Social Question

Demosthenes's avatar

Is Amy Coney Barrett a good choice for the Supreme Court?

Asked by Demosthenes (10259points) 2 weeks ago

Trump’s “pick” is now official.

What do you think of Amy Coney Barrett? Will she make a good SCOTUS justice? Will her confirmation be prevented? Will she be “kavanaughed”?

If you would’ve told someone a decade ago that some day Donald freakin’ Trump would be responsible for three Supreme Court nominations, they’d probably think you were nuts. I’d like to go back in time to see those reactions. :)

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

69 Answers

canidmajor's avatar

Every thing I have read about her, from both sides of the aisle, indicates that she would like to reverse the separation of church and state, which I think is totally antithetical to the spirit of the United States as it was founded.
That’s only part of it, but enough for me. Shame on her.

Yellowdog's avatar

I’m not sure what that is supposed to mean about the separation of church and state. Such protections were to protect the churches from government intrusion, and to prohibit state religions from being established.

Howbeit, I’m sure Amy Coney Barrett is well above trying to change or oppose the constitution. That is not the role of a judge or Supreme Court justice.

jca2's avatar

I heard she’s pro-life, and I’m pro-choice, so no, I would not like to see her be a SCOTUS. I’m anticipating some big marches if it ever comes to where they try to make abortion illegal, which you know that’s going to be brought before the Court at some point.

I gave this q a “GQ” because I think it’s a good point made by @Demosthenes, that if you told someone a decade ago that Donald Trump would be responsible for three Supreme Court justices, they would really think you were nuts. That’s a funny thought!

kritiper's avatar

Another self righteous religious freak? No way!

SQUEEKY2's avatar

This will mean 6 to 3 Supreme Court judges in favour of the fright right, The Don Father unless he loses huge will contest the election all the way to the Supreme Court, and it could be left to these very right judges to decide the election.
If that happens then democracy in the us is dead.
The right had a shit fit, when Obama tried to name a judge in an election year, now they are doing the exact same thing, and wonder why some people are getting upset?

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Yellowdog “I’m not sure what that is supposed to mean about the separation of church and state. Such protections were to protect the churches from government intrusion, and to prohibit state religions from being established.”

LIkewise to protect the government from religious intrusion.

gondwanalon's avatar

Good pick for conservatives. Bad pick for liberals.

Trump is just doing what conservatives elected him to do.

When Democrats take over they can simply pack the court with far left liberal judges

C’est la vie.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@gondwanalon that would seem fair if there was a set term for these judges, but no they get their seat for LIFE!
This Barret could be there for the next35 to 40 freaking years.
And for shits sake it shouldn’t be good for Conservatives or Liberals type thing at all, it should good pick for the country as a whole,not good for us screw them type thing.

seawulf575's avatar

I think her record shows her to be a fair jurist. She seems to be more along the lines of Scalia and is a Constitutionalist, which is really the role of a SCOTUS justice…interpreting the law. She seems to be eminently qualified. I think she will be a good choice for the seat.
For all of those claiming she will eliminate the separation of church and state or will rush to overturn Roe v. Wade or some other nonsense, let me remind you of a few things.
(a) The same was said of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and neither has done anything close to that. They have, in fact, ruled exactly opposite of what many doomsayers predicted on a few cases.
(b) SCOTUS justices can only rule on cases presented to their court. And not on ALL cases presented to their court. They sift through to choose the ones they deem worthy. So unless a case actually gets to the SCOTUS and is deemed worthy, it won’t be heard and the justices cannot rule.
(c) Everyone seems hung up on her being a Catholic. I would point out that is a right guaranteed under the First Amendment. I would also challenge you to show cases where she has ruled, as a judge, based solely on her religious beliefs. Kinda hard to say she is letting religion intrude on government when it has never been done.

crazyguy's avatar

@canidmajor Could you provide a link for your position? I have not come to that conclusion based on what she has said. I must admit I have not yet read any of her decisions.

crazyguy's avatar

@jca2 I think it is unfair to apply a litmus test to any nominee for the Supreme Court. The primary requirement is that the nominee should have a clear grasp of our Constitution. The Constitution as originally written is only a small part of it. The Constitution has been interpreted through hundreds of precedent-setting Supreme Court decisions over the last 240 years or so. It is important for all Supreme Court Justices to keep their minds open, and realize that prior precedents are not an essential part of the Constitution. They were based on time-sensitive interpretations of Constitutional causes by extremely learned, intelligent jurists. The best reasons for not following a precedent are generally the following:

1. Thinking, and the meanings of old words, have changed.
2. Science has changed.
3. There are rather obvious problems with the way the case was argued and decided.

crazyguy's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 The one rather significant difference between 2016 and 2020 is that Obama was in his 2nd term. Voters would not get a crack at him, while they would have a chance to vote on Trump.

It is very likely that voting in some states will be challenged in court, and a decision will meed to be made by the Supreme Court. However, keep in mind that Obamacare has survived two legal challenges even when the Supreme Court was judged by most people to be leaning to the right.

crazyguy's avatar

@gondwanalon You say: “When Democrats take over they can simply pack the court with far left liberal judges” Keep in mind that “packing the court” has come to mean increasing the number of justices. Trump and the Republicans did not do that.

crazyguy's avatar

@seawulf575 As usual, a precise, well-reasoned answer. Even before seeing the name at the bottom of the answer, I had a feeling that it was you!

jca2's avatar

@crazyguy: Of course it’s important for all Supreme Court justices (and all judges) to keep their minds open. However, I think we’d be fooling ourselves if we thought the new Justice would not vote in favor of anti-abortion laws. I just googled it and looked at a Breitbart article, where I can assure you they are gushing over her and the anticipated abortion fight.

seawulf575's avatar

@crazyguy Thanks. I changed my avatar so I would look more Covid compliant. Still the same old curmudgeon though.

canidmajor's avatar

@crazyguy Nope. I won’t bother to go back and try to remember where I’ve read everything over the last few days. I read things like this in the slightly left, center, and slightly right biased sources to try to get a balanced view.
My response was my view, not a debate point for discussion.

I tend to use this as a general guideline for bias awareness: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

KNOWITALL's avatar

For Conservatives and Constitutionalists there’s not much to complain about, so yes, she’s a good choice. I truly hope we avoid ugly confirmation hearings this time, for our collective wellbeing.

Jaxk's avatar

Every single nominee the Republicans put up get the same arguments from the Democrats. Roe will be overturned, liberty will be lost women will be subjugated, etc. etc. None of that ever happens. Barret seems like an intelligent jurist with respect for precedent. The Democrats have been using the courts to enact legislation they can’t get in congress and stand to lose the second legislative branch. It will get ugly.

Demosthenes's avatar

Not to mention the Court with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on it managed to secure a major victory for LGBT rights this summer, which disappointed many conservatives. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh don’t appear to be that conservative, at least when compared with Thomas or Scalia. Barrett may be more like Thomas and Scalia.

jca2's avatar

@Jaxk: Roe hasn’t been overturned because there was more of a left right balance on the Court until now.

It makes me glad I live in a state where abortion is protected under the law.

seawulf575's avatar

@Demosthenes As a conservative, I can tell you I really don’t care one way or the other on LGBT rights. People are what they are. I deal with it and try not to judge. I suspect that is the view of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as well, though you wouldn’t know it because of all the hype from the left and their propagandists. So your assumption about conservatives might be a little off base.

Response moderated (Spam)
Darth_Algar's avatar

Honestly, I never had a problem with Gorsuch himself. I did have an issue with the Senate holding up the nomination for the better part of a year, but that has nothing to do with Neil Gorsuch himself.

My issue with Kavanaugh was his conduct during the confirmation hearings. A man seeking a lifetime position on the bench of the highest court in the land ought to be able to conduct himself a little more maturely than melting down into a red-faced, screaming, crying fit at a few hardball questions.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Jaxk A lot of ProLife folks are very pleased with this nomination, make no mistake ending abortion is the goal.
Probably more are focused on that than other issues, truth be told.

hmmmmmm's avatar

Evaluating Barrett in any way is a loss. Any nomination should be dismissed out of hand for obvious reasons.

At least now we’re finally seeing that some liberals are finally coming around to the idea of packing the courts.

jca2's avatar

If any states want to protect their citizens’ rights and residents’ rights to abortion, they should consider doing what New York did. At least in New York, abortion will still be legal if it is outlawed by the Supreme Court.

Caravanfan's avatar

@crazyguy @seawulf575 As usual, a precise, well-reasoned answer. Even before seeing the name at the bottom of the answer, I had a feeling that it was you!

You guys should get a room. :-)

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated
Response moderated
LogicHead's avatar

She is a wonderful choice. A great role model, wonderful jurist, smart and much-admired by liberals and conservatives alike.

hmmmmmm's avatar

^ There is absolutely nothing true contained in this comment.

Caravanfan's avatar

@hmmmmmm That’s not exactly true. The word “she” is correct.

chyna's avatar

@KNOWITALL Since you mentioned Pro Life, I wonder what she thinks about the medication that trump is touting as life saving, Regeneron, was supposedly developed by using cells from aborted fetuses?

crazyguy's avatar

@KNOWITALL I’ll address my remark to you since the one who responded to you has put me on his/her IGNORE list.

It is perfectly true that the drug Trump touted was tested by Regeneron using stem cells from a fetus aborted in the Netherlands. In fact stem cells were also used in testing Remdesivir. At the times the two drugs were tested no laws existed to be broken; therefore, it is highly unlikely that Justice Barrett will be asked to rule on any case involving one or both of the drugs. Therefore, what she thinks about aborted fetuses is irrelevant.

Yellowdog's avatar

If Trump took it, it’s BAD. Not just BAD but BAD BAD BAD. Even if it has saved lives, it’s really BAD, So only an idiot would take it. Lets start banning it worldwide,

seawulf575's avatar

Hey! I have an idea for dealing with abortion! Let’s allow it, but the abortion has to be medically proven to be necessary. The child must be shown to be damaged in such a way as to either not be able to live on its own or to be severely handicapped. OR it must be medically proven that the mother’s life is in extreme danger from carrying the child to term. And two doctors, not from the same organization, must review the findings and sign off on it. Abortion for convenience would be outlawed.

crazyguy's avatar

@seawulf575 @Yellowdog I do not think that abortion foes fail to realize that some good can come out of aborted fetus tissue. However, they think the good is not offset by the bad. Also, they think the same good can come out of alternative means.

@seawulf575 I have been a bit mixed up on the whole abortion issue. Until recently I was a pro-choice guy. Now I am a bit confused. But, at the very least, I would add conception by rape or incest to your list, provided the abortion can be done before the fetus is capable of an independent existence. Instead of setting up an arbitrary time frame, the Supreme Court language should leave the time frame to some defined scientific panel.

seawulf575's avatar

@crazyguy I’m okay with those additions. But the left will never go for it. The changes you and I proposed would not benefit Planned Parenthood. And since PP is a huge political donor to Dems, they don’t want to lose a bunch of their income.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@seawulf575: “The changes you and I proposed would not benefit Planned Parenthood. And since PP is a huge political donor to Dems, they don’t want to lose a bunch of their income.”

I like your thinking here. You’re engaging in institutional analysis, and how power works. Keep going!

* One thing to consider, however, is that you might want to research how little Dems get from PP and how much they get from other industries. Once you who is actually being represented, do yourself a favor and check out the Republicans. You’re going to be surprised.

crazyguy's avatar

@seawulf575 I know we have a separate thread for this; but, what do you think of Trump’s chances after the joke of the confirmation hearings?

Darth_Algar's avatar

” And since PP is a huge political donor to Dems, they don’t want to lose a bunch of their income.”

Yuge donor. Bigly. Bigly yuge.

seawulf575's avatar

@hmmmmmm No, I would not be surprised since I have done this research. That is why I advocate for term limits for all representatives and senators. 3 terms for Reps, 2 for Sens. And once you’ve served, you cannot run for a congressional job again, even after a break. The only exception would be that they could run for POTUS which already has term limits instituted. That way if someone is going to buy them, they will only get limited return on their investment.

hmmmmmm's avatar

^ This is getting a bit off-topic, but there is a problem with thinking that term limits have anything to do with curbing who drives policy. When politicians “retire”, they immediately go into the private sector. This is when they make the big bucks. In a way, being a proper politician and looking out for corporate interests is like a job interview.

seawulf575's avatar

@crazyguy I think that nominating ACB was a necessity for President Trump. It isn’t illegal, it is his job, and I think he chose well. If the confirmations are postponed or canceled, it will show bad for McConnell, not Trump. McConnell already showed he isn’t playing the partisan game by allowing hearings at all. Confirmation hearings are not required by law…only a Senatorial vote is required. Past performance by Democrats have shown excessive game playing and borderline illegal activity. I give you the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings as a perfect example. So allowing the confirmation hearings shows he is at least trying to keep the Democrats involved.
But this confirmation is different in a lot of ways. The timing, for one, is very impactful. President Trump did not kill Justice Ginsburg and could not have planned for her to die. But her dying just a couple months before an election presented him with an opportunity. His base wants him to get as many conservatives on the bench as possible. So nominating a conservative judge allows him to score points with his base. McConnell kept the ball rolling by pushing it through the process. This looks good for Republicans.
But the timing plays another role. It seems rushed which means the Dems have not had a lot of time to create a crisis to use as a way of denying the nomination. Again, if you look back at Kavanaugh, he was nominated in July and the confirmation hearings didn’t occur until September. Plenty of time for a scandal to be created. Barrett was nominated late in September and the confirmation hearings are to be held starting on October 12th. Only a couple weeks there. No real time to brew up a crisis.
The timing plays yet another role in things, though. Since it is right before elections, the Dems could show the world they are sleazy like they did with Kavanaugh, or they could play it closer to fair. If they show sleaze, they run the chance of losing voters. If they don’t, they run out of options to shoot down Barrett as a nomination. And their votes will be shown to the world. So if there is really no justification for not confirming, but every Dem votes exactly that way, they show sleaze again.
People that don’t want Trump to be reelected don’t want Barrett confirmed and don’t care what the Dems do. People that want Trump reelected want her confirmed and are already happy it has gotten this far. The entire thing (the confirmation hearings) will impact the middle-of-the-roaders. Moderates that are tired of the political game playing. They might be turned off by Trump nominating Barrett, but they will probably be even more turned off by some sleaze from the Dems.

crazyguy's avatar

@seawulf575 As usual, you have given an awesome answer. In a way, I am really looking forward to the hearings, more so than I was to the first debate, because it will truly be fascinating to watch what the Democrats do this time. Their antics with Kavanaugh took first prize; but they have to do even better this time to have any chance of delaying the nomination. I do not think there is any way of derailing the nomination. The best the Democrats can hope for is push it into the lame duck session. Then if they did indeed capture the Senate, and the White House, they can score some political points.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Except the Rep/cons went ape shit crazy when Obama tried to put a Judge on the bench in an election year, they made it clear then it was better to wait and let who ever wins the election appoint the next justice,and it was 9months before that election,NOW just a month from this election the Rep/cons think it is just fine to appoint a judge.
SEE how us evil democrats might be confused by this?
Also point it stacks the bench in Trump’s favour if the election is close and he contests it all the way to the supreme court, I see why you Rep/cons are in such a hurry to get her on the bench.
So unless Biden wins BIG,Trump will take the election, now I guess he was telling the truth when he said the election will be rigged.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 I absolutely do see how the Dems could view that. I have stated before that if the Repubs wanted to use the excuse of it being election year as a reason for not confirming a nomination but want to do it now, that makes them hypocrites. The only difference is that with Obama’s nomination, he was in his lame duck session…he was not up for re-election. That does play in a bit since the voters can say “Hey! that isn’t fair!” and vote him out of office. But either way, I view the Repubs and being hypocrits on this topic.
As for “stacking the SCOTUS” I would say that what you are seeing is more conservative, Constitutional, views being put onto the bench. That doesn’t make them “Trump’s” guys and gals, it just makes them look at things from more of an interpretive viewpoint instead of an emotional one.
As for the SCOTUS actually taking part in the election decisions, there are very few things that could make that happen. in 2000 the SCOTUS played a part, but it was not to decide the election. Florida was having issues determining who won that state. At one point, the state Supreme court basically said “Enough! This is how we are going to count the votes!” and that method favored Gore. But the rules in place did not match with that decision so it went up to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS did not actually rule on that one, they basically handed it back to the state court with the message “You really can’t do that…might want to rethink that decision!”. Eventually they solidified the process (which already existed) and Bush won.
That was one time they participated. This year, the more likely impact would be endless questions and lawsuits over how ballots, particularly mail-in ballots, are being counted and verified. Those challenges will make their way through the various courts and eventually end up in the SCOTUS. Again, they probably will not rule that Trump or Biden won…they will rule on what methodology should be used to determine what a valid ballot looks like.

crazyguy's avatar

@seawulf575 @SQUEEKY2 I agree the Republicans have been inconsistent. BUT have you heard any Democratic Senator promise to not do the same thing if the tables were turned? Heck, the same situation may repeat in 4 years!

“Trump will take the election” That is a direct quote from @SQUEEKY2 ‘s post. I think if the Republicans leave RBG’s seat vacant then Biden will take the election. Because SCOTUS will likely deadlock 4–4; which means some state Supreme Court will probably make the call. And we know how that goes, don’t we?

Jaxk's avatar

It’s really quite amusing to hear the democrats make the same arguments the republicans made four years ago and the republicans make the same arguments the democrats made. They are both hypocrites.

LogicHead's avatar

Beautiful choice, maybe best of my lifetime, After Clarence Thomas

Smart, accomplished. great family, everyone who works with her likes her, even Liberal prof from Harvard says she is great though he disagrees with her.

You will find on her an inability to distinguish between whether she is excellent and whether someone agrees with her. This is a sign of a childish and perverted mind

crazyguy's avatar

@Jaxk @LogicHead I agree with both your comments. Amy is a brilliant jurist; and, since that is a prime qualification for the job, she is qualified. All other requirements for the job are political in nature, and really should have no place in a confirmation hearing.

What can the Democrats do? Was she or her husband or her children sexually inappropriate with anybody? If not, the Democrats will not succeed in delaying the nomination. As I have already stated, their chances of derailing the nomination are worse than slim.

seawulf575's avatar

@crazyguy They will probably try making her out to be some sort of religious fanatic. I already saw an article where supposed members of a religious group she belonged to were trying to lay the groundwork for a smear job. In the end, they will have to actually prove that somewhere in her past she has let religion and not the law guide her decisions on the bench. Beyond that? To say she is religious and should, therefore, be rejected is patently silly not to mention illegal. Besides, I guess if that is the case then Nancy Pelosi ought to just be chucked out too. Hasn’t she tried telling us that she is a devout Catholic?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@crazyguy You took my quote out of context, how typical fright wing of you ,I said if it’s close Trump will contest it all the way to the supreme court where he has stacked the Judges in his favour ,and if it’s close Trump will take the election.
Even if the votes are in Biden’s favour.

crazyguy's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Actually I took your earlier post to say exactly what you are saying now. Except I turned it around. What do you think Biden will do if the election is close?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@crazyguy Legally demand a recount,other than Trump is there anything else anyone could do legally?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Brilliance is not a requirement for trump’s administration. Obviously.

crazyguy's avatar

Yes. Challenge the validity of some ballots, especially mail-in ballots with no postmark, or barely discernible postmark.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Let me also remind you that in this country, there is an electoral college which means it is entirely possible that the person that gets the most votes doesn’t win. Ask Hillary.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@crazyguy The mail in ballots don’t HAVE to go through the mail. If I chose to go that route I’d just take it to my closest voting box. It wouldn’t have a post mark.

Dutchess_III's avatar

To answer the question, I’m not comfortable with her. I’ve heard so many things, like she is over abundant in faith, and believes the “man” should rule over “his” household, and women should be subservient to him. She’s also anti-choice. None of that sits well with me.

crazyguy's avatar

@seawulf575 Timely reminder to those who still think Hillary is our President.

@Dutchess_III You are absolutely right. If you go that route, make sure the ballot is in by election night.

@Dutchess_III This is nothing. You will hear a lot more in the next few days.

Dutchess_III's avatar

No. I’m voting in person on Oct 19th.

crazyguy's avatar

@Dutchess_III That is good to know. At least your ballot will not fall into the wrong hands!

Yellowdog's avatar

@Dutchess_III You have to listen to what she says—not what your sources say about her.

The fact that she is already a Federal judge and legal scholar and law teacher at Harvard flies in the face of the ascertation that she is subservient to a man who rules over her.

crazyguy's avatar

@Yellowdog If anybody thinks she is lying under oath about a prior commitment to Trump to decide the ACA lawsuit a certain way, all they have to do is prove it. Then we can be rid of her, not only as a SCOTUS nominee, but also from the Seventh Circuit. Anybody?

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther