Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Reports: Trump will nominate Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court

Reports: Trump will nominate Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court

Can we call her Notorious ACB? The crazed reactions already have started: Handmaids Tale!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o3W16b3UK0&t=72s

There are multiple reports from media outlets, supposedly confirmed with senior administration officials, that Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett will be nominated tomorrow to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Barrett — can we call her Notorious ACB? – not only is Trump’s choice, she was the overwhelming choice of Legal Insurrection readers.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/09/who-should-trump-nominate-for-scotus-reader-poll/

The crazed reactions already have started. Handmaids Tale! (Read here why the claim is false.)

QUESTION OF THE DAY

THEY ARE SCUM

https://twitter.com/DanaHoule/status/1309623339913183232

INTERESTING TAKE – DEMS CREATING ACB STARDOM BY ATTACKING HER FAITH

https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1309619992732852226

OWNING THE LIBS

https://twitter.com/matthew74ga/status/1309626280640499712

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I’d go with “Glorious ACB” rather than “Notorious.”

Robert Reich is an expert on everything. At least he got her age right.

Prof,

ACB is too close to ACAB; ‘all cops are bastards’. How about we just let her earn a title based on future SCOTUS performance?

I hear that “the textualism lives loudly” within Barrett. It’s sad that the Court’s jurisprudence has become so thoroughly corrupted over decades, by certain immodest Justices’ manifest narcissism, arrogance, disdain for the separation of powers, and, a penchant for conjuring new “rights” out of thin air, that a textualist judge is now considered to be an aberration, rather than the prevailing norm. Long may she serve on the Court.

    Valerie in reply to guyjones. | September 25, 2020 at 6:49 pm

    The flip side of that is that all competent judges are considered “conservative” — just because they know how to write a properly constructed opinion.

      Chuckin Houston in reply to Valerie. | September 25, 2020 at 7:52 pm

      It also makes them white supremacists the last I checked with the woke.

      guyjones in reply to Valerie. | September 25, 2020 at 8:24 pm

      This is so true! A reasoned jurisprudence of modesty and restraint that is grounded in Constitutional realities and strictures, and, which properly recognizes that judges should not act as “super-legislators” who enact by arrogant judicial fiat policies that should be left to citizens to decide, via their elected representatives, is now considered to be a “conservative” jurisprudence, when, in actuality, it merely represents the quintessence of judicial and Constitutional integrity and fairness, as envisioned by our Founders.

    .
    Upvoted your comment after downvoting it in error.

MoeHowardwasright | September 25, 2020 at 5:41 pm

She is a fine choice. In fact. I would have preferred her in 2018. But the way it worked out is fine by me. Let the dems go full locomentis on this one. It will only reinforce in the American public’s minds what a terrible group the dems are in the Senate. Kamaltoe and DiFiChi will do everything they can and will look like the miserable shrews that they are. One thing I know for sure, women don’t like it when other women tear down another woman. Most hate it. I mean really hate it.

    I would have preferred her in 2018. Though the strategically, this is much better.

    How stupid are the dems going to look by claim Amy ganged raped somebody?

    Dems aint going to be able to make $hit up about ABC

What a surprise that the LGBTWTF? and “trans” narcissist-totalitarian lobby, as represented by the “Human Rights Campaign” opposes Barrett. That should be construed as a ringing endorsement.

The Constitution needs to be quoted when the Leftists question her:

“no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    Milhouse in reply to Romey. | September 25, 2020 at 6:46 pm

    That’s not actually relevant. It refers only to a formal legal requirement, such as existed in some states at the time. For instance in PA only orthodox Christians could be state legislators.

    It doesn’t mean a voter must not vote against a candidate because of her religion, or that the president must not decide against nominating someone because of her religion — or that a senator must not refuse consent because of her religion.

    Or are you telling me that if a Moslem ran for president it would be wrong for you to vote against him for that reason, or that the president should not take into account that a potential nominee is Moslem? (Substitute Moonie for Moslem, if you like.)

      counsel in reply to Milhouse. | September 25, 2020 at 6:52 pm

      A hypothetical President says: “I would never nominate a Jew to the Supreme Court?” Do you think such a President should be trusted with faithfully executing the laws of the United State? Would such a statement disqualify her from your support?

        CommoChief in reply to counsel. | September 25, 2020 at 9:28 pm

        The hypothetical POTUS would be facing the voters or if already in a second term could be impeached and removed if the HoR and Senate so choose.

