She voted to end legal abortion, and then voted to give Trump the right to break the law. Then suddenly she voted with the other women on the court telling Trump he can’t unilaterally freeze funds Congress allocated for programs, and now she’s recusing herself from a case involving separation of church and state. Naturally the right wing gremlins are grinding their teeth and stomping their feet in anger. This should have been a slam dunk for the crazies but it could end in a 4-4 ruling. How Amy Coney Barrett’s close friendship could affect the future of this major supreme court case
I wouldn’t be shocked if she feared for her life. Pro-aborts protested outside her home and just recently, a man was arrested attempting to kill Brett Kavanaugh.
Amy Coney Barrett was a liar and a fraud. As I said on Twitter, Trump should have picked Barbara Lagoa. Robert Barnes predicted how ACB would turn out and was villified by many Republicans who now owe him an apology.
In short it now appears she’s more qualified to rule according to the law than first thought. Got it!
In other words Amy Coney Barrett is a conservative who places loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law above loyalty to Donald Trump.
No. ACB clerked for Scalia and pretended she would be a female Scalia. Reality, Barrett favors big public and private institutions and has a record of favoritism towards them against the interests of the working class. Amy Coney Barrett is not a Scalia conservative. Amy Coney Barrett is Justice Roberts in a dress. From an article that quoted Robert Barnes (can't get a link for it): "The Barnes Twitter report shows that Coney Barrett has "sid[ed] with the government on the lockdowns, on uncompensated takings, on excusing First Amendment infringements & Fourth Amendment violations... [and] exclaimed the benefits of Jacobson, the decision that green-lit forced vaccines & carved out an emergency exception to Constitutional protection in "public health" or "emergency" cases used to justify forced sterilizations & detention camps... [and] hid behind precedent... to prohibit pro-life activists from exercising their free speech."
MAGA is always threatening violence. Just ask some of the recent Republican members that spoke about the threat after leaving office. So you're right I don't blame her
With the narrow GOP control in the Senate, I have been assuming they might want to replace Thomas and Alito before the mid-terms since they're the oldest Justices on the Court. I still think they might but wonder if there are more reservations about it since Barrett hasn't proved to be as loyal or predictable as they'd hoped.
I don’t think they’re worried about it since the Senate map isn’t favorable for Democrats in ‘26, so I expect the Senate to remain in Republican hands.
Imagine actually writing this. Crackpot much? Right there with Mark Esper and Mike Pence. Closet liberals, keeping it under wraps for literal decades in devotion to the "Grand Conspiracy" to turn the entire world trans.
Actually Coney Barrett is probably much more like Scalia than the pro-Trump justices on the Court, a prime example is Scalia's opinion in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Hamdi was an American citizen, accused of being an enemy combatant and based on that accusation was held without formal charges. In his opinion Scalia held that Hamdi couldn't be held absent either formal charges against him or a specific legislation from Congress eliminating the right to habeas corpus. HAMDI V. RUMSFELD (Scalia, J.) If the rights of citizens are to be suspended during wartime, then it should be done so by the legislature, not by the courts. The plurality opinion limits the rights of citizens held as enemy combatants within the United States or its territories without action by Congress. The Constitution allows Congress to take such steps, the courts should not be doing so. Petitioner should be released unless criminal proceedings are promptly brought or Congress suspends the writ of habeas corpus. Summary of the opinion including Scalia's dissent: In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that U.S. citizens held as enemy combatants have a right to due process, including a meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention before a neutral decision-maker. Justice Scalia, in his dissent, argued that the executive's military power did not include the power to detain without charging an individual with a crime and that the court should not invent new procedures for detention. It's rather clear that if Scalia were still alive and on the Court he would not acquiesce to Trump's theory that the courts should defer to the Executive Branch.
Oh, I'm great. Any more goofy stories you have to share about our SCOTUS judges? I'm assuming you have a full laundry list on that "closet liberal" Roberts.
LOL! You're actually engaging with it. Slow news day? Glutton for punishment? Prediction: You'll be massively disappointed in the reply.
