world

U.S. Senate confirms Barrett 52-48 as Supreme Court justice

84 Comments
By Steve Holland and Lawrence Hurley

The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate handed President Donald Trump a major pre-election political victory on Monday by confirming his Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, with the White House planning a celebratory event afterward.

The Senate voted 52-48, with Democrats unified in opposing Barrett's confirmation, which creates a 6-3 conservative majority on the high court. One Republican, Susan Collins, voted against the confirmation.

The ceremony at the White House comes a month after a similar event was linked to a COVID-19 outbreak that preceded Trump's own infection. Barrett will succeed liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last month.

At the ceremony, conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas administered one of the two oaths of office that justices have to take.

"The Barrett family has captured America's heart. It is highly fitting that Justice Barrett fills the sea of a true pioneer for women, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg," Trump said with a smiling Barrett at his side.

In contrast to the White House event last month, more people wore masks and seats were spread out to ensure social distancing. Several of the Republican senators who voted to confirm Barrett were in attendance, although not Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has not been to the White House since August due to COVID-19 concerns.

In brief remarks, Barrett declared her independence from Trump and the political process even as the president stood behind her.

"The oath that I have solemnly taken tonight means at its core I will do the job without fear or favor and do it independently of the political branches and of my own preferences," she said.

Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the separate judicial oath at the court on Tuesday.

Trump, who has been touting the appointment at campaign rallies to the cheers of his supporters, pressed the Senate to confirm Barrett, 48, to the lifetime post before the Nov 3 election in which he trails Democrat Joe Biden in national opinion polls. No Supreme Court justice had ever been confirmed so close to a presidential election.

Trump has said he expects the court to decide the outcome of the election and wants Barrett to participate on any election-related cases that go before the justices.

AP20301005908743.jpg
This image taken from video shows the vote total in the U.S. Senate on the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to become a Supreme Court justice at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, on Monday. Photo: Senate Television via AP

Just before the Senate vote, the court on a 5-3 vote with the conservative justices in the majority, issued an order curbing the deadline for mail-in ballots to be received in the electoral battleground of Wisconsin.

Barrett's confirmation shifts the Supreme Court further to the right, which could pave the way to conservative rulings curbing abortion rights, expanding gun rights and limiting voting rights, among other things.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said the Republican majority was "lighting its credibility on fire" by proceeding with the vote so close to the election after blocking Democratic President Barack Obama's election-year nominee in 2016.

"The truth is this nomination is part of a decades-long effort to tilt the judiciary to the far right," he added.

McConnell defended Barrett's nomination.

"We don't have any doubt, do we, that if the shoe was on the other foot, they'd be confirming," McConnell said. "You can't win them all, and elections have consequences."

Barrett, a federal appeals court judge, is Trump's third selection for the court, enabling him to remake it in dramatic fashion as part of his success in moving the broader federal judiciary to the right since taking office in 2017.

Barrett is expected to participate in arguments on Nov 10 in a case in which Trump and Republican-led states are seeking to invalidate the Affordable Care Act. The 2010 healthcare law, also known as Obamacare, has helped millions of Americans obtain medical insurance and barred private insurers from denying medical coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

Barrett has criticized previous rulings upholding Obamacare but said during her confirmation hearing she had no agenda to invalidate the measure.

During her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee two weeks ago, Barrett, a favorite of Christian conservatives, irked Democrats by sidestepping questions on abortion, presidential powers, climate change, voting rights, Obamacare and other issues.

The Sept. 26 Rose Garden ceremony at which Trump named Barrett as his nominee preceded a wave of COVID-19 cases among top Republicans including Trump and first lady Melania Trump. The president spent three nights hospitalized receiving COVID-19 treatment.

The event, part of which occurred in the White House Rose Garden, was crowded with guests, many of whom did not wear masks.

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows told reporters that Monday's event likely would be held outdoors.

"Tonight, we'll be doing the best we can to encourage as much social distancing as possible," Meadows said.

Senator Kevin Cramer, a Republican and Trump ally, said he was not overly concerned about attending the White House event.

"I would anticipate that everybody will practice good hygiene, social distancing, whatever is appropriate," Cramer told reporters.

Several other Republican senators said they were not sure they would attend, and McConnell did not reply when asked by a reporter. Earlier this month, McConnell said he had not been at the White House since August because of its handling of COVID-19 precautions.

