Mixed Signals On Amy Coney Barrett
BY Herschel Smith
4 years, 1 month ago
I don’t think Trump’s record on Supreme Court justices is stellar. Kavanaugh is a squish, and Gorsuch is just plain odd. One of my sons sends this tweet.
THREAD: #Barrett sided with the government on almost every civil rights case, every big employer case, every criminal case, while also siding with the government on the lockdowns, on uncompensated takings, on excusing First Amendment infringements & Fourth Amendment violations.
— Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) September 22, 2020
On the other hand, there is this article at CNN.
In 2019, Barrett dissented alone when a 7th Circuit panel majority rejected a Second Amendment challenge from a man found guilty of felony mail fraud and prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal and Wisconsin law.
“History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns,” she wrote in Kanter v. Barr, applying an originalist approach that looked to the 18th-century intentions. “But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons.”
Barrett concluded, “Holding that the ban is constitutional … does not put the government through its paces, but instead treats the Second Amendment as a second-class right.”
In June, Barrett dissented as a 7th Circuit panel left intact a US district court decision temporarily blocking a Trump policy that disadvantaged green card applicants who apply for any public assistance. In dispute were federal immigration regulations regarding when an applicant would be deemed a “public charge” and ineligible for permanent status in the US.
In her dissent, Barrett wrote that the Trump administration’s interpretation of the relevant “public charge” law was not “unreasonable.”
In 2018, when the full 7th Circuit declined to reconsider a dispute over an Indiana abortion regulation requiring that the post-abortion fetal remains be cremated or buried, Barrett dissented with fellow conservatives. They began by focusing on a more contentious provision that had been earlier invalidated and not subject to the appeal.
That provision made it unlawful for physicians to perform an abortion because of the race, sex or disability of the fetus. Barrett joined a dissent written by Judge Frank Easterbrook referring to the law as a “eugenics statute.”
“None of the Court’s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions designed to choose the sex, race, and other attributes of children,” the dissent added.
Well, the fourth amendment is a big deal, and the issue of police raids and what that does to extinguish the right of self defense (anyone can announce themselves as police, and this has become a favorite tactic of home invaders) is a corollary.
Do your own research and follow up in the comments. I can easily think of better options for Trump.
On September 27, 2020 at 9:36 pm, Mike_C said:
I’m not at all enthusiastic about Amy Coney Barrett. As Barnes notes, she is decidedly Republican Establishment and not at all a friend of liberty. But it occurs to me that Trump may not have had much choice. It’s entirely possible that certain Senate Republicans made it clear to him that they would not go to the mat for him unless it was ACB.
Barnes is an interesting and highly articulate guy. He regularly participates in a podcast with “Viva Frei” (a Montreal lawyer) on Youtube.
On September 27, 2020 at 9:52 pm, Sisu said:
Herschel, Politics dictate that this go around Trump necessarily selected a “women”; it should not have been a prerequisite let alone among the chief qualifications. But, there are many Trump must “accommodate” to get “most of what he wants (the country deserves) and a very “narrow window” within which to get a vote accomplished while avoiding many procedural and conflicting obstacles. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/nuclear-scenario-markets-emerges-jaw-dropping-scotuselection-playbook-plot-twist
Perhaps in a “perfect world” Trump would have chosen another; then again perhaps not. After all even SCOTUS Judges can not act in a vacuum; they need to sway up to four of eight others as to their perspective on cases to hear and then the crux of the Constitutional issue(s) presented.
Regardless, your brief post is somewhat disappointing (out of character for you) it reads as if you are all for “activist judges” as long as they agree with you view of the Constitution.
Now I have not read the decisions you (a CA criminal tax attny (?) and CNN – that source alone suggests the cases were selected to make their editorial point) cite; but it may just be that Barrett accurately interpreted the various statutes as written within an “originalist” framework – and in fact those cases did not raise constitutional issues or involved “bad laws”; in such instance it is not a judge’s role to make “bad law – better” or broaden the question the parties brought to the court. … An analogy would be – do you think J. Sullivan is within his authority in the case involving Gen. Flynn ?
On September 27, 2020 at 11:02 pm, Sisu said:
Addendum – here is an presentation interview (40mns) from May 2019 J. Barrett at Hillsdale College: https://vimeo.com/336436870 … I am just learning about who she is; this video seems to present the person.
It did occur to me as I watched it that another challenge in selecting a judicial candidate is the individual not only must have certain qualifications but they must want the responsibility, not only the title / station / prestige. …
On September 28, 2020 at 12:10 am, George 1 said:
The sad fact is that presently Mitch McConnell is the final word on who the nominee has to be. The turtle wants her. The Turtle is not going to allow another Thomas on the Supreme Court. Let’s hope she is not a major disappointment like so many others.
On September 28, 2020 at 3:09 am, Duke Norfolk said:
Yeah, definitely not the best pick. But it all may just be rearranging deck chairs…
On September 28, 2020 at 9:31 am, Ned2 said:
It’s a shame that the Supreme Court has become so political. If they would just stick to interpreting the law instead of trying to legislate from the bench, we would be much better off.
On September 28, 2020 at 10:20 am, Fred said:
If confirmed, she’ll have a friend in Alito, who is a big business – big government – capital R Republican.
On September 28, 2020 at 10:58 am, Brad said:
I think a lot of what’s being reported on her that’s negative right now is an attempt by the deep state to screw even more with Trump.
My thoughts on the Supreme Court are if they would stop treating the Constitution as a living document and interprit it the way the founders intended we get get rid of all those idiots and replace them with a phone app. Either it’s Constitutional or it’s not. The Constitution is not all that ambiguous.
On September 28, 2020 at 10:59 am, Sisu said:
SCOTUS has always been political. It has had disproportionate influence over the last 90+ years because the political system in Washington DC has been distorted – grossly by FDR, but one could easily argue like illegitimacy by Lincoln (even today his disregard for the Constitution and sovereignty of states is ignored), Wilson (one of the greatest travesties 1913 ratification of the 17th Amendment – popular election of Senators undermined Governors and thus the republican form of government; The Revenue Act of 1913; Federal Reserve System 1913) and other Presidents (e.g., Johnson’s “Great Society”; “War on Poverty” focus on education). …
I expect too many are expecting SCOTUS to compensate for the failure of the electorate to be “informed” and active in local politics – that they might know who it is their local political machines present as candidates to go to Washington.
It is our elected “representatives” who pass unconstitutional, unlawful laws knowing that court challenges will be prolonged and unable to keep up with the undermining of freedoms.
Thus hope need be placed in the continued rise of “originalist” judicial philosophy which will undermine stare decisis and thus huge swaths of unlawful Federal statutes and structure. … But even that trend will not save the US if the electorate does not undertake self-education.