so clear I don't know maybe that's why in your intro you said this is so boring but yeah, , kind of because. . She is it's the same it's the same you know. . Situation with Supreme Court nominee evading the questions you know answering. . Specific questions regarding constitutionality by just discussing what she would do procedurally. . Yeah. . Yeah. . We know we know how the Supreme Court Works, , okay we're asking you for you to weigh in on what the constitution says about the president unilaterally delaying the election. . This is not difficult but of course, , going to the question as she does in the next video, we , show you <hes> when it comes to Donald Trump and his. . The possibility of refusing a peaceful transition of power. . Should a president commit themselves? ? Like our founding fathers I think had a clear intention. . Like the grace of George Washington showed. . To the peaceful transfer of power, , is that something that president should be able to do? ? One of the beauties of America from the beginning of the Republicans that we have had peaceful transfers of power and that disappointed voters have accepted the new leaders that come into office. . And that's not true in every country and I think it is part of the genius of our Constitution and the good faith and goodwill of the American people that we haven't had the situations that have arisen in. So . many other countries where there have been <hes> those issues have the president. . Oh good. . Congratulations. . President Hinting that he will not have a peaceful transition of power is unprecedented congratulations. . You realise that now, , why don't you answer the question? ? What was that? ? Like. . I don't need a history lesson I don't need a comparative analysis between the United States and some other country I need to know what your thoughts are on an incumbent president losing the general election and refusing a peaceful transition of power. . What are your thoughts on that? ? I can get I mean the whole thing it just feels so pointless at this point apparently, , it can't be stopped. . We knew we knew before the first hearing why she'd been chosen and more importantly we knew everything we need to know about ethics the fact that she was willing to be a party to this process <hes> three and a half weeks before the election after so many people have already voted the. . Fact that she was willing to stand for a spot on the Scotus under that told us what we need to know about our ethics. . She will do whatever she needs to do to get that position. . She's obviously made promises and she's ready to make good on them and you know just going back to the constitution which she claims to value <hes>. . What does the constitution say about the transition of power? ? Well? ? The terms of the president and the Vice President shall end at noon on the twentieth day of January and the terms of their successors shall then begin. . That is what the US. . Constitution says the Twentieth Amendment <hes> when it comes to title three section one chapter one of the US code here's what it says about a peaceful transition of power the electors of president and vice president shelby appointed in each state on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November in every fourth year succeeding. . Every election of a president and vice president. . So it's a very wordy way of saying, , Hey, , Joe <hes> the person who loses needs to do this, , and the person who wins needs to do that and <hes>. . Let's go ahead and follow through on what our so-called democracy <hes>. . Requires us to do when someone lose those loses an election, , but she evades that question and she evades it by either talking about procedural things. . She did in the previous video, , we showed you or giving us a history lesson. . Mentioning, , unprecedented. . This is in her own cute little way. . It's just it's pathetic. . One more video for you. . This was the exchange that she had with Amy Klobuchar on. . Voter intimidation. . Judge Baron under federal law, , is that illegal to intimidate voters at the polls? ? Senator Klobuchar I can't characterize the Fox in a hypothetical situation. . I can't apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts. . A can only decide cases as they come to me litigated by parties on a full record after fully engaging precedent talking to colleagues writing an opinion. . And so I can't answer questions like. . I'll make it easier eighteen USC, , five, , nine, four , outlaws, , anyone who intimidates threatens courses or attempts to intimidate threaten our curse. . Any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote. . This is a law that has been on the books for decades. . Following that <hes> Senator Club Hr's threw a stapler. . I'm just kidding. . No. . But. . She did a great job with that line of questioning she provided evidence for why it's considered illegal and all conybeare it had to do. . There was say voter intimidation at the polls is. . That's it. . That's it. . That's all she had to say but she wouldn't say
"amy coney barrett" Discussed on The Erick Erickson Show
"I. Got to play you the Saudi. This is Dick Durbin back for another round with Amy Coney Barrett be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of race. For. An originalist and a textualist that is clear text as I see it. But when asked whether or not the president has any authority to unilaterally denied that right to vote for person based on race or even gender. Are you saying you can't answer that question? Senator. I just referenced the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The same one that you just repeated back to me that do prohibit discrimination on the basis of race in voting. So I as I said, I don't know how else I can say it. The Constitution contains provisions that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race in voting. For President can unilaterally deny you're not gonNA answer yes or no? Senator vast a couple of different questions about what the. With the president might be able to unilaterally do and I think that I really can't.
