Extremely "conservative", overly religious people have led some of the worst aspects in history in many countries. Expecting common sense out of such situations is wishful thinking. However, apparently in the current American system it doesn't matter what you think. Trump decides if the election is acceptable, Trump decides the make up of the Supreme Court. The supposed "checks and balances" that people talk about don't seem to exist under Trump.
It is however an interesting world. The aforementioned "liberal court" was headed up by Earl Warren who was a conservative until he wasn't. I am pretty sure that the libs were are pretty happy with the Warren court. Of course Warren is also the guy who played a leadership role in removing Japanese American citizens to concentration camps en masse. I would not want that on my resume if being confirmed nowadays. No punchline.
There are all sorts of wild claims being made about Judge Amy Barrett pushed by left-wing groups on social media. All the claims are false. Fact check: Facebook post wrong about Judge Amy Barrett https://www.wral.com/fact-check-facebook-post-wrong-about-judge-amy-barrett/19309386/ A few days before Judge Amy Coney Barrett met with President Trump at the White House, posts on Facebook mischaracterized her religious convictions and claimed she has made racist and homophobic statements. Barrett, a Catholic conservative judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal in Chicago, is on the shortlist of names that Trump could nominate for the Supreme Court. The seat opened when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Sept. 18. Some claims on Facebook offered false takes on her record. "Amy Barret said gays have a right to be discriminated against because they are against Gods wishes and won't be allowed. Heaven," one Facebook user wrote, misspelling her last name and omitting punctuation. "Amy Barret says white people are Gods chosen ones. Minorities must submit to them and that's Gods plan. Obedience," reads another post from the same user. To be clear: Barrett never said either of these things. These Facebook posts were flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. A review of her judicial opinions, public statements and academic writing hasn’t produced any quotes along these lines. Barrett clerked for late Justice Antonin Scalia before joining the faculty of Notre Dame Law School, where she taught for 15 years. Trump nominated her to the appellate court in 2017. Barrett has a limited judicial record compared with other Supreme Court nominees that Trump is reportedly considering. Timothy R. Johnson, a professor of political science and law at the University of Minnesota, told PolitiFact that Barrett’s relatively sparse paper trail makes it difficult to predict how she’ll rule if nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court. Religious background Barrett has described herself as a devout Catholic. A liberal group on Instagram warning against her potential nomination pointed out her involvement in a Christian group called People of Praise. The New York Times reported that the group supports gender roles where husbands have authority over their wives. Democratic senators have pointed to an article she co-wrote early in her career as reason for concern that she would not work with impartiality. The article argued that Catholic judges should have the right to recuse themselves from cases that conflict with their personal beliefs, such as those involving the death penalty. During her confirmation hearing for the appeals court, Barrett pushed back, saying that she "would never impose my own personal convictions upon the law." Barrett’s supporters have said the controversy over her religious beliefs is a form of anti-Catholic bias, pointing out that other members of the court are Catholics. What LGBTQ and abortion rights organizations say Barrett never said that "gays have a right to be discriminated against." But LGBTQ rights and abortion rights organizations have criticized her past appointment. In 2017, the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a civil rights organization that focuses on LGBTQ communities, penned an open letter to U.S. senators opposing Barrett’s appointment to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Lambda Legal took issue with a letter that Barrett had signed that defined marriage as the "indissoluble commitment between a man and a woman," and a talk that she gave at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal organization that opposes LGBTQ rights. Supporters of abortion rights are concerned about Barrett’s abortion views. In a 2013 interview, Barrett said that she believes that life begins at conception. In an article, she wrote that the Catholic Church’s views on prohibiting abortion are "absolute" because they "take away innocent life." She has ruled against abortion rights in the two abortion cases that she has heard on the bench. Finally, the post claims Barrett has white supremacist views. We found no evidence of that in a review of Barret’s record. PolitiFact ruling: FALSE Facebook posts claim that Barrett said that "gays have a right to be discriminated against because they are against Gods wishes" and that "white people are Gods chosen ones." Barrett has never said anything along these lines. We rate these posts False.
Dems Can’t Block Barrett—So They’ll Use Her as 2020 Cudgel By linking a vote for Trump SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett with a vote against health care, Democrats hope to hurt Republicans’ chances on the campaign trail. https://www.thedailybeast.com/democ...-so-they-will-use-her-as-2020-cudgel?ref=home
" Aside from dissenters like Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the GOP has enthusiastically gotten behind the obvious opportunity to tilt the balance of the high court in a conservative direction" Just to keep a finer point on this, the aforementioned "dissenters" have not said that they will vote against Barrett, only that they oppose holding a vote before the election. Neither has said that she vote against Barrett if an earlier vote is held. The goal of course is to get enough votes to confirm Barrett without losing control of the Senate. Thus, having the votes, the president and mitch are more or less letting them "vote their conscience" - ie. what they need to do to get re-elected. My guess, again, is that Murkowsky will go and stays on record of opposing and early vote but will nevertheless vote for Barrett if an early vote is held. Susan Collns on the other hand will abstain- even though there is not a person in the Senate who would otherwise support Barrett more. It's her only shot at getting re-elected and she, Trump, and Mitch want her to hold that seat, which is very shaky right now. I know Susan so tend to defend her and do realize that the obligatory statements about her being a fence-sitter and a rino will arise. To which I say, "in the end, who was the one who rose to make the speech that got Kavanaugh confirmed, even though it would most likely cost her her seat in the next election?" Correct. Susan Collins. She took one for the team.
Yes, it's going to hurt for a long time. But he says that like it's a bad thing. REMEMBER KAVANAUGH! John Oliver on Amy Coney Barrett's likely confirmation: 'It's going to hurt for a long time' https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/sep/28/john-oliver-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court
The replacement of Ruthie's legacy continues. Just posting this here to piss the lefties off. How can that be a bad thing? Amy Coney Barrett: A New Feminist Icon Feminism is changing, and Barrett’s replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg will show how. https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...tt-supreme-court-nominee-feminist-icon-422059