Trump Picks Amy Coney Barrett For RBG’s SCOTUS Seat

Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

CNN reports, and the American culture wars enter a new and perilous phase:

President Donald Trump intends to choose Amy Coney Barrett to be the new Supreme Court justice, according to multiple senior Republican sources with knowledge of the process…

Barrett has been the leading choice throughout the week, since Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. She is the only potential nominee known to have met with the President in person, according to two of the sources. One source said Trump was familiar with Barrett already and he met with her since she was a top contender the last time there was a Supreme Court vacancy, when the President chose Justice Brett Kavanaugh instead.

“The machinery is in motion,” one of the sources said. In previous nomination announcements, the White House had multiple rollouts planned in case the President made a last-minute decision to switch to another candidate. But one source said it would be surprising if there were a change since allies are already being told.

At age 48, Barrett is set to join President Donald Trump’s other two youthful Supreme Court Justices in cementing a 6-3 conservative majority just in time for the possible collapse of electoral democracy in November–and a pick now known to the world before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could even be buried. And she completes the sea change that puts rights once considered to be settled law in danger:

Amy Coney Barrett, who is expected to be Mr. Trump’s pick, meets the president’s unprecedented anti-abortion rights litmus test. The federal judge has referred to abortion as “always immoral” and offers something a former top candidate, Barbara Lagoa, doesn’t: A clear anti-abortion rights judicial record. During her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, she has already ruled on two abortion-related cases, both times favoring restrictions on access to abortion…

Many believe that overturning Roe v. Wade — the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide — is no longer a hypothetical. [Pols emphasis] The vacancy on the court follows the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was not only liberal but an unequivocal supporter of abortion rights. Though Mr. Trump’s two Supreme Court nominations — Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — have been against abortion rights, both replaced conservative justices, effectively leaving the balance of the court nearly untouched.

In 2014, when now-Sen. Cory Gardner’s opponents warned as loudly as they could that he would put abortion rights in America in fundamental danger, it wasn’t possible to see then how right they were. We have arrived at a moment in history when the worst fears of 2014, dismissed as a “tired refrain” by Colorado pundits and the political oddsmakers, have been fully realized.

Vote accordingly, but understand that more than a single election will be needed now.

The country is moving one way, and the judiciary is moving the other.

0 Shares

34 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ModeratusModeratus says:

    The country is moving one way, and the judiciary is moving the other.

    This is false. They are moving in the same direction. Toward putting America First.

    In November, the silent majority will shock the liberals into silence.

    And if you riot real Americans will rise up and help crush you hand in hand with law enforcement.

    You can feeling it all slipping away, can’t you leftists?

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      comment deleted

    • unnamed says:

      In November, the silent majority will shock the liberals into silence.

      And if you riot real Americans will rise up and help crush you hand in hand with law enforcement.

      So, when your so-called "real Americans" rise up and help crush us will they be wearing Brownshirts or Gestapo uniforms?

      Also, I find it hard to believe MAGAts are the silent majority.  Polling indicates you and your friends weren't even the majority 4 years ago and you were NEVER silent.  We have your annoying ass posts to prove that.

    • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

      Watch out, Moddy's mail order body armor just arrived! He's ready for war standing behind a bunch of much bigger assholes.

  2. spaceman65 says:

    Another delusional originalist. At least Scalia is still dead. 

  3. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    I generally try to be polite here. But, Moderatus, whoever you are, you’re a blithering idiot.

    What makes you think that everyone who posts here on Pols is a leftist?

    As for being a conservative, neither you nor Trump would be qualified to carry Reagan’s jock strap.

  4. Genghis says:

    The one from the Handmaid's Tale cult? Oh, goodie.

  5. JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

    In a stunning fashion move, Justice Barrett will wear red robes and a cowl when serving on the Court.

  6. itlduso says:

    Information about the charismatic Christian community called “People of Praise” of which she is a member will be jaw dropping.  

    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

      It has about 1700 members and is a socialist style (shared lives) organization. Sort of a loose commune, as I read it.

      A visit to their website, peopleofpraise.com, will allow one to get their side of the story.

  7. RepealAndReplace says:

    Once again, we have Jill Stein and her moronic supporters  for having arrived at this point.

  8. Meiner49erMeiner49er says:

    Anyone else remember when Conservatives feared a Catholic take-over of their Protestant Republic in the 1960s? Now they rush to embrace Caesaropapism with open arms!

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      Meiner is right.  Remember the old Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State? 

      • Conserv. Head Banger says:

        Are you referring to the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State (www.au.org)? They were formed in 1947, before I was born.

        I’ve been a dues paying member some 20 years. I don’t recall any commentary about “caeseropapism” from this group during my time as a member.

        I was 11 years old at the time of the 1960 election. I vaguely remember JFK stating that he would follow our laws, not the Vatican.

