Amy Barrett's Senate Judiciary Questionnaire for 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

[DonaldsRump]

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Barrett%20SJQ(PUBLIC).pdf

(note: I can't get the link to post properly. Copy the whole link above, including the .pdf part, into your browser, and it will take you her questionnaire)


This is a fascinating read from Amy Barrett's Senate Judiciary confirmation for her current role as a federal appellate judge.

She's pretty distinguished. My take is that she will get confirmed. I'm not happy about that, but on paper, she is strong, and the Rs have the votes to ram this through.

Interestingly, she worked on Bush v. Gore (for W, of course) and worked with Neal Katyal on a document relation to constitutional law (Katyal was BHO's Acting Solicitor General, and he supported Barrett for her judicial nomination.)

[samnsara]

1. she will be confirmed...can and will joe expand the courts?

[DonaldsRump]

2. Agreed....yes and hope so

[Rule of Claw]

3. She Has Very Little

chance to be confirmed before the election. She has slammed Robert's ruling on ACA and pre-ruled against it. Her feelings are clear.

So now Tillis, Gardner, Collins, and McSally have to be asked, in the middle of a pandemic, prior to the election, are you really going to vote for a woman who has now been discovered to be explicit in her willingness to take away health protections? No way Mitch makes them land on that political sword when this is something that can be done in the lame duck session.

She is in the truest sense, politically radioactive.

I am going to be emailing this scholarly article to their respective offices.

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2330&context=law_faculty_scholarship

Link to tweet

?s=20

[DonaldsRump]

4. I wasn't commenting on when she gets confirmed

But I tend to agree with you....however, I do think it is quite possible that there will be Senate Judiciary Committee hearings before the election.

[Rule of Claw]

5. That would be interesting.

"Trump's SC nominee on ACA "beyond plausible meaning" "Robert's constitutional avoidance."

"Just days before the election Republicans are supporting the nomination who has already said, essentially, the ACA, and pre-existing protections should be thrown out."

We'll see. I say they come up with some excuse, maybe Covid stimulus, or something to push the hearings after the election. I don't think any of these writings will sway votes after the election, they might prevent a vote before.

She worships Scalia and praises that Scalia dissent in the article. She leaves no wiggle room for slithery politicians. Lagoa could have been confirmed before election- but no-had to go for the fundies.

Thing is fundies have pre-existing conditions too.

[DonaldsRump]

6. Lagao would be a much better choice for Trump

The thing is, it might not be Trump's decision....McConnell might be making it for Trump, saying we will ram the Barrett nomination through, but not Lagao.

Who knows with this crowd? Whatever they do, the right and correct thing to do is the opposite of that.

[Bluepinky]

7. As a conservative Republican woman, shouldn't she be home with her 7 children?

I don’t mean to stereotype, but she’s all about taking choices away from other women, how is it that she has 7 children and isn’t spending her time at home with them?