© Thomson Reuters 2020.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

84 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

The MAJORITY of Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, approved of the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court because of her impeccable qualifications.

Congratulations to JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT!

-24 ( +17 / -41 )

Congratulations and well deserved!

AOC couldnt stand it anymore and came out publicly announcing Dem plans to pack the court. thanks for that too!

-9 ( +21 / -30 )

RBG's last dying request should have been honored. Shame on the GOP.

13 ( +30 / -17 )

This helps soften the blow for the coming Republican shellacking at the polls next week. A 6-3 (actually 5-4 minus liberal leaning Roberts) will be able to help stem the coming Socialist tide a bit. The conservatives have now become the counter-culture. Time to use the Dems tactics and sue at the drop of a hat. Time for the Left to feel the frustration of seeing their vision of a fundamentally transformed America get stamped out by the judiciary. Hope they enjoy it as much as the Right did when the shoe was on the other foot.

-21 ( +10 / -31 )

Regardless of Politics, making it to the Supreme Court is a difficult thing to do. Irregardless of where one stands, they still had to put in the work and the time to make it to this level.

5 ( +17 / -12 )

(actually 5-4 minus liberal leaning Roberts)

Roberts is most certainly conservative-leaning. But, he occasionally votes in ways that upset the far-right, as he appears to hold the principles of the Constitution in higher regard than politics. He's a lot like the retired Kennedy, who was replaced by Gorsuch. He's just not an extremist like Thomas and Alito. Nor, does he lean as hard as Kavanaugh or Gorsuch, who occasionally deviate from the assumed Conservative stance.

I hope Barrett turns out to be like Roberts or Kennedy, where everybody thought they were going to tow the extreme right-wing line, but choose to remain independent from it. Doubtful. But, one can hope.

It's weird how the far-right considers anyone who isn't crazy like them to be left-leaning, just because they might want equality or health care or, you know, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for all people.

8 ( +17 / -9 )

Time to expand the court.

Biden 2020

3 ( +22 / -19 )

This new justice and now a Supreme Court majority that actually believes in the words written in the Constitution as amended will help to defend the American Republic as a nation of law based on the individual rights all human beings are endowed. Socialism and Marxism are a horrible cancer that have blighted the world and caused so much human suffering over the last 200 years.

-12 ( +11 / -23 )

Time to expand the court.

Biden 2020

Good luck with that arch-Leftists.

-9 ( +16 / -25 )

Good luck with that arch-Leftists.

Oh, no! Not “arch-Leftists”! That really shows us.

Anyway, if the Dems take the senate and presidency whilst retaining the house, we could see an expanded court. It would be sad because it would be a further erosion of the judicial branch, but it would be understandable given McConnell denying Obama appointments.

-2 ( +14 / -16 )

Not a single institution exists on the federal level in the US whose actions are not guided or controlled by partisan politics. (Sorry for the double negative. But I give the US government a triple negative.)

5 ( +10 / -5 )

More reason to VOTE DEM, and expand the Court.

-8 ( +13 / -21 )

This new justice and now a Supreme Court majority that actually believes in the words written in the Constitution as amended will help to defend the American Republic as a nation of law based on the individual rights all human beings are endowed. 

Individual right of ALL human beings...

good to see you’re so well versed on the history of religion in politics, Wolfpack.

they don’t even have to pretend anymore

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

AOC couldnt stand it anymore and came out publicly announcing Dem plans to pack the court. thanks for that too!

oh but she wont be POTUS, seems like GOP has no credibility, dont rule anything out, nothing in the constitution that says how many judges there should be on the SCOTUS, GOP made their bed they better be prepared for what comes next

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

P. Smith

How does expanding the Court erode the judicial branch?

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Time to expand the court.

Biden 2020

they can do that, but they will still have to deal with the lower courts that is now becoming more conservative and they will have a battle on their hands, so the idea of a one party rule is not going to be as easy as they think.

Great day for Trump and a great day for America

-13 ( +13 / -26 )

RBG's last dying request should have been honored. Shame on the GOP.

No. RBG gave the shameless GOP the chance to destroy her legacy by not retiring back in 2015.

Never give the GOP a chance to be shameless hypocrites. They will always perform their duty to power and power alone. RBG knew this. But she thought she was indespenciible. An octonogerian with a history of two cancers.

She didn't beat the odds. She handed the Court to the Republicans. And that is the real shame.

7 ( +14 / -7 )

There will be 13 justices a year from now.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

oh but she wont be POTUS, seems like GOP has no credibility, dont rule anything out, nothing in the constitution that says how many judges there should be on the SCOTUS, GOP made their bed they better be prepared for what comes next

I see And if the roles were reversed and the Republicans would decide to pack the courts, you and I know the Democrats would go into a viper and senseless rage, and rightfully so and why would anyone want a one party rule of either political party? Only thing the Democrats want our activist judges, they could care less about the constitution and how it’s written or any democracy, we have a two party system in Dems could care less about it

-7 ( +8 / -15 )

Not one Democrat had the decency to vote to confirm this woman with impeccable credentials to the Supreme Court.

RBG's last dying request should have been honored*

We go by the Constitution which requires the president and the Senate to fill vacancies, not wait for the next elections and have the Supreme Court short for months.

Time to expand the court.

Um, that's not what RGB would have wanted. Look it up.

-7 ( +11 / -18 )

There will be 13 justices a year from now

We shall see

https://nypost.com/2020/09/25/why-the-democrats-wont-pack-the-supreme-court/

-7 ( +8 / -15 )

The court used to lean left. Now it leans right. And in the future it will probably lean left again. That't just the way it goes. Next time the White House and Senate are both controlled by the Democrats, they can do the same thing (and have, in the past).

Kentaro, I am not sure why you worry about the KKK. They are a laughably small fringe group with so few members they could barely fill a minor league hockey arena. You need some more accurate slogans.

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

Not one Democrat had the decency to vote to confirm this woman with impeccable credentials to the Supreme Court.

You dare lecture about decency??

hint: this is how you convince the other side to go scorched-earth when time for payback arrives.

ACB’s credentials are not the issue

1 ( +10 / -9 )

Sorry, but McConnell broke the system when he refused to consider Obama's choice then displayed his hypocrisy by confirming Trump's choice.

Gloves are off. Pack the courts.

3 ( +15 / -12 )

ChicanoinjapanToday 10:00 am JST

RBG's last dying request should have been honored. Shame on the GOP.

There is a Constitution to uphold, not "dying wishes".

Even RBG herself declared a president has a constitutuional right to nominate a justice during the last year of his presidency just as any other of the 3 years.

What a biases article by whomever. Is this Japan today's? The quality of the person makes a person. And the results and succeses it bears speak for themselves.

So much for tolerance and pro-female diatribe of the left.

garypenToday 10:14 am JST

It's weird how the far-right considers anyone who isn't crazy like them to be left-leaning, just because they might want equality or health care or, you know, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for all people.

Leftist want the goverment to provide the means AND gurantee life, liberty and happiness for "all", meaning "those who think like them", in other words, equality of outcome.

Whereas, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and rights for which the goverment should clear and pave the way so that each individual can fully and wholly pursue on their own volition, will and power. THAT is the American dream. Not having the goverment tell you waht your dreams are and then have those dreams realized handed down to you. The American Dream is Equality of oportunity, according to what each does with that opportunity the outcome will logically vary. There is only one iPhone creator and everybody who purchases one is declaring they want that item, and are okay with that maker getting billions of dollars whilst others do not. If you can equal outcome you would have to limit iPhone sales and force verybody to buy other makers by the same quota (and price) or make the technology open to all, thus destroying any future innovation as nobody would want to innovate only for their technology to be appropriated and commonalized .

if you eat all your vegetables at dinner you get dessert, if your sibling doesn't he doesn't get one. He had the same opportunity, he didn't make the must of it. He cannot get the same outcome. Is that simple.

-8 ( +7 / -15 )

The typical dirty play of republican cheaters. In order to be a true democracy a balance of power is necessary, (half liberal, half conservative), it's the equitable, the republicans are stealing democracy..

How? By dividing power? When the Supreme Court was predominantly liberal, you never heard conservatives wanting to pack the courts, the only thing that conservative said that they would do is hold more elections and try to get more Republicans nominated.

Trump and GOP are the cancer of America !!..

Riiiiight, Because they are the ones that want to pack the courts and they are the ones that want to abolish the filibuster and they are the ones that weren’t blanket amnesty for 11, million illegals and they want to abolish the second amendment. Sure, they are the cancer of America.

Time to defeat that fascist beasts and expand the court !!..

No Trump! No KKK! No Fascist USA !!..

Biden Harris 2020 !!..

Ok, so let’s make the judiciary a joke, screw the constitution and use the SC to legislate radical liberal policies, if they do this, this will as always down the line bite them in the end.

Never, It's a sad day for democracy,

No, it’s a great day, finally a real constitutionalist and a textualist is on the bench

-11 ( +7 / -18 )

SuperLibToday  10:19 am JST

Time to expand the court.

Biden 2020

Accept the fact that Barrett was nominated fair and square. Just because you don't like the result doesn't give your side an excuse to change the rules. If another SC justice dies or retires in 2025 or after, the Dems might get a chance to nominate their own candidate. Until then, get on with your lives. The world will not end.

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

Sorry, but McConnell broke the system when he refused to consider Obama's choice then displayed his hypocrisy by confirming Trump's choice.

You mean, cherry picking? Don’t get mad at Mitch, you should get mad at Harry Reid. Lol

He made it too easy for the GOP.

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

We go by the Constitution which requires the president and the Senate to fill vacancies, not wait for the next elections and have the Supreme Court short for months.

Where was the Senate in 2016 when Obama's supreme court nominee was denied? You can't have it both ways.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

Until then, get on with your lives. The world will not end.

and when the dems pack the courts with another 3~4 judges people will have to get on with their lives also. basic physics , for every action there a a corresponding reaction

1 ( +9 / -8 )

We go by the Constitution which requires the president and the Senate to fill vacancies, not wait for the next elections and have the Supreme Court short for months.

This is surprising news for Merrick Garland.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

A person who really is guided by Christian values would not accept a nomination under such politically sleazy and undemocratic circumstances. But a religious fanatic would not hesitate.

Way to fire up your political opposition a week before election day, GOP!

Right on!

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

ChicanoinjapanToday 10:00 am JST

RBG's last dying request should have been honored. Shame on the GOP.

There is a Constitution to uphold, not "dying wishes".

Even RBG herself declared a president has a constitutuional right to nominate a justice during the last year of his presidency just as any other of the 3 years.

What a biased article by whomever. Is this Japan Today's? The quality of the person makes a person. And the results and succeses it bears speak for themselves.

So much for tolerance and pro-female diatribe of the left.

        

garypenToday 10:14 am JST

It's weird how the far-right considers anyone who isn't crazy like them to be left-leaning, just because they might want equality or health care or, you know, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for all people.

Leftist want the goverment to provide the means AND gurantee life, liberty and happiness for "all"(meaning "those who think like them"), in other words, equality of outcome.

Whereas, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are rights for which the goverment should clear and pave the way so that each individual can fully and wholly pursue them on their own volition, will and power. THAT is the American dream. NOT having the goverment tell you what your dreams are and then have those dreams realized handed down to you. The American Dream is Equality of Oportunity, according to what each does with that opportunity the outcome will logically vary. There is only one iPhone creator and everybody who purchases one is declaring they want that item, and are okay with that maker getting billions of dollars whilst other makers do not. If you want equal outcome you would have to limit iPhone sales and force verybody to buy other makers by the same quota (and price); or make the technology open to all makers, thus destroying any future innovation as nobody would want to innovate only for their technology to be appropriated and commonalized .

If you eat all your vegetables at dinner you get dessert, if your sibling doesn't he doesn't get one. He had the same opportunity, he didn't make the most of it. He cannot get the same outcome. Is that simple.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Ok, so let’s make the judiciary a joke, screw the constitution

oh please Trump does that every chance he gets. lol

0 ( +7 / -7 )

lol. Conservatives spouting off about "upholding the constitution" now compared to 4 years ago when they were up in arms over Obama's supreme court nominee. You guys tickle my funny bone.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

lol. Conservatives spouting off about "upholding the constitution" now compared to 4 years ago when they were up in arms over Obama's supreme court nominee. You guys tickle my funny bone.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

and when the dems pack the courts with another 3~4 judges people will have to get on with their lives also. basic physics , for every action there a a corresponding reaction

And for the reaction will also be a reaction for that as well

oh please Trump does that every chance he gets. lol

No, The Dems were the ones that had a hissy fit and a temper tantrum and walked out of the chambers during the vote counts, Republicans have never done that for any Democrat nominee, whether they agreed with them or not

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

Ok, so let’s make the judiciary a joke

Ok, done...

 If another SC justice dies or retires in 2025 or after,

I think you mean next year or after. Not even Mitch McConnell thinks his team is going to win next month.

