Posts

What’s Hilarious About the Liberal Media’s Response to ACB Answer on Abortion Question (VIDEO)

/0 Comments/in , /by

The liberal media has another ‘we’re all morons’ moment today right out of the gate on day two of the hearings regarding the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wasted no time asking the judge about abortion. She asked multiple times about Roe v. Wade and Barrett refused to give a direct answer because it’s not proper for a sitting judge to give an opinion about any case that may or may not come before the Court. This has been called the Ginsburg rule. It was invoked during Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings when he too was attacked by the Left for his supposed views on abortion. . .

That didn’t stop a bunch of journos from mainstream outlets from tweeting about how Barrett’s answer to this question was some ‘bombshell’ development. It’s not. You all knew this was going to be the answer. Also, you people wrote endlessly about the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy, her career, and he mark on American history. You didn’t know this was a rule or you ignored it in order to attack Barrett. Either way, you look like idiots.

(Read more from “What’s Hilarious About the Liberal Media’s Response to ACB Answer on Abortion Question” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Amy Coney Barrett Discusses Roe v. Wade

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Fox News. Judge Amy Coney Barrett said she doesn’t believe the Supreme Court’s landmark abortion ruling Roe v. Wade fits the scholarly definition of “super precedent,” or a case that cannot be overruled.

Barrett said that a case like Brown v. Board of Education, which banned segregation in schools, would be considered a super precedent because “people consider it to be on that very small list of things so widely established and agreed upon by everyone, calls for its overruling simply don’t exist.”

“I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall into that category,” the Supreme Court nominee told Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.

She added: “Scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled but descriptively it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling.”

Barrett pointed to Harvard Law professor Richard Fallon, who argued Roe v. Wade is not a super precedent because “calls for its overruling have never ceased.” (Read more from “Amy Coney Barrett Discusses Roe v. Wade” HERE)

_________________________________________________________

Democrats Tout Anti-Barrett Letter From Notre Dame Faculty – but No Signers Are From Law School

By Fox News. Democrats have pounced on an open letter signed by 88 faculty members at the University of Notre Dame calling on Judge Amy Coney Barrett to withdraw herself from being considered for the Supreme Court until after the November election. Yet not one of the signatories is from the Notre Dame Law School.

The letter starts by congratulating Barrett on her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court but quickly pivots and urges her to step down, calling the nomination process “rushed” and “an exercise in raw power politics.”

The letter concedes that Barrett is not responsible for the supposedly “anti-democratic machinations” driving her nomination but urges her to “refuse to be a party to such maneuvers.”

“We ask that you honor the democratic process and insist the hearings be put on hold until after the voters have made their choice,” the letter says.

The signatories’ fields of study are diverse, spanning STEM subjects to the humanities, but not a single one of the 88 names have any law credentials. (Read more from “Democrats Tout Anti-Barrett Letter From Notre Dame Faculty – but No Signers Are From Law School” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Experts Say ACB Supreme Court Confirmation Could Revolutionize Gun Litigation

/0 Comments/in , /by

Legal scholars say Amy Coney Barrett’s judicial philosophy could settle legal stalemates and disagreements that have seen lower federal courts deliver a variety of rulings on gun rights.

Barrett’s adoption of what experts refer to as a “text, history and tradition” philosophy—which relies on the text and historic applications of the Second Amendment, rather than the applications of “balancing tests” of individual rights and government interest to determine whether or not a gun law is constitutional—could be revolutionary for Second Amendment cases.

“In practice, the Court’s adoption of the ‘text, history, and tradition’ test would mean a lot of previously settled circuit precedent gets unsettled,” Jacob D. Charles, executive director of Duke University’s Center for Firearms Law, told the Washington Free Beacon.

In 2019’s Kanter v. Barr, Barrett argued in a dissent that “all people have the right to keep and bear arms but that history and tradition support Congress’s power to strip certain groups of that right.” After studying founding-era documents, Barrett concluded that nonviolent felons should not be subject to the same gun restrictions that apply to violent criminals. Mark W. Smith, presidential scholar and senior fellow in law and public policy at the King’s College in New York City, told the Free Beacon the approach favored by Barrett is in stark contrast to the balancing tests lower courts have employed in the past.

“Balancing tests are favored by the liberal justices and left-leaning lower courts because they serve as an easy excuse for eliminating the right to possess and use firearms,” he said. “It allows liberal jurisdictions to invoke ‘public safety’ without any empirical support and to deny constitutional rights carte blanche. These balancing tests allow judges to pay lip service to the Second Amendment while eroding this most fundamental individual right.” (Read more from “Experts Say ACB Supreme Court Confirmation Could Revolutionize Gun Litigation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump’s New SCOTUS Pick Just Received an Unlikely Endorsement

/0 Comments/in , , /by

. . .[T]he LA Times even had an editorial saying that ACB is qualified but shouldn’t be confirmed. We’re going to enter some silliness here, but ACB got an endorsement from an unlikely source: Noah Feldman. Mr. Feldman is a Harvard Law professor who backed the impeachment of Donald Trump. Feldman spoke highly of Barrett, noting her brilliance as a legal scholar, even though he disagrees with her on almost everything. Even still, she deserves to be on the Court (via Bloomberg):

…here I want to be extremely clear. Regardless of what you or I may think of the circumstances of this nomination, Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions. Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them.

I got to know Barrett more than 20 years ago when we clerked at the Supreme Court during the 1998-99 term. Of the thirty-some clerks that year, all of whom had graduated at the top of their law school classes and done prestigious appellate clerkships before coming to work at the court, Barrett stood out. Measured subjectively and unscientifically by pure legal acumen, she was one of the two strongest lawyers. The other was Jenny Martinez, now dean of the Stanford Law School.

[…]

Barrett, a textualist who was working for a textualist, Justice Antonin Scalia, had the ability to bring logic and order to disorder and complexity. You can’t be a good textualist without that, since textualism insists that the law can be understood without reference to legislative history or the aims and context of the statute.

(Read more from “Trump’s New SCOTUS Pick Just Received an Unlikely Endorsement” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE