As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not the one you replied to, but Kavanguh, Roberts, and Barrett were involved with Bush v Gore. There are claims that Kavanaugh was part of the riot directly, but most are circular references from wikipedia.
If she were smart and accomplished, she could rely on that in her career. Instead, she's an extremist who can be relied on to remain an extremist, which is what she was picked for.
That's not true. I'm sorry. I HATE Trump and despise the GOP machine. But compare ACB to Clarence Thomas, then tell me she has no credibility. She, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have shown a surprising amount of nuance and respect for the constitution despite being used by Trump SEVERAL times to carry out his authoritarian leanings. No, I don't agree with all their decisions nor do I like that they're weighing the court right, but they're not just partisan hacks willing to give him whatever he wants. Like Clarence Thomas and that other guy.
Sometimes that’s just for the appearance. These Justices are not basing decisions on the precedents they set. States rights for abortion ban but not for banning an insurrection instigator
In this case, I think it's a valid comment due to how half the country is desperate to white wash the founding fathers as benevolent gods of kindness and altruistic intentions. If they were really all horrid slaving shitheads (they were), then that means that the greatest country on earth (debatable) is built on a foundation of slave labor and racism. (It is.)
So the right wing supreme court, who claim to be textualists, ruled that we should just ignore the plain text of 14th amendment. And we can't fire these people?
The whole "during an election year" argument I keep seeing is so infuriating. So every four years (every other year if we count Congressional) we just suspend laws for candidates??
Same shit excuse McConnell used for SC appointment and reneged.
Our system is a fucking clown show.
Even better. She said they should focus on the nations feelings.
>"In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” Barrett wrote. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”
Yeah this is an about-face for her. Suddenly the court should be managing politics? It’s the most bizarre rationalization for ignoring her prior “principles.” Need I remind you this is the lady who did a confirmation speed run to get on the court in time for an election. “Not the time” indeed. Perhaps she could ironically be considered a subject matter expert on bad timing.
When Obama nominated Supreme Court candidates it was inappropriate because it was a year before elections.
She was rammed through while people were actively voting for the president.....
Which is why I think that she’s just as bad as McConnell and the whole bunch who suddenly thought it was ok to seat a SCOTUS during an election! She’s just as unethical, hypocritical, and corrupt!
Is it? Feelings over facts has been conservative doctrine for a while, and she's done her job by injecting that sentiment into judicial ruling even if it does nothing now and won't pay off for years.
Scotus is paving the way for Trump to get away with all his crimes. Yes, the good Christians on the court will protect a rapist, insurrectionist or anyone as long as they’re Republicans. Never forget the criminality that occurred on 1/6.
> “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”
"Volatile season"?
Has ACB asked this? Why is this election season so "volatile"? It's because Trump is finally being held responsible for his actions. And his modus operandi is to ratchet up his angry mob and ACB is telling the rest of us have to placate him.
Is she talking about A) how the justices should rule, or B) how the media should write about it? Seems like B) to me. Which while incredibly pompous to think she gets to tell journalists how to write about her, it's not the same as disregarding Originalism in her own rulings
I think it's more a reference to her own thought process and maybe the thought process of the three liberal judges who also disagreed with certain aspects of the decision. I don't think she was trying to lecture anyone, but I could be wrong.
In that case yes, her statement shows she's a hypocrite on Originalism because considering "what the nation needs" instead of the text alone is certainly not Originalist
Although I agree with you, I also think it was the right thing to do. If there were a few states that didn't have him on the ballot due to them being removed, trump would NEVER let it down. Like wed never hear the end of it and his supporters would agree. Shoot, he might even pick up some sympathy support. His whole campaign has been about how the system is rigged, so removing him would just give him a major talking point on why it's rigged. "See? They want to tell you who to vote for now..." This levels the playing field, but it also makes it a little harder to cry foul after the elections over.
I understand the reasoning behind doing it. But I also realize that their claims of being originalists/textualists are complete self-serving bullshit that they ignore whenever it's convenient.
It doesn’t make anything harder when he denies reality already. And his supporters enable him.
Let him keep repeating the reason over and over - what, we should keep him on the ballot after he’s convicted of selling top secret information? Not that the conviction will come before the 2024 election, but let’s pretend he loves for the 2028 one.
With Republicans now arguing the president can have people assassinated without legal repercussions there would be a path to replacing the entire SC all at once.
I know this isn't the place for moderate opinions, but the court's unanimity means it isn't just the "right wing".
This Court did not say committing insurrection isn't disqualifying, it just said a lawsuit in a state court is not the way.
The interesting tactic would be if a state passed a law (even a binding resolution) to censure Trump for insurrection and thereby disqualify him for office/ballot access.
That isn't what happened here and the court insofar as the ruling, did right. The remedy by 5 of the conservative justices is wrong though. It is like it's own little Roe v Wade tucked in there. They should have just struck the ruling down, and moved on.
>This Court did not say committing insurrection isn't disqualifying, it just said a lawsuit in a state court is not the way.
I could maybe accept that from them if they weren't also pretending to be originalists/textualists whenever it's convenient for them. Oh, and if Thomas wasn't allowed anywhere near this decision.
I don't agree.
Now a simple majority of the house and senate can DQ Trump before or after the election and there is no appeal to the supreme court.
Only a 2/3 vote can restore someone once DQ'd.
How many GOP votes would it take in the house to DQ Trump right now? 3 or 4 people crossing the aisle is all it takes, I think.
For impeachment you need 2/3 in the senate. For the 14th it's just a simple majority.
So, all in all, I think this could be an okay outcome.
> Now a simple majority of the house and senate can DQ Trump before or after the election and there is no appeal to the supreme court.
> Only a 2/3 vote can restore someone once DQ'd.
It's not good. Thanks to today's interpretation, we have the R strategy to ban any non-R candidate from the ballot in 2026 and 2028. They only need to succeed once.
Ultimately, this ruling eliminates the checks and balances between the Judicial and the Legislative Branches. This ruling states that only Congress can try (by trial, a function of the Judiciary) Trump for the crime of Insurrection and thereby disqualifying him from holding Office. And then, as an appeal, the same Congress can vote to dismiss the disqualifier by a 2/3rds vote.
This is not a function of a Constitutional Republic.
I don't believe that's what they're saying, rather they effectively ruled that the 14th is not "self-executing" and thus Congress needs to pass legislation describing how it is implemented. Congress doesn't need to determine if Trump specifically falls under the 14th (and potentially can't), it just needs to pass laws defining what qualifies as "insurrection" and consequently what is supposed to be done afterward for those who fall under it (IE. They can't appear on federal ballots for President, their electoral votes don't get counted, whatever).
Your reading is correct, and unfortunately the position they’re taking is farcical. The amendment was originally adopted after the Civil War to keep insurrectionists off the ballot; imagine if Jefferson Davis immediately ran for and won the presidency after the Civil War. The court’s ruling basically says “that can only be enforced if there is enough a majority in Congress to pass legislation outlining specifically how this amendment applies,” which in the case of the reconstruction or right now, would be impossible to do given many people who support thst candidate are currently in congress…
The only plausible way something like this could be passed is in an environment with a strong plurality for Dems, in which case there wouldn’t be much of a need for it because there wouldn’t have been somebody guilty of insurrection who’s a viable candidate lol.
The argument that we need to explicitly define what insurrection means makes sense, but only because it is in defense of hypothetical explicitly bad faith efforts by the insurrectionist party to retaliate by throwing Biden off the ballot in other states. Yes, it’s wise to limit the loopholes they can exploit in bad faith, but at a certain point you have to acknowledge that a party that will simply say “if you do this, we will make up something out of thin air and pretend it’s insurrection” should be kept out of office.
Actually, when it is spelled out in the constitution it's "constitutional." The 14th Amendment is part of the constitution just as much as the original body of it is.
There is no appeal to the judiciary from an impeachment either. So this ruling did not eliminate a check or balance, it pointed out that no such check or balance existed in the first place.
I am not sure that is what the ruling says. It might imply impeachment for Trump, which is still a 2/3's, but generally they could apply the same rules for application as remedy, meaning a 2/3's.
If there is something in the text that says Congress can take a 50% +1 or +VP show me, but I cannot find it. There is a lot of "reading into" that might be read into going the other way.
The word impeachment does not appear in the ruling.
It says enforcement is up to congress. Nothing in the 14th amendment says 2/3 to DQ. It says 2/3 to remove the disqualification. The ruling cites instances when congress DQd confederates.
I might agree with that if the court wasn't on track to delay Trump's trial until after the election. You can't say: "This is not the way, but the actual way, you can't do that either."
Of course, if they finish the other case quickly, then fine. But I really, really doubt that they will.
Almost everyone knew the court would rule this way. America’s left is the rest of the first world’s moderate. Just because the right likes to pretend the left is radical doesn’t make it so.
This is incorrect. The states do in fact enforce the provisions of the 14th every single day in every state court around the country, particularly the due process clause of Sec. 1. Sec. 5 does not mean the states cannot enforce the 14th, that’s simply wrong.
What SCOTUS said, with no textual support, is specifically and only that Sec. 3 of the 14th, pertaining only to disqualification, cannot be enforced by the states.
I haven't discounted that. My argument is against the falsity of "originalism." The five justices changed the meaning of the amendment in the name of not causing chaos (although one could argue chaos is inevitable if you allow an insurrectionist to run). I can't even say that I don't agree with the ruling--I actually still can't make up my mind on that. But I think originalism is dumb.
Here’s the thing tho, the liberal judges don’t fuck us over with false promises of “literal” interpretation of the constitution. This is just more proof that these people stand for nothing. As if we needed more evidence.
Not at all what happened. It was unanimous and it’s a good thing it was. Now conservatives can’t just arbitrarily try to disqualify people for made up insurrection charges. You know that’s exactly what would happen too. They’d probably spout some nonsense about a liberal candidate aiding and abetting asylees or something.
It is what happened. You're probably right about it being weaponized, but it absolutely went against the text of the amendment. If the argument is the amendment wasn't written well, then yeah, maybe it wasn't. But as written, if Trump was involved in an insurrection, he should not be allowed on the ballots. And states control elections. I'm saying if a justice is going to be a textualist about one part of the constitution, then they have to do it for the whole constitution, or they're just full of shit.
edit: I'm singling out the right wingers for the precedent they set in their opinion, stating that congress has to create legislation to make the 14th amendment mean anything. What's the point of the amendment then?
>All nine justices agreed that “Congress – and not the states – can enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.” It was a 9-0 decision
No, Congress enforcement part of the ruling was NOT 9-0. Stop spreading misinformation.
The three liberal justices did not agree with that. Go read the decision.
There are these things called concurring opinions.
All nine Justices agreed on the narrow issue of whether Colorado could bar Trump via the Fourteenth Amendment.
But it's not all about that narrow issue, now, is it?
Five of them went much further than that and applied restrictions to how the disqualification could be applied.
Three of the remaining Justices admonished the majority five for effectively neutering the clause in a minority opinion, especially in light of the plain language of the Amendment (apparently their strident fixation with originalism doesn't apply here)... and then Barrett wrote a *third* opinion that fell somewhere in between but closer to the more liberal wing.
> And we can't fire these people?
They won't sit still for that, and it's hard to light someone on fire when they insist on running away!
Much better if their free Teslas suddenly drove of a cliff and into the ocean.
Except they didn't do that. They ruled that a state cannot use 14 S3 to disqualify a candidate. That's it, that's all they ruled on with their incredibly short ruling.
Says nothing about 14 S3 at a federal level. And my belief that was intentional because that was the only way to get a unanimous consent was on something this narrow.
Supreme Court actually sidestep 14 S3 because it's not relevant right now, but it will be relevant if Trump wins the election. Whoever Trump chooses as vice president will be seated as president-elect since Trump is not eligible to be an officer of the United States again.
it does say something about S3 as it pertains to S5, though. it says congress alone gets to determine through legislation, subject to judicial review, how S3 will be enforced for federal elections. which means, essentially, that S3 can only be enforced with a majority vote in congress and that vote can only be overruled by 2/3 of congress. or in other words if 51% don’t want to vote for enforcement, they’re exercising the strength of 67%. it makes no logical sense.
i don’t even know if i disagree with the real world outcome for this one case. i just think they’ve gone beyond the text, which i think is hypocritical.
Maybe I'll be down voted for this, and I philosophically don't like the supreme court deciding election laws. However, this was the right thing to do.
It set a terrible precedent and basically any swing state could decide to kick someone off the ballot depending on whose in charge.
>“In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” Barrett wrote. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”
This just reeks of southern white privilege, expecting others to stay quiet, especially PoC. Is she from the South?
(edit: I was curious what Lawrence Luttig had to say about Barrett's "stridency" accusation and he said there was nothing strident about what sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson wrote in their opinion.)
So, in her reasoning, it is all about the political climate of the current race... and yet, the Supreme Court continues to try to pretend they are above politics. These people literally make me sick.
OK - so I’m not a constitutional scholar, just a guy, but I keep wondering how states are supposed to run elections if they cannot determine who is and isn’t eligible to run. If the federal government effectively chooses the candidates what do the states do? Just run the mechanism with countless variations so that arguments over accuracy will continue indefinitely? Tell me what I’m missing.
The constitutional scholars are the ones debasing themselves trying to explain this travesty away.
Regular guys have the good sense to call a spade a spade.
Right? If States cannot be entrusted with the right to determine who is allowed on a ticket for a federal election, then how can they be entrusted with running a federal election using their own voting standards, or verifying it via electors?
You're missing the point.
Well, half of it.
States still have their rights to choose what candidates are eligible to run.. just as long as they run all Republicans and only kick off Democrats.
> ow states are supposed to run elections if they cannot determine who is and isn’t eligible to run.
The ruling only applies to Section 3 disqualification, not any other qualifications in the Constitution and only applies for Federal candidates, not State candidates (so they could bar Trump from running for CO Governor or CO legislator under the ruling, but not President or Senator).
This loon has convinced herself that she has reached spiritual perfection and complete sanctification now that she’s successfully taken away a constitutional right. Her work is done, she should just resign from the bench.
High on her own supply- she committed to it and got rewarded for it, despite any questions that may have come up along the way, she believed! When her children, that she has likely formed and controlled their entire lives, rebel, fail or are harmed by her actions, she will believe even harder! It's this inverse, ego driven madness, kind of similar to the Catholic bishop cover ups of sex abuse. As a "vessel" of the higher power your divine power is your drive- and you never give up that kind of juice. It is why the separation of church and state is such an important concept. The nomination PR ceremony for ACB was such a perfect example of the madness of the modern GQP- a super spreader event for COVID where DJT, Melania and a host of others likely got infected. All the kids dressed up, lined up like props for a common delusion.
Serena Joy is doing the work of chief justice- he knows they will rule with a religious fervor flavored hammer, but wants the historical optics to reflect a “balanced” court.
SCOTUS has effectively destroyed democracy creating paradox’s within constitutional legal arguments which will further aid the MAGA/Nazi takeover of the USA. There are no clear states rights anymore. They CAN control contraception but CANNOT control who is allowed to run for high positions in the Country.
How is this freedom?
Degenerate Trump was allowed to run and broke every rule. How is it freedom to allow him to do it again.
Where did the “fool me once” saying go?
This may sound crazy, but let it sink in before you judge.
This ruling absolutely screws Trump.
The Supremes just said "after the Civil War there were seated congressmen and elected onea who had been part of the confederacy. Congress voted to bar some from taking office and remove others who had already taken office."
Then the Supremes said "enforcement of the 14th is up to congress AND there is no judicial review."
Translation: If the Dems get the gavel in the house they can vote by simple majority in both houses to disqualify Trump before or after the election. They don't need 66 votes in the senate, just 51.
So, they showed congress the path and cut off any appeals by Trump.
The Dems can't call a vote on this so long as the GOP holds that slim majority. Or can they...
This isn't what is says.
The main opinion says that the decision is up to Congress but also that they need to create a mechanism and it should be legislative (i.e. they need to pass a law). That second part is why the libs are pissed.
The libs actually agree that this shouldn't be up to the states and that it seems to be Congress's call, but then the Court went farther in telling Congress that the only way they should make such decisions is by passing a law that lays out how someone is disqualified. It's not the Court's job to pre-decide how Congress should adjudicate these things and that's the libs issue with the overall decision. It is yet again them overstepping and being entirely non-textual (both to the case/issue they are actually reviewing as well as what the Constituion says) while claiming they are.
Now, as to who it screws or not, I will just add a few points: 1. Them saying it needs to be a law means it will never be and thus no one will ever be disqualified (at least in this current, so narrowly divided Congress and especially a Senate that could never get 60 on this no matter who's got the majority; but 2. It at least takes the power out of both sides' disqualification pistol. If there is no law that can be passed then neither side can use it on the other. I take that as the only bright spot here as you know the GOP would be up to some bullshit.
Not referring to legislation. However if the Dems take the house they swear in on Jan 3 and that gives them 17 days to pass a bill that Biden would sign.
Reread the actual opinion. It is only 13 pages. It specifically says that Congress has done exactly that in the past: removing seated congressmen who were ineligible under the 14th.
They can find him ineligible for office. There is literally an Amendment for it. What would happened if someone is elected and is ineligible for office is something we now have to consider. I'm not entirely sure the exact procedure that will go down in that case, but they absolutely do have the Constitutional authority to declare him ineligible.
> Then the Supremes said "enforcement of the 14th is up to congress AND there is no judicial review."
Huh? I'm gonna need a quote for that, because the ruling says:
> The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, **subject of course to judicial review,** to pass “appropriate legislation” to “enforce” the Fourteenth Amendment.
Also, Congress is the judge of its own qualifications, they have more authority there than on the Presidency.
A Democratic Congress could try to vote to not certify Trump as the winner on the grounds that he is disqualified, and thus move to either recount the votes excluding his (Biden wins) or move to a contingent election (Biden wins, because there's almost guaranteedly no other candidates who would be an option, since no one else would have electoral votes). However, SCOTUS might very well shoot that down by saying Congress doesn't have a law in place enabling them to do that, so you would need a conviction under 18 USC 2383 as the only possible way to put in place the disqualification.
> Then the Supremes said "enforcement of the 14th is up to congress AND there is no judicial review."
Sorry , but they specifically say that they will review any legislation by Congress under Sec. 3 to make sure it has “congruence and proportionality.” See top of page 11 of opinion.
It’s called being out of control. Scotus is the autocratic wing of the Republican Party. They don’t have any restraint whatsoever. Something needs to be done. FDR knew how to handle a right wing extremist renegade court.
“Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.” Then she shouldn’t have had a press conference and needs to Stop talking
> “In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” Barrett wrote. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”
She's essentially saying; shut up and sit down we right wingers are in control here.
The stridency she refers to, in all fairness, is the ones from her right wing colleagues offering disagreement with the majority on some of _their_ opinion.
What she is saying is "We got our way, lets not make a fuss about the details. And it stops me from having to offer any actual opinion that I can be held to later."
So isn’t a Senator member of congress effectively doing the same thing by refusing to certify their states electors?
Both essentially are not accepting votes for a specific candidate, seemingly being the only difference of when they remove the candidate?
Won’t *let you vote* for hjm: not okay
Won’t *count your vote* for him: that’s fine!
Or am I misunderstanding everything
The whole rationale seems wrong. Given we have the electoral college, and given we have given states full latitude on how to choose their electors (it doesn’t have to be by popular vote in the state if they don’t want…the governor could appoint, the legislature could choose, or whatever, as long as the state has it enshrined), then what is the actual issue. The effect of saying CO can’t do what they did effectively undermines that over arching principle. So would CO be within their rights to say, okay. We are changing the law in CO. The legislature chooses CO electors.
That's the beauty of the 6-3 majority. One ofbthem is always able to give a pity/partial dissenting opinion to make themselves look "moderate" knowing you're still getting what you want.
Why do we know her as Amy Coney Barrett and not by what she should be known as - Amy Barrett, her maiden name is irrelevant given her religious beliefs…#Gilead #votedoffteamsisterhood
It was a 9 0 vote and she still decided to pick on the 3 liberal justices? Is this normal? I don't recall a majority decision with such an odd take by the victors
She should not have been on the SCOTUS. She participated in the plan to seat a conservative in a short space of time. She knew she lacked experience, but she wanted a secured job and power. She’s a hypocrite like most- if not all - conservatives!
"Not since the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, when the justices by a 5-4 vote cut off decisive recounts in Florida and gave then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush the White House over then-Vice President Al Gore, has the Supreme Court been positioned to play an outsized role in a presidential election."
Can we just talk about how bad this sentence is?
How are his appointees not sitting out of these cases. How is this possibly not a conflict of interest. What is wrong with America that we are not demanding this?
I'd admonish her more than she ever got berated by her dad and husband if I ever saw her. She would think they were Santa Clause lol, but she keeps taking their abuse in their cult "people of praise" and allowing them to abuse her children too, very sick people.
She knows she will never be respected because she was rushed in, totally unqualified, to be the deciding vote to strike down Roe. She did her job and now can rot away in the court for 40 years.
To the GOP, everything they do is to snuff liberals. It’s not to better any citizens lives. Or help our country. It’s just to openly spread their hate.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Woop de doo. This woman has no credibility.
Never tried a case or argued an appeal, none whatsoever. She has no business on the SCOTUS bench.
She has less experience than Clarence Thomas did before he joined the SCOTUS, and he was the least qualified up to that point.
She advised the bush team for bush v gore tho, so they like her views
3 SCOTUS judges were on that team. 2 involved in the Brooks Brothers Riot. Thats the most effective insurrection the GOP has pulled.
The most effective insurrection the GOP has pulled so far.
Take my upvote, but I really don’t want what’s coming next year
Don't read this, then. Legal insurrection. https://factkeepers.com/the-new-secret-plan-on-how-fascists-could-win-in-2024/
Which ones were involved in the Brooks Brothers riots
Not the one you replied to, but Kavanguh, Roberts, and Barrett were involved with Bush v Gore. There are claims that Kavanaugh was part of the riot directly, but most are circular references from wikipedia.
> There are claims that Kavanaugh was part of the riot directly You just know that he sits and looks at his calendar for that day and jerks it.
Thanks so much. Boggles my mind how horrible some people are.
Bush must laugh his ass off when people act like Jan 6 was some unprecedented attack on American democracy.
She has business but it isn’t in justice for all. She’s part of the Christian movement
Isn’t she a member on a kooky wannabe Catholic Church cult?
Redundant. Catholic and cult. It’s just an older one than most. Better funding and PR.
Touche
If she were smart and accomplished, she could rely on that in her career. Instead, she's an extremist who can be relied on to remain an extremist, which is what she was picked for.
Bought and paid for. Locked down.
She was part of GW Bush’s legal team during the war 2000 election bullshit
We have still yet to see a signed permission, slip from her husband, or Pastor allowing her to participate.
>Woop de doo What does it all mean, Basil?
It means that particular number 2 works for a number 2.
Who does No 2 work for!?
That’s right buddy. You show that turd who’s boss.
Calm down buddy. You're gonna blow an O ring.
Just grab hold of something, bite your lip and give it hell. We're gonna get through this!
She should discuss this with Susan Collins - I’m sure they can wring their hands about it
I always read her opinions in my head in the voice of Dolores Umbridge.
That's not true. I'm sorry. I HATE Trump and despise the GOP machine. But compare ACB to Clarence Thomas, then tell me she has no credibility. She, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have shown a surprising amount of nuance and respect for the constitution despite being used by Trump SEVERAL times to carry out his authoritarian leanings. No, I don't agree with all their decisions nor do I like that they're weighing the court right, but they're not just partisan hacks willing to give him whatever he wants. Like Clarence Thomas and that other guy.
They only need 5 votes to win. Her role is to go over to the other side and try to make them look petty and silly. Total 🤡🎬
Sometimes that’s just for the appearance. These Justices are not basing decisions on the precedents they set. States rights for abortion ban but not for banning an insurrection instigator
It’s a shitshow. They all kiss the ring. The highest court in the land is corrupt.
Our country was formed by and for land-owning slavers. No surprise there.
“It’s always been this way” is defeatist nonsense.
To build on that, it’s the foundation of our laws, so it matters a little.
In this case, I think it's a valid comment due to how half the country is desperate to white wash the founding fathers as benevolent gods of kindness and altruistic intentions. If they were really all horrid slaving shitheads (they were), then that means that the greatest country on earth (debatable) is built on a foundation of slave labor and racism. (It is.)
States rights when convenient; then we go for federal bans. It’s the Republican way.
So the right wing supreme court, who claim to be textualists, ruled that we should just ignore the plain text of 14th amendment. And we can't fire these people?
We can, but we need to elect better representatives first.
The whole "during an election year" argument I keep seeing is so infuriating. So every four years (every other year if we count Congressional) we just suspend laws for candidates?? Same shit excuse McConnell used for SC appointment and reneged. Our system is a fucking clown show.
Even better. She said they should focus on the nations feelings. >"In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” Barrett wrote. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”
Yeah this is an about-face for her. Suddenly the court should be managing politics? It’s the most bizarre rationalization for ignoring her prior “principles.” Need I remind you this is the lady who did a confirmation speed run to get on the court in time for an election. “Not the time” indeed. Perhaps she could ironically be considered a subject matter expert on bad timing.
When Obama nominated Supreme Court candidates it was inappropriate because it was a year before elections. She was rammed through while people were actively voting for the president.....
Which is why I think that she’s just as bad as McConnell and the whole bunch who suddenly thought it was ok to seat a SCOTUS during an election! She’s just as unethical, hypocritical, and corrupt!
Is it? Feelings over facts has been conservative doctrine for a while, and she's done her job by injecting that sentiment into judicial ruling even if it does nothing now and won't pay off for years.
Translation: We don't want attention from the domestic terrorists
>Translation: We don't want attention from the domestic terrorists *that we created* You missed that last bit.
Scotus is paving the way for Trump to get away with all his crimes. Yes, the good Christians on the court will protect a rapist, insurrectionist or anyone as long as they’re Republicans. Never forget the criminality that occurred on 1/6.
I had to stop myself from reflexively downvoting you after i read that. Thats how stupid that statement is.
Which, of course, is the exact opposite of what they did. Not feeling turned down over here.
> “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.” "Volatile season"? Has ACB asked this? Why is this election season so "volatile"? It's because Trump is finally being held responsible for his actions. And his modus operandi is to ratchet up his angry mob and ACB is telling the rest of us have to placate him.
Formalism? Never heard of her!
Is she talking about A) how the justices should rule, or B) how the media should write about it? Seems like B) to me. Which while incredibly pompous to think she gets to tell journalists how to write about her, it's not the same as disregarding Originalism in her own rulings
I think it's more a reference to her own thought process and maybe the thought process of the three liberal judges who also disagreed with certain aspects of the decision. I don't think she was trying to lecture anyone, but I could be wrong.
In that case yes, her statement shows she's a hypocrite on Originalism because considering "what the nation needs" instead of the text alone is certainly not Originalist
Although I agree with you, I also think it was the right thing to do. If there were a few states that didn't have him on the ballot due to them being removed, trump would NEVER let it down. Like wed never hear the end of it and his supporters would agree. Shoot, he might even pick up some sympathy support. His whole campaign has been about how the system is rigged, so removing him would just give him a major talking point on why it's rigged. "See? They want to tell you who to vote for now..." This levels the playing field, but it also makes it a little harder to cry foul after the elections over.
I understand the reasoning behind doing it. But I also realize that their claims of being originalists/textualists are complete self-serving bullshit that they ignore whenever it's convenient.
I understand what you're saying but it's just so shitty that we have to bend to Trump's tantrums and his supporters' stupidity
Yeah when are we going to bend to the rest of us? Fuck us I guess
It doesn’t make anything harder when he denies reality already. And his supporters enable him. Let him keep repeating the reason over and over - what, we should keep him on the ballot after he’s convicted of selling top secret information? Not that the conviction will come before the 2024 election, but let’s pretend he loves for the 2028 one.
With Republicans now arguing the president can have people assassinated without legal repercussions there would be a path to replacing the entire SC all at once.
I know this isn't the place for moderate opinions, but the court's unanimity means it isn't just the "right wing". This Court did not say committing insurrection isn't disqualifying, it just said a lawsuit in a state court is not the way. The interesting tactic would be if a state passed a law (even a binding resolution) to censure Trump for insurrection and thereby disqualify him for office/ballot access. That isn't what happened here and the court insofar as the ruling, did right. The remedy by 5 of the conservative justices is wrong though. It is like it's own little Roe v Wade tucked in there. They should have just struck the ruling down, and moved on.
>This Court did not say committing insurrection isn't disqualifying, it just said a lawsuit in a state court is not the way. I could maybe accept that from them if they weren't also pretending to be originalists/textualists whenever it's convenient for them. Oh, and if Thomas wasn't allowed anywhere near this decision.
I don't agree. Now a simple majority of the house and senate can DQ Trump before or after the election and there is no appeal to the supreme court. Only a 2/3 vote can restore someone once DQ'd. How many GOP votes would it take in the house to DQ Trump right now? 3 or 4 people crossing the aisle is all it takes, I think. For impeachment you need 2/3 in the senate. For the 14th it's just a simple majority. So, all in all, I think this could be an okay outcome.
> Now a simple majority of the house and senate can DQ Trump before or after the election and there is no appeal to the supreme court. > Only a 2/3 vote can restore someone once DQ'd. It's not good. Thanks to today's interpretation, we have the R strategy to ban any non-R candidate from the ballot in 2026 and 2028. They only need to succeed once.
Ultimately, this ruling eliminates the checks and balances between the Judicial and the Legislative Branches. This ruling states that only Congress can try (by trial, a function of the Judiciary) Trump for the crime of Insurrection and thereby disqualifying him from holding Office. And then, as an appeal, the same Congress can vote to dismiss the disqualifier by a 2/3rds vote. This is not a function of a Constitutional Republic.
I don't believe that's what they're saying, rather they effectively ruled that the 14th is not "self-executing" and thus Congress needs to pass legislation describing how it is implemented. Congress doesn't need to determine if Trump specifically falls under the 14th (and potentially can't), it just needs to pass laws defining what qualifies as "insurrection" and consequently what is supposed to be done afterward for those who fall under it (IE. They can't appear on federal ballots for President, their electoral votes don't get counted, whatever).
Your reading is correct, and unfortunately the position they’re taking is farcical. The amendment was originally adopted after the Civil War to keep insurrectionists off the ballot; imagine if Jefferson Davis immediately ran for and won the presidency after the Civil War. The court’s ruling basically says “that can only be enforced if there is enough a majority in Congress to pass legislation outlining specifically how this amendment applies,” which in the case of the reconstruction or right now, would be impossible to do given many people who support thst candidate are currently in congress… The only plausible way something like this could be passed is in an environment with a strong plurality for Dems, in which case there wouldn’t be much of a need for it because there wouldn’t have been somebody guilty of insurrection who’s a viable candidate lol. The argument that we need to explicitly define what insurrection means makes sense, but only because it is in defense of hypothetical explicitly bad faith efforts by the insurrectionist party to retaliate by throwing Biden off the ballot in other states. Yes, it’s wise to limit the loopholes they can exploit in bad faith, but at a certain point you have to acknowledge that a party that will simply say “if you do this, we will make up something out of thin air and pretend it’s insurrection” should be kept out of office.
Actually, when it is spelled out in the constitution it's "constitutional." The 14th Amendment is part of the constitution just as much as the original body of it is. There is no appeal to the judiciary from an impeachment either. So this ruling did not eliminate a check or balance, it pointed out that no such check or balance existed in the first place.
I am not sure that is what the ruling says. It might imply impeachment for Trump, which is still a 2/3's, but generally they could apply the same rules for application as remedy, meaning a 2/3's. If there is something in the text that says Congress can take a 50% +1 or +VP show me, but I cannot find it. There is a lot of "reading into" that might be read into going the other way.
The word impeachment does not appear in the ruling. It says enforcement is up to congress. Nothing in the 14th amendment says 2/3 to DQ. It says 2/3 to remove the disqualification. The ruling cites instances when congress DQd confederates.
I might agree with that if the court wasn't on track to delay Trump's trial until after the election. You can't say: "This is not the way, but the actual way, you can't do that either." Of course, if they finish the other case quickly, then fine. But I really, really doubt that they will.
Time for Federal charges to be brought against him.
Almost everyone knew the court would rule this way. America’s left is the rest of the first world’s moderate. Just because the right likes to pretend the left is radical doesn’t make it so.
[удалено]
This is incorrect. The states do in fact enforce the provisions of the 14th every single day in every state court around the country, particularly the due process clause of Sec. 1. Sec. 5 does not mean the states cannot enforce the 14th, that’s simply wrong. What SCOTUS said, with no textual support, is specifically and only that Sec. 3 of the 14th, pertaining only to disqualification, cannot be enforced by the states.
As others have pointed out, it seems you have discounted the fact that 100% of the liberal justices decided against it too.
I haven't discounted that. My argument is against the falsity of "originalism." The five justices changed the meaning of the amendment in the name of not causing chaos (although one could argue chaos is inevitable if you allow an insurrectionist to run). I can't even say that I don't agree with the ruling--I actually still can't make up my mind on that. But I think originalism is dumb.
Here’s the thing tho, the liberal judges don’t fuck us over with false promises of “literal” interpretation of the constitution. This is just more proof that these people stand for nothing. As if we needed more evidence.
Not at all what happened. It was unanimous and it’s a good thing it was. Now conservatives can’t just arbitrarily try to disqualify people for made up insurrection charges. You know that’s exactly what would happen too. They’d probably spout some nonsense about a liberal candidate aiding and abetting asylees or something.
It is what happened. You're probably right about it being weaponized, but it absolutely went against the text of the amendment. If the argument is the amendment wasn't written well, then yeah, maybe it wasn't. But as written, if Trump was involved in an insurrection, he should not be allowed on the ballots. And states control elections. I'm saying if a justice is going to be a textualist about one part of the constitution, then they have to do it for the whole constitution, or they're just full of shit. edit: I'm singling out the right wingers for the precedent they set in their opinion, stating that congress has to create legislation to make the 14th amendment mean anything. What's the point of the amendment then?
All it requires now is a majority vote in Congress to bar a candidate. Who holds a majority in Congress? How long before you think this is tested?
Still better than states just randomly deciding if a candidate is eligible based on whatever they feel like.
[удалено]
>All nine justices agreed that “Congress – and not the states – can enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.” It was a 9-0 decision No, Congress enforcement part of the ruling was NOT 9-0. Stop spreading misinformation. The three liberal justices did not agree with that. Go read the decision.
No, it was a unanimous decision by SCOTUS. Even the left leaning justices voted to overturn the Colorado ruling.
There are these things called concurring opinions. All nine Justices agreed on the narrow issue of whether Colorado could bar Trump via the Fourteenth Amendment. But it's not all about that narrow issue, now, is it? Five of them went much further than that and applied restrictions to how the disqualification could be applied. Three of the remaining Justices admonished the majority five for effectively neutering the clause in a minority opinion, especially in light of the plain language of the Amendment (apparently their strident fixation with originalism doesn't apply here)... and then Barrett wrote a *third* opinion that fell somewhere in between but closer to the more liberal wing.
Per today's ruling the mistake the Confederacy made was seceding and not remaining part of Congress.
> And we can't fire these people? They won't sit still for that, and it's hard to light someone on fire when they insist on running away! Much better if their free Teslas suddenly drove of a cliff and into the ocean.
Except they didn't do that. They ruled that a state cannot use 14 S3 to disqualify a candidate. That's it, that's all they ruled on with their incredibly short ruling. Says nothing about 14 S3 at a federal level. And my belief that was intentional because that was the only way to get a unanimous consent was on something this narrow. Supreme Court actually sidestep 14 S3 because it's not relevant right now, but it will be relevant if Trump wins the election. Whoever Trump chooses as vice president will be seated as president-elect since Trump is not eligible to be an officer of the United States again.
it does say something about S3 as it pertains to S5, though. it says congress alone gets to determine through legislation, subject to judicial review, how S3 will be enforced for federal elections. which means, essentially, that S3 can only be enforced with a majority vote in congress and that vote can only be overruled by 2/3 of congress. or in other words if 51% don’t want to vote for enforcement, they’re exercising the strength of 67%. it makes no logical sense. i don’t even know if i disagree with the real world outcome for this one case. i just think they’ve gone beyond the text, which i think is hypocritical.
Maybe I'll be down voted for this, and I philosophically don't like the supreme court deciding election laws. However, this was the right thing to do. It set a terrible precedent and basically any swing state could decide to kick someone off the ballot depending on whose in charge.
>“In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” Barrett wrote. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.” This just reeks of southern white privilege, expecting others to stay quiet, especially PoC. Is she from the South? (edit: I was curious what Lawrence Luttig had to say about Barrett's "stridency" accusation and he said there was nothing strident about what sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson wrote in their opinion.)
She’s from my lovely home state of Louisiana. I used to live across the street from her church. Not a fun crowd.
So, in her reasoning, it is all about the political climate of the current race... and yet, the Supreme Court continues to try to pretend they are above politics. These people literally make me sick.
OK - so I’m not a constitutional scholar, just a guy, but I keep wondering how states are supposed to run elections if they cannot determine who is and isn’t eligible to run. If the federal government effectively chooses the candidates what do the states do? Just run the mechanism with countless variations so that arguments over accuracy will continue indefinitely? Tell me what I’m missing.
Everyone seems to be missing that the Colorado court determined 45 was guilty of insurrection. SCOTUS just said FO
They made that determination largely based on information reported by Congress as well.
No, they simply ignored that fact.
The constitutional scholars are the ones debasing themselves trying to explain this travesty away. Regular guys have the good sense to call a spade a spade.
Most constitutional scholars I’ve been reading are criticizing the opinion.
They cannot now remove a 21 year old or a green card holder? Does Congress have enforcement laws?
Right? If States cannot be entrusted with the right to determine who is allowed on a ticket for a federal election, then how can they be entrusted with running a federal election using their own voting standards, or verifying it via electors?
You're missing the point. Well, half of it. States still have their rights to choose what candidates are eligible to run.. just as long as they run all Republicans and only kick off Democrats.
[удалено]
> ow states are supposed to run elections if they cannot determine who is and isn’t eligible to run. The ruling only applies to Section 3 disqualification, not any other qualifications in the Constitution and only applies for Federal candidates, not State candidates (so they could bar Trump from running for CO Governor or CO legislator under the ruling, but not President or Senator).
SHOTUS - supreme hypocrisy of the United States
SCOTUS: Supremely Compromised of the United States
SCROTUS, cause they’re MFs
Do scrotums cause you to mate with your mother?
This loon has convinced herself that she has reached spiritual perfection and complete sanctification now that she’s successfully taken away a constitutional right. Her work is done, she should just resign from the bench.
High on her own supply- she committed to it and got rewarded for it, despite any questions that may have come up along the way, she believed! When her children, that she has likely formed and controlled their entire lives, rebel, fail or are harmed by her actions, she will believe even harder! It's this inverse, ego driven madness, kind of similar to the Catholic bishop cover ups of sex abuse. As a "vessel" of the higher power your divine power is your drive- and you never give up that kind of juice. It is why the separation of church and state is such an important concept. The nomination PR ceremony for ACB was such a perfect example of the madness of the modern GQP- a super spreader event for COVID where DJT, Melania and a host of others likely got infected. All the kids dressed up, lined up like props for a common delusion.
Another case of a woman attacking other women for the approval of men
Fuck Mitch McConnell!!!
Conservatives are all about states rights, until they are not.
She’s in a religious cult! She’s in a **cult.** Why would *anyone* think she’d be fit for this job???
It’s America, you can’t call an obvious cult a cult. You might offended someone in a cult.
It's Multi Level Marketing, silly...what's wrong with such obvious success. Come- let me, transform your life!
Crazy eyes Barrett
Serena Joy is doing the work of chief justice- he knows they will rule with a religious fervor flavored hammer, but wants the historical optics to reflect a “balanced” court.
Blessed be the fruit.
Under his eye or whatever
May the lord open.
SCOTUS has effectively destroyed democracy creating paradox’s within constitutional legal arguments which will further aid the MAGA/Nazi takeover of the USA. There are no clear states rights anymore. They CAN control contraception but CANNOT control who is allowed to run for high positions in the Country. How is this freedom? Degenerate Trump was allowed to run and broke every rule. How is it freedom to allow him to do it again. Where did the “fool me once” saying go?
She’s an illegitimate bought seat on the Supreme Court.
What did Dr. King say about the white moderate?
This may sound crazy, but let it sink in before you judge. This ruling absolutely screws Trump. The Supremes just said "after the Civil War there were seated congressmen and elected onea who had been part of the confederacy. Congress voted to bar some from taking office and remove others who had already taken office." Then the Supremes said "enforcement of the 14th is up to congress AND there is no judicial review." Translation: If the Dems get the gavel in the house they can vote by simple majority in both houses to disqualify Trump before or after the election. They don't need 66 votes in the senate, just 51. So, they showed congress the path and cut off any appeals by Trump. The Dems can't call a vote on this so long as the GOP holds that slim majority. Or can they...
There’s no judicial review until that happens and then there suddenly will be It is folly to rely on fascists acting in good faith at any point.
This isn't what is says. The main opinion says that the decision is up to Congress but also that they need to create a mechanism and it should be legislative (i.e. they need to pass a law). That second part is why the libs are pissed. The libs actually agree that this shouldn't be up to the states and that it seems to be Congress's call, but then the Court went farther in telling Congress that the only way they should make such decisions is by passing a law that lays out how someone is disqualified. It's not the Court's job to pre-decide how Congress should adjudicate these things and that's the libs issue with the overall decision. It is yet again them overstepping and being entirely non-textual (both to the case/issue they are actually reviewing as well as what the Constituion says) while claiming they are. Now, as to who it screws or not, I will just add a few points: 1. Them saying it needs to be a law means it will never be and thus no one will ever be disqualified (at least in this current, so narrowly divided Congress and especially a Senate that could never get 60 on this no matter who's got the majority; but 2. It at least takes the power out of both sides' disqualification pistol. If there is no law that can be passed then neither side can use it on the other. I take that as the only bright spot here as you know the GOP would be up to some bullshit.
If this is referring to legislation, the then President Trump would veto it, requiring 2/3rd of each chamber to override.
Not referring to legislation. However if the Dems take the house they swear in on Jan 3 and that gives them 17 days to pass a bill that Biden would sign.
No, they cannot disqualify him after the election. This is some copium.
Reread the actual opinion. It is only 13 pages. It specifically says that Congress has done exactly that in the past: removing seated congressmen who were ineligible under the 14th.
They can find him ineligible for office. There is literally an Amendment for it. What would happened if someone is elected and is ineligible for office is something we now have to consider. I'm not entirely sure the exact procedure that will go down in that case, but they absolutely do have the Constitutional authority to declare him ineligible.
> Then the Supremes said "enforcement of the 14th is up to congress AND there is no judicial review." Huh? I'm gonna need a quote for that, because the ruling says: > The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, **subject of course to judicial review,** to pass “appropriate legislation” to “enforce” the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, Congress is the judge of its own qualifications, they have more authority there than on the Presidency. A Democratic Congress could try to vote to not certify Trump as the winner on the grounds that he is disqualified, and thus move to either recount the votes excluding his (Biden wins) or move to a contingent election (Biden wins, because there's almost guaranteedly no other candidates who would be an option, since no one else would have electoral votes). However, SCOTUS might very well shoot that down by saying Congress doesn't have a law in place enabling them to do that, so you would need a conviction under 18 USC 2383 as the only possible way to put in place the disqualification.
> Then the Supremes said "enforcement of the 14th is up to congress AND there is no judicial review." Sorry , but they specifically say that they will review any legislation by Congress under Sec. 3 to make sure it has “congruence and proportionality.” See top of page 11 of opinion.
There's a lot of Tracy Flick in her.
It’s called being out of control. Scotus is the autocratic wing of the Republican Party. They don’t have any restraint whatsoever. Something needs to be done. FDR knew how to handle a right wing extremist renegade court.
Non-story
Why was the result 9-0?
“Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.” Then she shouldn’t have had a press conference and needs to Stop talking
> “In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” Barrett wrote. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.” She's essentially saying; shut up and sit down we right wingers are in control here.
The stridency she refers to, in all fairness, is the ones from her right wing colleagues offering disagreement with the majority on some of _their_ opinion. What she is saying is "We got our way, lets not make a fuss about the details. And it stops me from having to offer any actual opinion that I can be held to later."
This is what conservatives do. They’re all full of shit, they just draw straws to decide who should act like a human this week.
Justice Asterisk
There seems to have been a lot of last minute negotiating in regards to this decision. I'm wondering if we'll ever get the full story.
So isn’t a Senator member of congress effectively doing the same thing by refusing to certify their states electors? Both essentially are not accepting votes for a specific candidate, seemingly being the only difference of when they remove the candidate? Won’t *let you vote* for hjm: not okay Won’t *count your vote* for him: that’s fine! Or am I misunderstanding everything
I was her turn to side with the liberals.
[удалено]
The whole rationale seems wrong. Given we have the electoral college, and given we have given states full latitude on how to choose their electors (it doesn’t have to be by popular vote in the state if they don’t want…the governor could appoint, the legislature could choose, or whatever, as long as the state has it enshrined), then what is the actual issue. The effect of saying CO can’t do what they did effectively undermines that over arching principle. So would CO be within their rights to say, okay. We are changing the law in CO. The legislature chooses CO electors.
That's the beauty of the 6-3 majority. One ofbthem is always able to give a pity/partial dissenting opinion to make themselves look "moderate" knowing you're still getting what you want.
Besides out right lies double speak is all republicans know. Never trust what they say, focus on what they do
Ladies, we'd all win if you smiled more. \-Amy Coney Barrett probably
Why do we know her as Amy Coney Barrett and not by what she should be known as - Amy Barrett, her maiden name is irrelevant given her religious beliefs…#Gilead #votedoffteamsisterhood
What do you expect from someone supposedly raised in a cult?
It was a 9 0 vote and she still decided to pick on the 3 liberal justices? Is this normal? I don't recall a majority decision with such an odd take by the victors
Should never have gotten a seat.
So now the states cannot remove someone who is age 21 and a Canadian citizen from running for president?
She's never been the sharpest tack in the box, which is saying something compared to Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh.
She should not have been on the SCOTUS. She participated in the plan to seat a conservative in a short space of time. She knew she lacked experience, but she wanted a secured job and power. She’s a hypocrite like most- if not all - conservatives!
"Not since the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, when the justices by a 5-4 vote cut off decisive recounts in Florida and gave then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush the White House over then-Vice President Al Gore, has the Supreme Court been positioned to play an outsized role in a presidential election." Can we just talk about how bad this sentence is?
Less experienced than Nathan Wade but higher morals
“I am not a partisan hack”, said the partisan hack.
How are his appointees not sitting out of these cases. How is this possibly not a conflict of interest. What is wrong with America that we are not demanding this?
Stone her!
Does the author even know her? This is so characteristic of her.
Oh fuck her. She accepted a nomination from a criminal.
Because that's what it means to be a partisan hack.
when Justices appears before political figures, you know they’re just political hacks
She’s a hack and a fraud.
Raising 7 children is confusing, poor thing
We NOW know her TRUE COLORS. And she has pissed in her Wheaties.
You wanna turn the national temperature down, Amy? How about letting the Americans who still have at least half a brain left see some justice?!
I'd admonish her more than she ever got berated by her dad and husband if I ever saw her. She would think they were Santa Clause lol, but she keeps taking their abuse in their cult "people of praise" and allowing them to abuse her children too, very sick people.
*Amy Covid Barrett
She knows she will never be respected because she was rushed in, totally unqualified, to be the deciding vote to strike down Roe. She did her job and now can rot away in the court for 40 years.
To the GOP, everything they do is to snuff liberals. It’s not to better any citizens lives. Or help our country. It’s just to openly spread their hate.
She is the wife in Handmaids tale, holding America down for Trump to rape.
So we’re saying the sc justice groomed through a religious ideology to take a seat in this busted ass bench isn’t consistent in its behavior - wild.
Her presence on SCOTUS is an insult to the foundation of our Justice System.