“A lot of what we’ve done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election,” the majority leader said on the Senate floor. 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/oct/25/mitch-mcconnell-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-republicans-democrats-mike-pence-covid

At home and abroad, the US seems to stick to the Might is Right principle.

Sad, and distasteful. Whichever way you lean.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

Barrett in, Trump out... that's how Republicans and Democrats try to compromise themselves...

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

 If another SC justice dies or retires in 2025 or after,

I think you mean next year or after. Not even Mitch McConnell thinks his team is going to win next month.

No, it’s 50/50 he said, it can go either way. The Guardian is taking one quote from Mitch, but in reality we really don’t know and neither does he even with all the money Soros is pouring in to buy out the GOP. But I don’t think it will help, putting Barrett on the bench will.

At home and abroad, the US seems to stick to the Might is Right principle.

Sad, and distasteful. Whichever way you lean.

It’s nice to hear the political opinions of our allies and adversaries abroad.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

Like thieves in the night.

6 ( +13 / -7 )

So strange that Republicans expect Democrats to "play nice" after the stunts they've pulled.

11 ( +16 / -5 )

So strange that Republicans expect Democrats to "play nice" after the stunts they've pulled.

I’m trying to think of a time when Dems played nice....

Nope, can’t recall and I’ve been on this earth a very long time.

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

So strange that Republicans expect Democrats to "play nice" after the stunts they've pulled.

do as i say, dont do as i do, lol yeah right

2 ( +6 / -4 )

kurumazaka: good to see you’re so well versed on the history of religion in politics, Wolfpack.

I am not a religious person. I just believe that all lives matter. You don’t have to be a devoutly religious person to have that point of view - but thanks for assuming you know what I believe just because I believe in individual liberty.

they don’t even have to pretend anymore

Pretend what?

No. RBG gave the shameless GOP the chance to destroy her legacy by not retiring back in 2015.

Exactly. Ginsburg took a big gamble with her health history and she list. The loss of a Liberal justice is completely on her bad judgement. I still think Justice Thomas should have retired last year. He has been on the Court for a very long time. Could have put in a young firebrand conservative in his place. Just hope he continues to stay healthy for another 10 to 20 years.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Well I guess the McConnell precedent dictates that any action that is not iegal is fine. Nothing the GOP can object to any more.

So if Biden wins with the senate as well; pack the court and add DC and PR as states and carry on. Let the race to the bottom continue. I predict America will both win and lose.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The American Constitution is silent about how many Justices should be on the Supreme Court.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

If all us minorities will just get back on the plantation... after all "you ain't black if you don't vote democrat!"... we can vote in the democrats. They can pack the court. Right this injustice and all will be right in the land of the then even less free. Uncle Joe will give us our checks and give us our cheeses and we will all be fat and happy as we quickly sink into the mire of socialism.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Twitter for the win:

The 22nd Amendment -which limits Presidents to two terms - is only 70 years old

If the left is going to talk about packing the court - which has been at nine justices for over 150 years - why can’t we talk about getting Trump a third term?

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

This helps soften the blow for the coming Republican shellacking at the polls next week. A 6-3 (actually 5-4 minus liberal leaning Roberts) will be able to help stem the coming Socialist tide a bit. The conservatives have now become the counter-culture.

Yup, when we look back next year after Covid has disappeared and the swamp drained, we'll understand that ACB's nomination by an impeached and delinquent lame-duck Potus just weeks before an election to choose a president, will prove to be the last nail in the Republican's coffin.

A person who really is guided by Christian values would not accept a nomination under such politically sleazy and undemocratic circumstances. But a religious fanatic would not hesitate.

Oh, the IRONY! And this will not go unnoticed when Trump is hauled into the courts next year as a lifetime criminal who has made a career out of breaking all and any of the laws of the land he holds in contempt, if they adversely affect his pecuniary self-interest. Then Trump's Amy will have to recuse herself.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Gorsuch has also gone with the lib judges in some cases. Nothing is written in stone.

She's qualified. That's the main thing. Dems want to pack the court...they shouldn't be pointing fingers.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

@noriahojanen: Barrett in, Trump out... that's how Republicans and Democrats try to compromise themselves...

That’s sort of the way I see it. A win-win for everyone.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

*@u_s_reamer "Oh, the IRONY! And this will not go unnoticed when Trump is hauled into the courts next year as a lifetime criminal who has made a career out of breaking all and any of the laws of the land he holds in contempt," *

You've got to be silly if you ever think any politician at the national level would have another prosecuted. Think of the precedent! What happens when their own time is up and someone exposes their crimes? If that ever started every politician out there would end up in jail!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@Wolfpack,

Could be but Trump'll most likely win.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

And the litany of Repubs who swore in 2016 that replacing a SCOTUS judge in an election year is blasphemy will play over and over in infamy...

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' " he said in 2016 shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. "And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."

Lindsey, you'll have more time to listen to how "right" your opponent was when you're tossed out on Nov 3rd...

0 ( +6 / -6 )

so if court packing is ok, why dont Repubs just do it now?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

This new justice and now a Supreme Court majority that actually believes in the words written in the Constitution as amended will help to defend the American Republic as a nation of law based on the individual rights all human beings are endowed. 

Show me in the text of the constitution where the right to privacy exists. Hint: It’s not in the text of the constitution.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Why not just develop a justice AI which would be impartial to human emotions and judge based on the letter of the constitution and facts, and replace the supreme court with that. Oh that's right, technology is all owned by lib dems and would be unfair to conservatives, waah waah.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

so if court packing is ok, why dont Repubs just do it now?

I would hope the answer is that they don’t because it would further erode the judiciary and republicans have done that enough with McConnell’s brilliant political move of denying Obama appointments.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

but Dems are going to do it still, no?

wouldnt that "erode the judiciary" too?

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

The 22nd Amendment -which limits Presidents to two terms - is only 70 years old

If the left is going to talk about packing the court - which has been at nine justices for over 150 years - why can’t we talk about getting Trump a third term?

Hint: Presidential term limits are actually written into the constitution whereas the number of SCOTUS justices isn’t. So, talk all you want, but good luck trying to change the constitution.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@The Avenger Do you know anything of Christian values?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Hint: Presidential term limits are actually written into the constitution whereas the number of SCOTUS justices isn’t. So, talk all you want, but good luck trying to change the constitution

FDR tried it and failed miserably and even RBG is against it, so the Democrats can try and make a mockery out of the judiciary.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Why not introduce term limits for all levels of government? If the president is limited to 2 terms, shouldn't all other branches get the same treatment?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Lol this guy doesn't think an amendment is part of the constitution.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Democracy was stolen !!..

Time to expand the court !!..

Let's end this nightmare voting out Trump Nov3 !!

Biden Harris 2020 !!..

0 ( +6 / -6 )

I suppose what I don't understand is the if she is so impeccably qualified and that her confirmation is also a "victory for women", then why was she not nominated to take the seat vacated by Antonin Scalia, or by Anthony Kennedy? Seems to me that this incredibly qualified judge waited in line behind two mediocre white male candidates to fill the seat vacated by another woman.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

She's qualified. That's the main thing. Dems want to pack the court...they shouldn't be pointing fingers.

Won’t argue that. she’s certainly qualified.

Dems most certainly do not want to pack the Court, or dump the Filibuster for that matter. The old guard in particular are real big on revering the institutions. Without such institutions working under rules and norms accepted as legitimate by all involved, you cannot have government of, by and for the people. McConnell violated no rule, but he has spend the last 8 years obliterating norms.

Nobody wants to start tit for tat court packing, and removing the filibuster to do so cuts both ways. The question is minority rule, that little issue republicans don’t want to mention, and whether court packing is the only way to thwart that.

BlacklabelToday  12:42 pm JST

so if court packing is ok, why dont Repubs just do it now?

This is disingenuous by your standards.

what would you call Mitch’s Senate Schedule for the past 4 years? Lots and lots and lots of judges, including some who won’t say Brown v Board of Ed was properly litigated, or support segregationist legal arguments. It ain’t an accident...

2 ( +4 / -2 )

What a stunning victory for President Trump and America, both.

ACB gives the courts a 6-3 conservative edge for years to come.

Let the zany left cry about packing the courts all the like. Polls show the majority of Americans are against it. The more Democrats threaten to do so, the more voters will be voting for a Trump second term.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

bob

What a stunning victory for President Trump and America, both.

ACB gives the courts a 6-3 conservative edge for years to come.

Does she? I understand one of the Trump appointees regularly sides with the activists. So it seems to be at best she restores a 5-4 balance.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Does she? I understand one of the Trump appointees regularly sides with the activists. 