        Not many options to discipline a POTUS or member of the HoR or Senate or a member of the Judiciary. Vote them out if they are elected officials or impeach if not.

        Though Aaron Burr did find one way to deal with a prominent person …..

          Lucifer Morningstar in reply to CommoChief. | September 26, 2020 at 1:49 pm

          The hypothetical POTUS would be facing the voters or if already in a second term could be impeached and removed if the HoR and Senate so choose.

          What law did the hypothetical president violate by saying, “I’ll never nominate a Jew for the Supreme Court” that would allow the HoR and Senate to impeach a president.

          Simply having an unpopular viewpoint or opinion isn’t enough to impeach.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | September 26, 2020 at 6:52 pm

          Those are the two checks on power:
          1. Voters in next election
          2. Impeach and remove

          Both can be based upon subjective opinions or a totally uninformed opinion. Neither voters nor legislators are required to base their decisions on anything but their own,.sometimes loony ideas.

          Wishing it wasn’t true doesn’t change the facts.

          No, Commo, that is not correct. The House CANNOT impeach for just anything. The House is not a parliament.

        Milhouse in reply to counsel. | September 26, 2020 at 8:33 pm

        A hypothetical President says: “I would never nominate a Jew to the Supreme Court?” Do you think such a President should be trusted with faithfully executing the laws of the United State? Would such a statement disqualify her from your support?

        I would hestitate to support such a president, but that’s not the question, is it? The assertion here is that such a statement would be illegal, and that’s just not true.

        But if it were a president with a record like Trump’s against a challenger with all of Biden’s baggage, and he said something like that I’d still vote for him. I wouldn’t give up all the good Trump has done just because of a flaw like that. In fact I consider his protectionism a worse flaw than mild antisemitism would be, and I’m still voting for him.

        Now suppose Trump were to say that he would never nominate a Moslem or an atheist; would that make you vote against him?! I don’t think it would, and it certainly shouldn’t.

      daniel_ream in reply to Milhouse. | September 26, 2020 at 4:35 am

      It’s an argument based on suasion, not law. One can point to the clause as evidence that this kind of sectarian partisanship was considered a bad thing by the framers.

      Then again, these loons have demonstrated repeatedly that they don’t care about the plain text of the Constitution, much less the intent of the framers, so.

      You just turned civil rights on it’s head. So you believe that a Senator can discriminate on the basis of religion (and presumably on the basis of national origin, sex, sexual orientation, race, etc) as long as that bigotry is not formalized? A Senator can violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and beyond?
      Wow! You seriously don’t see a difference between a citizen making an election decision with a politician making a hiring decision?

        Milhouse in reply to Eric. | September 26, 2020 at 8:38 pm

        Presidents, in exercising their power of appointment, and senators, in exercising their right to withhold consent to such appointments, are certainly entitled to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or anything else. The Civil Rights Act does not apply.

        And a senator’s decision to withhold consent from the president’s appointments is not a “hiring decision”. It’s a political decision exactly like that of a voter at any election. There is no and cannot be any distinction. Nor can any law compel the senator’s decision; that would be inherently unconstitutional.

Time for a LI poll. The question is: what smears(s) will the Joseph Goebbels media launch against Barrett. Some suggestions:

(1) Her Catholic faith makes her a dangerous extremist.
(2) She stole/kidnapped her Haitian-born adopted children.
(3) Something from her undergraduate days. I hear Christine Blasey Ford has already contacted Sen. Feinstein to offer testimony that Barrett was part of a gang of white frat boys that raped her in 1982 in Georgetown. Or 1994 somewhere in Hawaii. Or 2001 in orbit around Jupiter along with HAL 9000. Whatever.
(4) She never paid Federal income taxes. Harry Reid has proof.
(5) She shot Kennedy, RFK, and MLK. Ford will testify to that as well.
(6) She is responsible for Guam tipping over.
(7) She is the heretofore unnamed white supremacist who singlehandedly has caused all of the BLM riots.
(8) She assassinated RGB. Jerry Nadler has the secret testimony of a whistleblower that proves this.

I want to see heads literally explode on the left. This is the final middle finger before the election from Trump. If they had only accepted his presidency these last four years, the choice might have been different. Now, you get the mirror image of RBG on the court to neutralize Roberts. No group has deserved this slice of karma more than the democrats.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to technerd. | September 25, 2020 at 6:28 pm

    It is time to remind des that they had a window of opportunity to make nice with Trump after the election. Instead the went full TDS psycho.

    And now they have no influence. Consequences are a bitch.

    hopeful in reply to technerd. | September 26, 2020 at 4:02 pm

    “This is the final middle finger before the election from Trump.” Wait’ll they see the finger he brings after the election. Win or lose, Trump will get his back, and good on ‘im. Can’t wait to see it.

    Milhouse in reply to technerd. | September 26, 2020 at 8:44 pm

    Well, not literally. That would be messy.

“If Amy Coney Barrett is nominated & confirmed, she is not going to uphold Justice Ginsburg’s legacy.” You betcha!

RBG was so impressed with other nations’ constitutions. Did she ever find out if they actually followed them? If other nations’ laws are to be used in interpretation of US law.. gee…what about the Nuremberg Laws?

Biden’s Catholic, but he’s pro choice. It’s about abortion period.

    For the Progressives, Liberals, yes. For everyone else, I think she will meet expectations. With respect to Planned Parenthood, including reproductive rites (and clinical cannibalism), she recognizes that unlike one-child, selective-child has been normalized, and social progress is not adjudicated in the main. Baby steps.

    Arminius in reply to allenb611. | September 26, 2020 at 5:21 am

    Biden’s not Catholic. He may have been raised Catholic but it clearly didn’t take. And he may claim to be Catholic to get elected, but he’s full of shit.

    I can say that because I’m Catholic. I’m more Catholic than the Pope. I’m more Catholic than any priest you’re likely to meet. The last priest I met who was more Catholic than me was Monsignor Tillman. He captured 11 NORKs as an Army Chaplain at the point of his .45 during the Korean War.

    You may be asking yourself, what does capturing a herd of NORKs have to do with being Catholic? We’re not pacifists. The Pope has a Swiss Guard. You can’t be a member of the Swiss Guard unless you’re a) Catholic and b) completed your mandatory military service in Switzerland.

    Maybe you’re thinking, so what? Switzerland. The place is a fortress.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to allenb611. | September 26, 2020 at 2:01 pm

    Biden’s Catholic, but he’s pro choice.

    Then he is what I refer to as a “Cafeteria Catholic” who seems to think he can pick and chose which Catholic doctrines are acceptable to him and reject the ones he doesn’t like. Of course, it isn’t supposed to work that way but here we are.

    Oh, and I believe that Nancy Pelosi is also a cafeteria Catholic. Just saying.

    hopeful in reply to allenb611. | September 26, 2020 at 4:04 pm

    correction: Biden’s a “Catholic”, so-called and self-attributed. Just as Pelosi is “prayerful”

OT: In all of her years on the bench Ginsburg hired one – exactly one! – law clerk who is black.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/09/ginsburgs-alleged-blind-spot.php

There are many aspects to Ginsburg’s sordid career on the Court that illustrate her commitment to fighting for injustice and oppression, but for symbolic meaning that is a hard one to top. How many others who appeared before her did she destroy for exactly what she did for 27 years?

An OK choice, I suppose, and certainly several steps up from RBG, but I am uncomfortably in agreement with Dianne Feinstein’s comment that “the dogma lives within you”.

By that I mean don’t be surprised if ACB is good on pro-life and other social/family issues, but a supporter of the Marxist version of Catholicism exemplified by Pope Francis.

    tom_swift in reply to sestamibi. | September 25, 2020 at 6:57 pm

    Looks that way to me too.

    American politics is so blinded by the abortion issue that it’s relegated everything else nearly to background status. Obviously this shortcoming plagues the Left. But it also afflicts the Right. Abortion policy is an umbra obscuring all other important issues.

    And lurking inside that umbra I don’t detect a new Scalia here. I suspect something more like a new Roberts.

    clintack in reply to sestamibi. | September 26, 2020 at 6:59 am

    She looks pretty solid on the 2nd amendment, too.

    For many a conservative Catholic, with this Pope, the question “Is the Pope Catholic?” is no longer rhetorical.

    Milhouse in reply to sestamibi. | September 26, 2020 at 8:51 pm

    I don’t think there’s any danger of her being “a supporter of the Marxist version of Catholicism exemplified by Pope Francis.” Even on capital punishment her record and her published statements indicate that faced with a pure question of law — as supreme court justices always are — she would decide according to what she honestly believes the law is, not what she believes it ought to be. Her conscience would prevent her only from personally authorizing an execution, but the supreme court never does that. It decides the question of law that has been put to it, and then remands the case below to be disposed of accordingly.

