PDA

View Full Version : Coney Barret Awaits If Kavanaugh Fails




AuH20
09-27-2018, 07:35 AM
That's the buzz.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/amy-coney-barrett-who-is-she-bio-facts-background-and-political-views-703347


Like other originalists, she has at times criticized the practice of stare decisis – in which judges rely on precedent – when the judge feels past rulings conflict with the Constitution.

“In a system of precedent, the new majority bears the weight of explaining why the constitutional vision of their predecessors was flawed and of making the case as to why theirs better captures the meaning of our fundamental law,” she wrote in a piece discussing the issue.

jkr
09-27-2018, 07:42 AM
that is NOT mike lee!!!

CaptUSA
09-27-2018, 07:48 AM
She touched my willy in Middle School. Next.

AuH20
09-27-2018, 08:01 AM
1044284813694447618

1044382037778550784

1045181509404110849

Anti Federalist
09-27-2018, 11:34 AM
Sounds about right, appoint another woeman.

She any better on 4th Amendment issues than BK?

The article in the OP, as usual, is worthless, only mentioning that she is another Catholic opposed to abortion and capital punishment.

No reflection on you AuH2o just a general comment on the weak and worthless drivel that passes for "news".

specsaregood
09-27-2018, 12:05 PM
Sounds about right, appoint another woeman.
She any better on 4th Amendment issues than BK?
The article in the OP, as usual, is worthless, only mentioning that she is another Catholic opposed to abortion and capital punishment.
No reflection on you AuH2o just a general comment on the weak and worthless drivel that passes for "news".

NO MORE CATHOLICS or JEWS for the S.C.. This country is majority Protestant and yet there is what, a total of 1 now on the S.C.?

Anti Federalist
09-27-2018, 12:09 PM
NO MORE CATHOLICS or JEWS for the S.C.. This country is majority Protestant and yet there is what, a total of 1 now on the S.C.?

I'm pretty sure the number is zero.

specsaregood
09-27-2018, 12:20 PM
I'm pretty sure the number is zero.

It was zero, but now its debatable. Gorsuch was raised catholic but:


Before his appointment to the Supreme Court, Gorsuch attended St. John's Episcopal Church in Boulder, which kept an open-door policy for the LGBT community prior to legislation protecting gender preference equality laws.[135][5][136] After his marriage in a non-Roman Catholic ceremony, Gorsuch has not publicly stated if he considers himself a Roman Catholic or a Protestant, but "according to church records, the Gorsuches were members of Holy Comforter", an Episcopal church

Anti Federalist
09-27-2018, 12:26 PM
It was zero, but now its debatable. Gorsuch was raised catholic but:

Oh...so he's Catholic Lite at the fa g flag flying church of "What's Hip Now".

Zippyjuan
09-27-2018, 12:27 PM
The Federalist Society will tell him who to pick. Mike Lee was on their long list but not on the short one he picked Kavanaugh from. On the other hand, Trump likes Harvard/ Yale and none of these have that education. Kavanaugh was the only person on the list in that category.

The other five from that one: https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/meet-the-6-stellar-judges-leading-the-pack-trumps-supreme-court-short-list


Amy Coney Barrett
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (Indiana)
Age: 46
Education: Rhodes College; Notre Dame Law School
Clerkships: Laurence Silberman (D.C. Circuit) and Justice Antonin Scalia

https://www.dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/zumaamericastwentyone170927.jpg

Tom Hardiman
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (Pennsylvania)
Age: 53
Education: University of Notre Dame; Georgetown University Law Center
Clerkships: None

https://www.dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/zumaamericastwentyone170913.jpg

Raymond Kethledge
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit (Michigan)
Age: 51
Education: University of Michigan; University of Michigan Law School
Clerkships: Ralph Guy, Jr. (6th Circuit) and Justice Anthony Kennedy

https://www.dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/zumaamericastwentyone170925.jpg

Joan Larsen
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit (Michigan)
Age: 49
Education: University of Northern Iowa; Northwestern Law School
Clerkships: David Sentelle (D.C. Circuit) and Justice Antonin Scalia

https://www.dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/upiphotostwo438664-1024x636.jpg

Amul Thapar
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit (Michigan)
Age: 49
Education: Boston College; University of California, Berkeley Law
Clerkships: Arthur Spiegel (Southern District of Ohio); Nathaniel Jones (6th Circuit)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dgz6bRlW0AAEIZR?format=jpg&name=small

Grandmastersexsay
09-27-2018, 12:31 PM
1044284813694447618


Lol, the dems aren't going to get a 2/3rds majority in the Senate to convict Trump.

Zippyjuan
09-27-2018, 12:39 PM
Gorsuch was from Harvard and Kavanaugh from Yale.

There were two on the original list in that category (Harvard/ Yale). https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-supreme-court-pick-list-names-2017-11


Robert P. Young Jr. Harvard. Doubt Trump would nominate a minority candidate.

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wnmu/files/styles/medium/public/201301/Robert%20Young.jpg

And Edward Mansfield. JD from Yale and BA from Harvard.

https://www.ali.org/media/filer_public_thumbnails/filer_public/8a/29/8a29f097-1fb9-446a-85c9-681ef140cf64/mansfield-edward.jpg__310x393_q85_crop_subject_location-144,126_subsampling-2_upscale.jpg


Edward Mansfield has been a justice on the Iowa Supreme Court since February 2011, and previously served on the Iowa Court of Appeals beginning in 2009.

Following law school, Justice Mansfield clerked for Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He later worked as an attorney in private practice until his appointment to the Iowa Court of Appeals in 2009. He has also been an adjunct professor of law at Drake University since 1997.

Justice Mansfield is a member of the Iowa State Bar Association, having served as Chair of the Trade Regulation Section from 2004-2006. He is a member of the Polk County Bar Association and the Iowa Judges Association. He also serves on the board of directors of Goodwill Industries of Central Iowa, and is a past Chairperson of this organization.

EDUCATION: Harvard University, B.A.; Yale Law School, J.D.

https://www.ali.org/members/member/429739/

Anti Federalist
09-27-2018, 01:34 PM
So, any of these clowns in gowns worth a shit?

The purist wing has made it clear that BK is no good, so are any of these yo-yos?

AuH20
09-27-2018, 01:40 PM
Barrett is pretty good comparatively:


Because Barrett has spent just eight months on the 7th Circuit, she has compiled a relatively small body of opinions, most of them fairly uncontroversial. One case that would almost certainly draw attention if she were nominated came shortly after she took the bench: EEOC v. AutoZone, in which the federal government asked the full court of appeals to reconsider a ruling against the EEOC in its lawsuit against AutoZone, an auto parts store. The EEOC had argued that the store violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bars employees from segregating or classifying employees based on race, when it used race as a determining factor in assigning employees to different stores – for example, sending African-American employees to stores in heavily African-American neighborhoods. A three-judge panel (that did not include Barrett) ruled for AutoZone; Barrett joined four of her colleagues in voting to deny rehearing by the full court of appeals.

Three judges – Chief Judge Diane Wood and Judges Ilana Diamond Rovner and David Hamilton – would have granted rehearing en banc. Those three also had strong words in the dissenting opinion that they filed. They alleged that, under “the panel’s reasoning, this separate-but-equal arrangement is permissible under Title VII as long as the ‘separate’ facilities really are ‘equal’” – a conclusion, they continued, that is “contrary to the position that the Supreme Court has taken in analogous equal protection cases as far back as Brown v. Board of Education.”

Another high-profile case before the 7th Circuit involves the battle over “sanctuary cities” – jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. In June, the full court granted the federal government’s petition to reconsider part of a three-judge panel’s ruling that left in place a nationwide injunction against the federal government’s policy of withholding law-enforcement grants from such jurisdictions. The announcement means that the federal government can enforce the policy only against the city of Chicago, the plaintiff in the case. There is no way to know how Barrett voted on the government’s request, as the court’s order indicated only that a “majority of the judges participating in the en banc rehearing of this case” had voted in favor of the stay that the government had sought.

Barrett was also part of a panel that tackled another contentious issue in environmental and property law, as developers and farmers (among others) have contended that the federal government has gone too far: What constitutes the “waters of the United States” for purposes of determining whether the federal Clean Water Act applies to wetlands? In June of this year, Barrett joined a ruling written by Judge Amy St. Eve, also a Trump appointee to the 7th Circuit, that sent the case of an Illinois developer back to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for reconsideration. The Corps had found that the wetlands at issue – which were approximately 11 miles away from the nearest navigable river – were “waters of the United States,” but the panel (expressing some frustration) concluded that the determination by the Corps was not backed by “substantial evidence in the record” even though the “dispute has consumed almost as many years as the Warmke wetlands have acres.”