"amy coney barrett" Discussed on The Erick Erickson Show
"Owner who's an expert in in Senate strategy is going to join me to talk about the Makoni Barrett hearings and we're the Republicans and Democrats plan to go on this including there's a democratic plot to just not show up. For the vote in committee, which would scuttle the quorum requirements in the judiciary committee, they wouldn't be able to vote out. Amy Cody Bert we'll see if that actually happens now. This is a quite, quite interesting to me. There is a survey USA pullout. And we've got a call I want to get to on the polling, but he this is the survey USA poll from Georgia. It has biden at forty eight percent and trump forty, six percent in Georgia. It has purdue at forty, six percent ossoff at forty, three percent. And it has warnock at Thirty Percent Leffler Twenty six percent collins at twenty percent in Lieberman at eight percent. Now, I want to actually read to you the methodology and this is why I have concerned with polling in I admit that this poll is consistent with a number of other polls but I wanna read for you this and why I wouldn't put a lot of stock in this. Survey USA interviewed nine hundred adults statewide in Georgia from October eighth. Through October twelfth of the adults seven, hundred, ninety three are registered to vote. Of the registered voters survey USA identified six hundred, seventy seven voters likely to return a ballot honor before the November third deadline. This research. I'm pay attention here. This research was conducted online among a representative cross section of Georgia adults sample selected at random by Lucid Holdings LLC of New Orleans adult respondents were waited to the most recent US census targets for Georgia for gender. Age. Race Education Home Ownership in two thousand Sixteen Different Hillary Clinton Kerry Georgia by five percentage points. In two, thousand, fourteen wait what What. What? Democrat Hillary Clinton carried Georgia by five percentage points. Do what now? Twenty sixteen, Georgia, presidential race what was that? In twenty-six Eighteen..
"amy coney barrett" Discussed on The Erick Erickson Show
"I'm back welcome. It is Eric Erickson here it is my show. Thank you, Allen Sanders. For sitting behind the microphone the last couple of days while I took some time off with the family. Well, technically, we were going to take time off and then they all got sick. So my my wife God bless her told me I could sneak out of town for a couple of days to avoid getting sick so that I could be with you for every day between now and the election a programming note real quick starting tonight. If you follow me on facebook or instagram at e W Erickson. We're going to start doing a series of video chats each week to this week next week, and then on the third week, it'll be the day after the election but I'll give you more insider stuff I've got a ton of insider stuff to share with you today. From a tour of swing states that I have conducted in person alive inspection I WanNa talk to you about that today as well. But first, we gotta get started with the amy. Coney Barrett hearings. These, hearings are designed for really for both sides. I think to play to their base to a degree but it what's remarkable is that a morning console poll which the media t take seriously so I think we should take seriously a morning console consult polls shows eight thirteen point shift in democratic opinion in favor of amy. Coney Barrett a thirteen point shift. In the Democrats who believe that she should be confirmed Democrats are now at roughly forty nine percent believe any amy conybeare disqualified to be on the United States Supreme Court end should be confirmed, which is actually a really big deal given the democratic talking points against her that have gotten genuinely absurd. And when I say absurd I mean she was actually asked by Maisy Hirono the dimwitted senator from from. where she from? Hawaii, if amy conybeare had ever raped anyone you you would like to think that she did not ask that. But in fact, Senator Hirono from Hawaii asked Amy Coney Barrett. To ensure the fitness of nominees for a Lifetime appointment to the federal bench are to any of the other positions of for any of the committees on which they appear I asked each nominee, these two questions, and I will ask them view since you became a legal adult. Have you ever made unwanted.
"amy coney barrett" Discussed on The Dave Gram Show on WDEV
"Exciting things are happening more in Village The pitcher in Warren Store are under new management upgrades and improvements are in the works maintaining the ambiance and character while breathing new energy and resources into these iconic properties we are open while practicing all CDC protocols come for lunch at Iraq in Delhi and see for yourself with the Buzzer all about both businesses are hiring especially seeking fine dining room staff and sales associates for are. Still, Fun Funky and friendly, but better than ever open daily on. Main Street. Warren village. Now. Grab show on WBZ. FM AND AM. My.
"amy coney barrett" Discussed on The Dave Gram Show on WDEV
"Played out perfectly for people who like you said I think that the election is really about the judiciary because no, one would have imagined that in four year term, one third of the court would change with President of trump essentially selecting from a list that we've created by federalist society that very much appeals to his core evangelical faith and writing. So. Yeah. I think that it cannot be overstated whether president trump is reelected or not whether you thinking the fact president in the history of miracle or the worst president didn't do Marica. Legacy. Will live on four years. And you'll always be we'll always be talking about this these trust three and the second charm that have potential for war justices but he has remade of the Supreme Court and exactly the way he promised. It will definitely take a rightward shift. It'll solidify the conservative majority on the court if she is confirmed repairs that. Will be conserved fund and again cannot be overstated the influence have on America? Long. After people don't talk about the words may trump again they'll be talking about eighty coney. Barrett. Because she's only forty eight years old and let's hope she'll be healthy. She's on the court. She'll be there for a very long time. Yeah. One last thing for you, which is the the. I eighty conybeare on ener testimony. This morning was I mean she was asked about her stance on rovers versus waiting and she basically insisting she would never tip her hand on something like that because she wouldn't want. To have a sense of the they might be treated unfairly on either side. Meanwhile. News article came out last week indicating that. There was a newspaper ad a few years back in which which called rovers. Barbaric decision that was the word barbaric. She signed under that AD and. As one of the supporters of that message. Seems like she has for hand as. Good point you raise your grade interesting question the first one. Has To, do with. The second the ad right so she had he had her name added Kuni advertisement and it did use those words. But she can reasonably take physician. That's what I wrote a law professor what I may have said in my private life..
"amy coney barrett" Discussed on Front Porch Politics | Money, Faith, and Politics
"<Speech_Male> It up on all social media <Speech_Male> pages on <Speech_Male> Twitter Facebook, whatever <Speech_Male> maybe <Speech_Male> with anyone like <Speech_Male> this dude <Speech_Male> <SpeakerChange> from <Speech_Male> Fox <Speech_Male> that <Speech_Male> states. I love <Speech_Male> to kill <Speech_Male> children. <Speech_Male> I mean, think that should be <Speech_Male> disclaimer just as <Speech_Male> much as we have the white <Speech_Male> book that all of the <Speech_Male> pedophiles go into <Speech_Male> we should have <Speech_Male> a red book <Speech_Male> and inside that red <Speech_Male> book is going to be <Speech_Male> those who <Speech_Male> like to murder babies <Speech_Male> and children. <Speech_Male> Maybe they like to kill puppies <Speech_Male> too. I don't know they're <Speech_Male> still a debate on that. <Speech_Male> They should all <Speech_Male> be put inside that blue <Speech_Male> book and you know what Nancy <Speech_Male> Pelosi can be on <Speech_Male> the cover will let <Speech_Male> her have it because she loves <Speech_Male> abortions. <Speech_Male> So yeah, <Speech_Male> there you suck <Silence> but as I continued <Speech_Male> to read this story <Speech_Male> and as I told <Speech_Male> you there's other points they're <Speech_Male> worried about number one <Speech_Male> is Obamacare <Speech_Male> known as the national <Speech_Male> Affordable <Speech_Male> Healthcare Act <Speech_Male> now, <Speech_Male> he called it Obamacare <Speech_Male> him. <Speech_Male> So I'm not trying to Trump anything <Speech_Male> up there no pun intended. <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> But if we look at <Speech_Male> what was taking place <Speech_Male> here, <Speech_Male> they're afraid that's going to <Speech_Male> be overturned because <Speech_Male> if it <Speech_Male> is overturned truck <Speech_Male> might be able to give <Speech_Male> you a solution wage. <Speech_Male> Going to be a better Healthcare <Speech_Male> solution than <Speech_Male> the rip-off that was <Speech_Male> Obamacare <Speech_Male> and it was a rip-off <Speech_Male> trust me folks <Silence> outside <Speech_Male> of that. They might <Speech_Male> also be worried about <Speech_Male> you actually having a <Speech_Male> second amendment ride <Speech_Male> that was given a constitution <Speech_Male> to defend yourself <Speech_Male> and on Firearms <Speech_Male> again <Speech_Male> that terrifies <Speech_Male> them <Silence> because at the end <Speech_Male> of the day what Socialists <Speech_Male> won't inbox is <Speech_Male> a socialist poo <Speech_Male> poo rag, <Speech_Male> but what they socialist <Speech_Male> want <Speech_Music_Male> is they used to <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> be defenseless <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> and they want to be able <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> to tell you what do <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> and you do it <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> and I hate to tell them <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> but this is <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> the same generation <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> of people through <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> DNA. They <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> told the British to get <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> the heck out because <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> they were charging much <Speech_Music_Male> in taxes <Speech_Music_Male> France. We'll see what <Speech_Male> happens always go to David <Speech_Music_Male> Omars. Com <Speech_Male> follow us on social <Speech_Male> media and send us an <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> email. Let us know what you think <Speech_Music_Male> leave comments on the <Speech_Music_Male> page, whatever you'd like to do. <Speech_Music_Male> And <Speech_Music_Male> of course share content <Speech_Music_Male> and until next <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> time may God bless you. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> May God bless America, <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> and we'll <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> see you real <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> soon. <Speech_Music_Male> <Music> <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Music_Female> <Speech_Music_Female> Thank you for <Speech_Female> listening for <Speech_Female> free resources <Speech_Female> additional podcasts <Speech_Female> and <Speech_Female> to join the front porch <Speech_Female> newsletter, <Speech_Female> please visit David L marks.com.