        Speaking of the Vatican, I’ve read that there is yet another scandal involving Vatican finances and another high ranking Cardinal has resigned.

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          That group was originally called Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State.  It changed its name after the Catholic League and others criticized the inherent bigotry in its original name.

          I was a Catholic back when POAU, as it was called for short, sneeringly relegated me to the ranks of “other Americans.”
          I didn’t forget. Or forgive.

          • Conserv. Head Banger says:

            Interesting. The Wikipedia article on AU gives some additional reasoning for the name in that they opposed use of public money to support sectarian schools. I also note that the group Church Militant considers AU to be a “hate group.”

            Interesting also in that I would consider Church Militant itself as a dogmatic hate group. And, as a former Catholic who is now a non-theist, I don’t want my tax dollars going to support religious schools.

            • VoyageurVoyageur says:

              I wouldn’t consider the current group a hate group.  But remembering that ” public” schools originally taught Protestant dogma as fact, I consider them anti-Catholic in their origin.

               

              And if you’ll forgive my teasing you, CHB, I remember how you fought against the tax increase for Jeffco schools. It seems you don’t want your tax dollars going to public schools either!

              • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                @VG: different situation. The JeffCo school district has, in my opinion, a history of mis-management of funds. I've opposed said increases in the recent past. I had high hopes for the insurgent conservatives who captured the school board from big spender liberals a few years ago. Unfortunately, they turned out to be just a bunch of moronic, far right wing, ideologues. 

  9. RepealAndReplace says:

    So now it boils down to this:  to participate or boycott, that is the question…..

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-debate-whether-to-engage-or-withdraw-in-supreme-court-fight/ar-BB19rxZC?ocid=msedgntp

    FWIW, I say participate fully. And ask all the challenging questions about Roe, Griswold, the ACA, and election litigation. Ask about whether she will recuse herself on election litigation. She will refuse to answer anything of substance, parroting that familiar refrain, "I can't comment because that issue might come up before the court."

    This can be made unpleasant for her but it will be on policy issues and not any of the personal stuff that came out during the Kavanaugh hearings. (At least there's no reason to believe she has any skeletons in closet which anyone can bring out and rattle.)

    But if the Dems decide to boycott the hearings, they will like cowards and assholes.

    • unnamed says:

      Agreed.  Participate and go scorched earth on these so-called proceedings.  Get all the information out there.  Because it is likely to motivate more people to engage.  They would look like idiots for boycotting and there is nothing to lose by doing this.

      She needs to get Borked

      • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

        Bork got grilled on his overt partisanship, having been Nixon's choice as Solicitor General, then moving up to be Acting Attorney General and being willing to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor when the AG and Deputy AG resigned rather than doing so. That action, in addition to his writing and Circuit Court opinions, all contributed to an impression that he was an "advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy."

        I like that Wikipedia includes two different definitions of "Borked:"

        In March 2002, the Oxford English Dictionary added an entry for the verb bork as U.S. political slang, with this definition: "To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way."[44]

        There was an earlier usage of bork as a passive verb, common among litigators in the D.C. Circuit: to "get borked" was to receive a conservative judicial decision with no justification in the law, reflecting their perception, later documented in the Cardozo Law Review, of Bork's tendency to decide cases solely according to his ideology.[45]

         

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      The personal stuff will come in the form of her belonging to a cult.  Dems need to highlight her hasty rise through the judicial ranks and extreme views.  She won’t answer any question in a meaningful way but her extremism needs to be rehashed for all to see what a charade this nomination is compared to Merrick Garland.  Wish they can have the hearings and Senate confirmation before voting starts in Colorado.  Showcase Gardner for hypocrite he is. What a putz.

      • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

        Her honor, Judge Barrett, is a member of ” People of Praise”. As I mentioned elsewhere, from my reading I discern a similarity to extended families like some Mormon communities and the Community of Jonestown. (Jim Jones/ Peoples Temple.)

        These are “Christians” who operate on the “covenant” system, which is more of a flexible contract than other commitments. A conservative who finds the Catholic churches’ charity offensive, would likely find a home here, where catholics can behave like evangelistic fundamentalists while still pretending to be a Catholic.

        I found the reading at their website pretty interesting.

        YMMV

         

      • RepealAndReplace says:

        It may, or may not, be a cult. There are actually four criteria for something to be classified as a cult. (I forgot what they are off hand.) But we sure will find out more about these people.

        The communal sharing stuff sounds kind of interesting and may make the proponents of Prosperity Jesus a little uncomfortable. (Joel Osteen, I'm looking at you.) In this sense, she is big surprise coming from the political party which rants about the dangers of creeping socialism.

    • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

      Do you think Sen. Harris can make her cry, too?

      Oh, and, here you go, R&R: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/06/the-seven-signs-youre-in-a-cult/361400

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.