Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 6
The following link is a pretty good review of the judicial and personal history of Trump's SCOTUS nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, from the left leaning USA Today. They don't endorse her, but come pretty close to it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/05/amy-...

Here are a couple of excerpts....

Given the national conversation about racial injustice, senators could attempt to push Barrett on her originalism, said Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler, who hosted the judge last year for a lecture.

“I would not be surprised if opponents misrepresent or caricature originalism on incendiary topics,” Adler said. “The fact that some founders had retrograde views on a range of subjects doesn’t control what the text itself means.”


Helen Alvaré, a law professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, went on to say...

“I have no illusions the hand-wringing about her views on stare decisis are wedded to Roe,” Alvaré said, referring to the legal principle of following precedent. “But her comments on stare decisis are better read in context, and they’re nuanced.”

Another position she has spoken of in the past...

"A judge’s view about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act should not turn on whether he or she thinks the act is good or bad policy,” Barrett told the Princeton crowd. “(It) should turn on whether the Constitution permits or forbids it. A judge’s role is properly above the political fray, with a duty to the law before personal loyalties.”

Reading through this, I get the sense ACB knows of what she speaks, she speaks thoroughly and passionately about the importance of separating the personal belief from Judicial Accuracy and staying fixed on the Constitution and what it stands for. But the left has virtually taken an oath to unseat her nomination...at all costs.

Come Monday, Oct 12, you can bet where I'll be beginning 6 AM PST.

BruceM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
(It) should turn on whether the Constitution permits or forbids it.

It is permitted--as the US Congress voted in 1798. Mandatory health care insurance paid by the insured. This was posted previously and could not be refuted then--or now.
Print the post Back To Top