Barrett joined another ruling by St. Eve in the case of Kishunda Jones, who had been designated by her mother, Linda, as the beneficiary of her pension. When Linda, who suffered from a recurring form of cancer, died three days before her pension was supposed to begin, the committee that oversaw Linda’s pension rejected Kishunda’s request to receive the pension. It explained that, when a participant dies before her pension begins, only surviving spouses can receive a benefit from the pension. The panel agreed with the district court that the “facts of this case are undoubtedly unfortunate,” but it nonetheless upheld the district court’s ruling in favor of the pension fund on the ground that its decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious – all that the law requires in such a scenario.

In Schmidt v. Foster, Barrett dissented from the panel’s ruling in favor of a Wisconsin man who admitted that he had shot his wife seven times, killing her in their driveway. Scott Schmidt argued that he had been provoked, which would make his crime second-degree, rather than first-degree, homicide; the trial judge reviewed that claim at a pretrial hearing that prosecutors did not attend, and at which Schmidt’s attorney was not allowed to speak. The judge rejected Schmidt’s claim of provocation, and Schmidt was convicted of first-degree homicide and sentenced to life in prison. When Schmidt sought to overturn his conviction in federal court, the panel agreed that Schmidt had been denied his 6th Amendment right to counsel, and the court of appeals sent the case back to the lower court.

Barrett disagreed with her colleagues, in a separate opinion that began by emphasizing that the standard for federal postconviction relief is “intentionally difficult because federal habeas review of state convictions” interferes with the states’ efforts to enforce their own laws. In this case, she contended, the state court’s decision rejecting Schmidt’s 6th Amendment claim could not have been “contrary to” or “an unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law (the requirement for relief in federal court) because the Supreme Court has never addressed a claim that a defendant has a right to counsel in a pretrial hearing like the one at issue in this case. While acknowledging that “[p]erhaps the right to counsel should extend to a hearing like the one the judge conducted in Schmidt’s case,” she warned that federal law “precludes us from disturbing a state court’s judgment on the ground that a state court decided an open question differently than we would—or, for that matter, differently than we think the [Supreme] Court would.”

In Akin v. Berryhill, Barrett joined a per curiam (that is, unsigned) decision in favor of a woman whose application for Social Security disability benefits had been denied by an administrative law judge (ALJ). The panel agreed with the woman, Rebecca Akin, that the ALJ had incorrectly “played doctor” by interpreting her MRI results on his own, and it instructed the ALJ to take another look at his determination that Akin was not credible. The panel indicated that it was “troubled by the ALJ’s purported use of objective medical evidence to discredit Akin’s complaints of disabling pain,” noting that fibromyalgia (one of Akin’s ailments) “cannot be evaluated or ruled out by using objective tests”; it also added that, among other things, the ALJ should not have discredited Akin’s choice to go with a more conservative course of treatment when she explained that “she was afraid of needles and that she wanted to wait until her children finished school before trying more invasive treatment.”

RJB
09-27-2018, 01:43 PM
For diversity, I like judge Amy. There is an over abundance of ugly chicks on the SC. I think for balance we should have a somewhat attractive woman for a change.

jkr
09-27-2018, 03:41 PM
For diversity, I like judge Amy. There is an over abundance of ugly chicks on the SC. I think for balance we should have a somewhat attractive woman for a change.

almost strikes a balancewif da troll-things, almost

TheCount
09-27-2018, 04:27 PM
K.

Anti Globalist
09-27-2018, 04:33 PM
They'll put a rape allegation on her too. Although its rare, a woman can be a rapist.

TheCount
09-27-2018, 04:44 PM
They'll put a rape allegation on her too. Although its rare, a woman can be a rapist.

Who would be reflexively believed in such a situation?

timosman
10-01-2018, 03:56 PM
bump

timosman
10-01-2018, 09:22 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYDdupeU2vM

RJB
10-01-2018, 09:28 PM
This is racist stereotyping an Irish Mick as a drunk. By the way, is that Jabba the Hut with a wig and glasses in that video?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYDdupeU2vM

Aratus
10-02-2018, 01:27 PM
He did say he likes beer.