I think that ACB was chosen because of the Kavanaugh fight. After the Demos went nuclear, the GOP realized that nobody they pick would ever be given a fair hearing. So why not go for the all the win????

And it begins: the Left is now suggesting that ACB’s adoption of two Haitian children was perhaps not legal.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rachelbovard/status/1309618316747722752?s=21

It will be interesting to see if the Joseph Goebbels media runs wild with this, now that the idea has finally been spoken aloud. American Communists hate interracial anything since it interferes with their plans to incite a race war, so these insinuations against ACB will stroke their pleasure zones.

    Trying to separate ACB, the mother, from her children will likely lead to a reaction as impassioned and genuine as anything seen from Kavanaugh and Graham during the last time.

    “Grizzly mother” won’t even begin to describe what will happen.

      I agree about the “grizzly mother” part, but the Left has been burning, looting and murdering on American TV screens for months now with much less opposition than I would have thought. Likely I am too cynical, but I am not convinced that a solid majority of American public would rise up in opposition to this. I see it in my own family where some are convinced that all the problems we are facing were caused by Trump’s Twitter account and that everything will miraculously return to normal if he gets defeated.

      Personally (this is complete speculation on my part) I would put the chances of the Left trying to promote the Narrative that Barrett’s adoption was actually racist human trafficking at one in three.

      Of course that will just prove that she lacks the temperament to be a judge.

    theduchessofkitty in reply to Recovering Lutheran. | September 25, 2020 at 7:11 pm

    Quite many a Christian family have adopted children from other parts of the world, including Haiti, which is the absolutely poorest and most corrupt country in the Americas – and a hotbed of human trafficking. (If you haven’t watched the documentary “Operation Toussaint,” do it. Now.)

    The Left tries to do such a horrible thing to her and her children… If they never understood the meaning of Hell, they will now.

    BTW… Many people in the Evangelical community compare her to Deborah, the judge and profet for the Book of Judges.

    Haiti and children. Now do the clinton foundation.

OleDirtyBarrister | September 25, 2020 at 6:49 pm

I would like to see Trump have some fun with the DNC-CPUSA. He should say that the leftists’ idea of expanding the court to 13 justices is growing on him, and that he may nominate four more after his initial choice to fill the already vacant seat.

He should also remark that the idea of activist judges that see the constitution as a living, breathing thing. But he wants to appoint activist judges that see the constitution with flexibility through a conservative lens.

Then sit back and enjoy the show. LOL.

I didn’t even see the official poll of readers, if there was one.

If you want a justice who sided with Pritzker of IL, Barrett is your choice.

    JasonL in reply to JasonL. | September 25, 2020 at 7:03 pm

    BTW, to the person who downvoted me, care to dispute my claim?

      The Packetman in reply to JasonL. | September 26, 2020 at 9:10 am

      First off, IANAL.

      The decision is out there. Some of the legal analysis I’ve seen mention it might have been better if the plaintiff had argued unequal application. As far as I can see, the legal reasoning is basically sound given what was argued (disregarding, of course, the reliance on Jacobson, which is a judicial abortion).

      JasonL in reply to JasonL. | September 26, 2020 at 10:46 pm

      Only 7 downvotes? Surely you guys can do better! I have confidence!

    clintack in reply to JasonL. | September 26, 2020 at 7:09 am

    Do you have something more specific?

    Was Pritzker wrong (on the law, not on the policy) in the specifics of the case?

      Yes, reliance on Jacobson (1905) was stupid. Sure, Jacobson is handy if you want government to be able to sterilize low IQ types (hm… I’m starting to find the idea appealing) based on some vague concept of “police powers.”

      Given the reach of government today, Jacobson is far more terrifying today than in 1905. BTW, the Fifth Circuit is suddenly using Jacobson as well. Pretty clearly, judges are finding a decision so they can do what they want to do.

How about a Protestant on the Supreme Court? There is not a single one on it now. Hm. Anti-Catholic bigotry!

I hope that she doesn’t turn out to be a John Roberts in a skirt!

Trump usually manages to disappoint. Let’s hope Coney doesn’t get the nod. However, I’d like to see some a grown-up here defend Republican Party of IL v. Pritzker. Good luck.