What does "activist" mean here?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Let the zany left cry about packing the courts all the like. Polls show the majority of Americans are against it. The more Democrats threaten to do so, the more voters will be voting for a Trump second term.

Yup, just imagine, 6-3 on the court plus 4 more years for Trump to throw all his enemies in prison.

Kabul was a somewhat progressive modern city in the early 70’s. Then their version of the religious right seized total power.

It can happen.

any guesses on what would have happened to a gay marriage advocate in the America of 1787, for all you “constitutionalists?”

hell, I know what would have happened to one in the rural Arizona of 1987...

0 ( +4 / -4 )

but Dems are going to do it still, no? 

I don’t know because I can’t read minds.

wouldnt that "erode the judiciary" too?

It would, which is the real issue. I don’t care which party started the erosion, I care that it’s happening.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

All the hysteria seems misplaced.  she seems like a pretty straight up and down legal scholar and practitioner.  And things like abortion and gay marriage and the like are already so baked in to US society it is inconceivable she will make a difference to the current situation.  she might dig in on very late term abortion and she might stop the erosion of gun rights, but otherwise seems to me much of the hysteria is more projection by the Dems.

Much like Russia and Ukraine and all the other accusations that turn out to have been not only false but also exactly what they were doing.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

The oath that I have solemnly taken tonight means at its core I will do the job without fear or favor and do it independently of the political branches and of my own preferences.

Except she wasn't able to articulate during her Senate confirmation hearings the most basic of civics lessons taught in grade-school, as to what are the five freedoms that are protected under the First Amendment - she got four of the five (for those who don't know its: religion, press, assembly, petition/protest, and speech). I suppose she'll eventually learn all (or at least most of) the Amendments of the Consitution while on-the-job, since she has a lifetime to figure it out.

So much for being a "Constituational Textualist" as she likes to harp about. The irony of Barrett not remembering the basic right to protest isn't lost on us. Hopefully she'll eventually learn the Amendments when her defenders are seeking her support on such matters, when they are eventually in the minority. This isn't being petty - its an expectation that's being asked for anyone applying for citizenship of the USA.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Great news! Shows that there is still hope for America!

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

she might dig in on very late term abortion

Only 8 states and the District of Columbia allow late-term abortions. The other 42 states only allow late term abortions when their is a verified medical necessity. This means there isn’t very much farther to dig in.

and she might stop the erosion of gun rights,

The horrors of needing to pass a background check to buy a firearm!

but otherwise seems to me much of the hysteria is more projection by the Dems.

Projection of the irritation of republicans rank hypocrisy.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

PS

Except that the court has previously shown that it moves once it sees a broader consensus at state level (like on gay marriage) so if more states moved to allow late term abortion she might be inclined to dig in if it made it to SCOTUS as a case.....

Gun rights are not just background checks. Beto wants to take away (compulsory purchase) many types of firearm.

Nope projection of their own intentions to use the court for political ends.

Any luck SCOTUS will stick to applying and interpreting the law and so force the legislature to actually write proper laws in line with what the electorate want.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Does she? I understand one of the Trump appointees regularly sides with the activists. So it seems to be at best she restores a 5-4 balance.

This is true. Roberts HAS been a disappointment by pandering to the activists. lets say 5 and a half to 3 and a half.

Either way, its a majority for a long time to come

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

A woman replaced a woman on the SC. Somewhere, RBG is nodding in approval.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

This is true. Roberts HAS been a disappointment by pandering to the activists. 

Again, what does "activist" mean in this context?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

This is destined to change the balance of the court for months to come...

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Democracy was stolen !!..

Time to expand the court !!..

No democracy wasn’t stolen, but the Democrats were trying to take it away from ACB.

Let's end this nightmare voting out Trump Nov3 !!

They can try to expand the courts, but as usual the Democrats will end up regretting it.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

This is true. Roberts HAS been a disappointment by pandering to the activists. 

Again, what does "activist" mean in this context?

Sneezy, it would seem anyone who holds the organic document view of constitutional law is an activist, Only “constitutionalists” (the Fox News term for strict constructionists) are “real Americans,”

They can try to expand the courts, but as usual the Democrats will end up regretting it.

Agree Bass, that court packing is, to put it mildly, “less than desirable.” The “non-right” has no good options. Break revered institutions even more than they already are or accept 30 years of minority rule.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites