Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
All Things Being Equal: Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS
“This year will be remembered as an especially auspicious time for the Supreme Court. President Trump is in a position to pick the next Justice from a list of extremely qualified jurists.” So says Leonard Leo, who was a key person putting together the list for President Trump. In an interview, he made clear his requirements and expectations:
What is important is that we have a judiciary occupied by individuals who understand … they have a duty and a moral obligation to enforce the structural Constitution. They have a duty to make sure that limits on government power are respected and enforced, and when they carry out that duty or obligation, they are in a myriad of ways preserving the worth and dignity of every human person. Because if you have a system where government can do anything, if you have a system where rights that aren’t in the Constitution can be created and things that are in it can be ignored, no one is safe.
The people on the qualifications list meet those requirements at a minimum. In fact, they are so well-qualified that many people are making their recommendations for Trump’s pick to separate the golden wheat from the less golden chaff. There is one person who has a unique combination of qualifications that no one else has, and that is Amy Coney Barrett.
First, I liked her ability and composure in taking on Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin when they were giving Ms. Barrett the third degree (called an interview in the normal nomenclature) when she was being considered for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. They were trying to put her through a “religious test,” even though they denied doing so when challenged by National Review. Clearly, her religiosity annoyed these senators and probably bothered other Democrats as well. Meanwhile, Ms. Barrett was confirmed. I also like the fact that she has been willing to live her religion through her speeches, and at the same time has stated that “Catholic judges should recuse themselves if personal convictions would impede their ability to do their job.”
My second reason for recommending Ms. Barrett is precisely because she is a religious, conservative woman. I’m not supporting her for archaic feminist reasons (whenever you can get a woman, put her in), but because the Left has specifically shown disdain for smart, successful conservative women. A person doesn’t have to wonder why Pam Bondi, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders were targeted recently to be harassed. These women defy Leftist norms: that women shouldn’t hold conservative values and if by chance they do, they must be ridiculed and persecuted.
So for all those on the Left who hold intelligent, religious and conservative women in disdain, take note. If Amy Coney Barrett is selected for SCOTUS, she will be representing the smart conservative women in our country, and the men who love and celebrate them.
Live with it.
Published in Culture
She is 100% my pick also!
No. Jurisprudence is about more than being trendy, as approved elsewhere. Nor is it about a disagreement with Sen. Feinstein.
Less than a year on an appellate court doesn’t work for me for the respect that SCOTUS deserves.
Thanks, Doug. The more read about the lady, the more excited I am to have her on the court.
(And, let’s face it: She is not a strain on the eyes!) :-)
Hugh Hewitt says the same thing. He is a Constitutional Law Professor, and says that we no need another Justice from Harvard or Yale.
She is great, and should replace Ginsburg. The nominee will be Thapar.
With all respect to Hewitt, that’s a ridiculous generalization.
But, for the record, Joan Larsen is a graduate of Northern Iowa U.
Susan Quinn said the much the same thing. I notice you didn’t go after. But a Con Law Professor you do. I am sure your credentials are overwhelming!
I don’t care if she’s as hot as Melania, that she’ll drive the Democrats crazy or not, or if she’s a Druid.
What are her opinions on birthright citizenship, the limits of the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, capital punishment, affirmative action and judicial overreach?
Does she believe that a right to homosexual marriage is in the Constitution? What about polygamy? What about pederasty?
Does she support the Baker v Carr and Reynolds v Sims decisions on state reapportionment or do states have the same rights of organizing voting jurisdictions as the federal government?
Does she think Brown v Board of Education was correctly decided or was it based on quack science?
Do the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 65 violate the freedom of association of Americans?
A few more. Who does she think determines federal policy at our borders? Are sanctuary cities legitimate?
Do non-citizens have Constitutional rights? Is there a right to immigrate to America?
Is having to show identification as a citizen in order to vote an infringement on one’s constitutional rights?
Under what circumstances is prayer allowed in a public school?
Finally, Red Sox or the Evil Empire?
Big improvement over Associate Justice Portman.
Kids pray all the time in public school. Oh please God grant me a substitute teacher because my essay has not been completed. If in your infinite wisdom my teacher has not suffered a compound fracture, please intercede on our behalf and spare us a pop quiz on the material we should have studied in the last three weeks.
Amen
If nominated Barrett should be the Ginsberg replacement. Kennedy will be easier to replace since he was a Republican pick and was supposed to have been a constitutional conservative.
She seems like a constitutionalist and lives a conservative life. I don’t how lasting the identity politics with a supreme court picks is. I remember Bill Kristol before he went crazy wrote an article about how penny ante stakes of identity politics in supreme court battles never really delivering any political benefits. Always pick the best jurists is the most sound method to avoid someone growing into a progressive. Avoiding personal relationships that produced Souter and Kennedy is key to getting this right and is the way to win.
NR’s Michael Brendan Dougherty just checked in on the possibility of a Barrett nomination.
He’s for it, for all the cosmetic reasons.
God, no wonder why we mess these things up so often.
Litmus tests, LITMUS TESTS, LITMUS TESTS!
I think he’s referring to corporate, public prayer.
I just discovered she’s not qualified. She didn’t go to Harvard or Yale . . .
I linked to Dougherty’s article above. One problem is that it’s hard to apply litmus tests because most judges studiously avoid taking positions that they know will be raised at hearings and aren’t presented with “hot button” cases because there aren’t enough of them to go around. Of course, the issue is exaggerated for those who haven’t been on the bench for very long.
If we don’t know exactly where she stands on the issues important to the conservative agenda for governing America, then neither she nor anyone else like that should be nominated, let alone confirmed.
For 30-year appointments to the Court conservatives deserve sure things, not question marks who look good, frustrate Democratic obstructionism or whom somebody vouches for. To paraphrase a well-known maxim, “That’s how you got Roberts, O’Connor and Souter.”
Democrats know for dead certain how their nominees will vote on the crucial dividing issues of the day. They never make a mistake because they are comfortable and confident with demanding fidelity to their agenda, up and down the line.
We are led by diffident weaklings who try to finesse these things. It’s as if they are embarrassed to stand up and proclaim what they want from the people who, in many cases (pun intended) write the laws we all live by.
Peter Robinson and Mark White just exhibited that kind of “shy conservatism” on the Flagship. They don’t know where exactly Barrett stands, but boy, she’ll drive the Democrats crazy!
I repeat: LITMUS TESTS. Conservatives should be as sure as liberals were of Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Breyer. No more ideological or philosophical conservatives, sailing about in the ether of “originalism,” ready to drift left with the next strong wind. We want agenda conservatives. We deserve it.
Forget “deserve.” We demand it.
That, in a lot of ways, is why I regard Mike Lee as the “safest” choice.
@hoyacon
”That, in a lot of ways, is why I regard Mike Lee as the “safest” choice.”
And that, in a lot of ways, is why I regard Ann Coulter as the “best” choice.
Play it safe or go for the best – I guess it’s an individual’s attitude.
If we get a woman, I have every intention of making her a tatted collar to rival RBG’s. I should better get started.
I don’t have a particular problem with the court finding rights that weren’t listed in the Constitution; the reason some opposed the Bill of Rights is that they thought rights would be limited to those that were listed, and that has apparently turned out to be the case. In my opinion, if a right is not specifically denied by the Constitution, then we have it. I’m a big believer in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. I have no problem with the right to privacy. I have a big problem with the court ignoring or misinterpreting things that are actually in the Constitution.
I mostly agree, but that’s a question for the legislative branch. The Ninth Amendment was not intended as a means by which the courts could declare anything they wanted to be a right.
There are never certainties, @freesmith. Leonard Leo and his colleagues put a huge amount of effort into selecting these 25 people, and given the huge number of talented people out there, I suspect the meet the criteria you are so concerned with. Not only that, I’d bet most of the people being considered haven’t even tried all the types of cases you mention.
I don’t care if she’s Christian. I don’t care if she’s female. I don’t care if she’ll drive the liberals crazy.
Will she follow the Constitution, as written, including the parts that have been pretended away (property rights, federalism, etc.), and do so with a rock-ribbed resistance to “evolving” to the left?
I don’t want an emotionally-driven, outcome-based justice who happens to be right wing in a misguided attempt to balance the emotionally-driven, outcome-based left-wing justices.
Enforce the Constitution. Restrain the federal government. If that’s Barrett, great. If not, choose someone else.
You didn’t say “him or herself.” Now you will be in trouble.
Then let a man follow Ginsburg. I don’t like the idea of “women’s seats” any more than I liked the “Jewish seat” of two generations ago.
Same way any other non-Jew would.
She isn’t.
I disagree strongly with Randy. And I don’t know why Umbra said he agrees, and then went on to mostly disagree. I think Randy is misinterpreting the ninth and tenth Amendments. They speak to States Rights. They have nothing to do with the Supreme Court making up rights.
The abortion thing came out of Griswald, which, I believe, was wrongly decided. It had to do with denying people the right to contraceptives. Now, of course that is wrong. But take it up with the legislature. The courts have no business dealing with these issues. Randy is right about the Court getting it wrong about what the Constitution says. But don’t say it is ok to make things up that aren’t in there. Both are mischievous, and both need to be turned around.
Only to those who aren’t old school when it comes using to male gender for neutral statements. “Him or her” or “he/she” are awkward in written and oral communication . . .
@terrymott, you know that I didn’t pick her just because she’s Christian, or because she’s female or because she’ll drive liberals crazy. The whole point of the post is that, based on the careful screening done by Leonard Leo and his associates, all the candidates are excellent and should do all the things you demand. Since all of them appear to fit the bill, I was explaining, therefore, why I would want her seriously considered. Please don’t act like I was petty in my recommendation. And unless anyone here has a crystal ball, there’s no way to guarantee how she will behave on the Court.