Those who base their support for Coney on the berserk reaction of the Dims are being foolish. The Dims will go berserk no matter what.

Pray she is seated very soon

It’s going to be a fun fall season. Barrett confirmed to the SCOTUS, and, POTUS re-elected, decisively. The election won’t be close. Crone Hillary was sitting in a plum position in 2016, and, had every conceivable advantage, and, she still couldn’t beat Trump. Dim-witted, dotard-marionette, Biden, is in a far less advantageous position than crone Hillary, and, is an even weaker candidate. The Dhimmi-crats’ totalitarian “lockdown” callousness and antics, and, their full-throated embrace of goose-stepping, destructive and violent “Anti-fa” and “Black Lives Matter” nihilist-goons, ensures that POTUS wins, rather easily.

Robert Reich has had the lifelong problem of not being able to overlook er look over anything

I’m out of here. Professor, you have disappointed me.

I hope she points out that Planned Parenthood has killed nearly 40 million black babies since Roe v. Wade. She could also mention that MLK and all of the reverends were anti-abortion in the 1960s. Jesse and so many others should be ashamed of themselves for facilitating genocide on their own race.

The Friendly Grizzly | September 25, 2020 at 9:32 pm

I predict she will be a total squish on everything but abortion. That is all thst counts with (too) many.

I further predict she will sell us out on Amendment cases.

/dons downtick protection hwlmet

“Barrett — can we call her Notorious ACB? – not only is Trump’s choice, she was the overwhelming choice of Legal Insurrection readers.”

Yet you chose that highly unflattering picture of her to highlight your post.

Truly high school yearbook editorial hijinks, Jake.

I want to see her uphold the Second Amendment. Far too long it’s been infringed.

Offer obama the Supreme Court lavatory attendant position.

Then, sit back and enjoy the reaction.

Trump at the Newport News rally tonight mentioned (I think, just half got due to not paying attention) that his next appointment could serve for 50 years, seems a bit long for Barrett. Could be Rushing??

I believe I will be repeating the following phrase many times over the next few weeks: “So what does Judge Barrett’s adoptive children have to do with her record as an appellate court judge or her twenty years as a lawyer when considering her for a Supreme Court position?”

The phrasing may vary, but I suspect I will have to repeat it several times to be heard over the gnashing of teeth and the shrieks of “But the children!!”

    She rescues children rather than abort them. Not only does she pose a mortal threat to infanticide, she even rescues those who escaped the clutches of abortionist! How pro-life and pro-family can you get?

This may be the case, but it all may be a ruse. Trump has proven that his administration is very good at keeping things tight to the vest. It may be that he is leaking this so that the everyone brings a full out attack on her, then when he names someone else and they go after that person, they just look foolish.

Back in the early 2000s I worked with a fellow who had adopted 2 young Chinese girls. He and his wife had had to go through some hoops to get them. The two girls were “throwaways” in China at the time. The one child policy was still in effect and Chinese families wanted boys. The two girls were probaby 4 and 5 at the time I met them–they’d be young ladies in or near their mid 20s today.

This should keep Sen Feinkenstein distracted:

https://www.breitbart.com/news/dianne-feinsteins-husband-named-in-uc-admissions-scandal/

I don’t think these hearings will go well for the Dems. I really doubt Americans will look favorably on their endless tantrums. If Graham has any gonads at all, he should shut down the Q&A at the first Dem eruption and call for an immediate committee vote. Or maybe declare the proceedings a waste of time and just shut down the committee proceedings entirely. Send it back to McConnell to call for a straight-up floor vote.

The Q&A is not a constitutional requirement and apparently, the Dems are genetically incapable of being responsible, civilized adults. I think Americans would welcome that even if they aren’t enthusiastic about Barrett. We all get it now.

    Pelosi’s house has been conducting business remotely … why not the confirmation for Amy? Sure would shut down threats of a die-in to block the chamber, in-person protests / violence … the chair in charge of the cameras of a virtual event …

    Graham already showed his badger teeth once. He’s already promised to use them again if needed. LOL. Can’t wait to see Kamaltoe show her stupidity, Warren her petty spitefulness and DiFi her confusion. They’ll have to use the wymyn to attack her, you see. Otherwise optics not so good.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | September 26, 2020 at 11:39 am

Sarah Palin Threatens Lisa Murkowsi: I’m Running Against You in 2022 – Ace of Spades

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend