Trump to nominate conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Ginsburg, sources say

[rooster59]

Trump to nominate conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Ginsburg, sources say

By Steve Holland and Lawrence Hurley

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a law professor at Notre Dame University, poses in an undated photograph obtained from Notre Dame University September 19, 2020. Matt Cashore/Notre Dame University/Handout via REUTERS

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump plans on Saturday to name conservative federal appeals court judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, two sources said on Friday.

 

His decision, which comes a week after the liberal icon's death at age 87, sets the stage for what promises to be a bitter confirmation fight in the U.S. Senate, which is controlled by Trump's fellow Republicans. Trump has asked Senate Republicans to confirm his nominee ahead of the Nov. 3 U.S. election, when he seeks a second term in office and Democrats aim to seize control of the chamber.

 

Barrett, 48, was appointed by Trump to the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017 and is known for her conservative religious views. Supreme Court justices are given lifetime appointments.

 

If confirmed by the Senate, she would become the fifth woman to serve on the high court while expanding its conservative majority to a rock-solid 6-3.

 

Trump plans a formal introduction at the White House on Saturday. Two sources confirmed on Friday that Trump plans to nominate Barrett, but warned that Trump could change his mind. Trump himself told reporters on Friday that he had made his decision, but declined to say who his pick was.

 

Barrett has been viewed as a frontrunner throughout, along with fellow federal appeals court judge Barbara Lagoa.

Barrett previously served as a clerk to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016.

 

Trump said he did not meet with Lagoa during a campaign trip to Florida.

 

As an appellate judge, Barrett has staked out conservative legal positions on key hot-button issues in three years on the bench, showing support for expansive gun rights and a hardline Trump immigration policy while bolstering the rights of college students accused of campus sexual assaults.

 

Abortion rights groups have expressed concern that on the Supreme Court Barrett could help overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

 

A CLEAR PATH

 

Trump's nominee has what appears to be a clear path to Senate confirmation, with Republicans holding a 53-47 majority in the chamber and only two senators in his party indicating opposition to moving forward with the process.

 

Democrats have objected to the Senate acting on Trump's nominee in light of the decision by Republicans in the chamber in 2016 to refuse to consider Democratic President Barack Obama's nominee to replace Scalia after he died during a presidential election year.

 

A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that a majority of Americans think the winner of the November election should get to nominate Ginsburg's successor.

 

Ginsburg, a champion of gender equality and various liberal causes, made history again on Friday as the first woman and first Jewish person to lie in state in the U.S. Capitol. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden attended the ceremony a day after Trump was greeted with jeers and boos by a nearby crowd as he visited Ginsburg's flag-draped coffin outside the Supreme Court building.

 

Trump this week said he believed the Supreme Court would be called upon to rule on the election outcome, something that has happened only once in American history, in 2000.

 

"I think it's very important that we have nine justices," Trump said on Wednesday.

 

Trump has repeatedly and without evidence said that voting by mail, a longstanding feature of American politics, could lead to a surge in election fraud.

 

ABORTION, GUNS AND VOTING RIGHTS

 

Barrett would be his third Supreme Court appointment. Like Trump's two other conservative appointees, Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, Barrett potentially could serve for decades, placing a conservative stamp on Supreme Court precedent.

 

The court's decisions exert vast influence on American life, and a solidly conservative court could limit abortion rights, expand religious liberty, strike down gun control laws and uphold new restrictions on voting rights.

 

On Nov. 10, the court is scheduled to hear arguments in a major case in which Trump and fellow Republicans are seeking to invalidate the 2010 Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. If confirmed by then, the nominee could cast a decisive vote.

 

The nomination could help Trump cement a key part of his presidential legacy - making the federal judiciary move conservative - while also energizing his core supporters ahead of the election.

 

The Senate under the U.S. Constitution is given the power to confirm or reject a president's judicial nominees. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has given a high priority to winning confirmation of Trump's conservative judicial selections.

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley, Steve Holland and Mohammad Zargham, additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Scott Malone and Will Dunham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-09-26

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Thailand]

And totally impartial, as you would expect a judge to be.

[Damual Travesty]

I think this story is an attempt to jump the gun. "Trump to nominate..." Sources say. I will wait for the real story not the fake one. This is not the real one. How can I say that? Because no one has been nominated at the time of this story. Now I just woke up and have not checked other real news sources so I could be behind, but this story is not reporting a Supreme Court pick - it's reporting a rumour. Nothing more.

[TopDeadSenter]

11 minutes ago, Thailand said:

And totally impartial, as you would expect a judge to be.

Good point. Amy Coney Barrett is way too moderate. When I consider that Biden himself said he would nominate Obama for the supreme court if he is Potus(https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/biden-obama-supreme-court-trnd/index.html) which is the epitome of divisive impartiality, I would suggest Trump plays this ball with more snarl. Ted Cruz would work, Stephen Miller better, Judge Pirro? If they scream "impartiality" for no reason with Barrett, I say make them rush for their feinting couches.

 

[ukrules]

This is going to be entertaining ????

[riclag]

Its meant to be!   Good things come in 3 !

1 hour ago, rooster59 said:

The nomination could help Trump cement a key part of his presidential legacy - making the federal judiciary move conservative - while also energizing his core supporters ahead of the election.

 gorsuch  kavanaugh  and  barrett

Edited September 26, 2020 by riclag

[Tug]

Oh I don’t think the lady’s are going to be happy about losing control of their reproductive rights and I just wonder what she had to promise donald in return for the appointment 

[Mama Noodle]

7 minutes ago, Tug said:

Oh I don’t think the lady’s are going to be happy about losing control of their reproductive rights and I just wonder what she had to promise donald in return for the appointment 

Even if they did overturn roe, which they won’t, it would only mean states can regulate abortions. States can still opt to allow them. 

[riclag]

"It's never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law,” she added.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-amy-coney-barrett-5-things-to-know

 

I believe in  her 

"Barrett's judicial philosophy is often likened to that of her former boss, Scalia"!

Edited September 26, 2020 by riclag

[Morch]

2 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Good point. Amy Coney Barrett is way too moderate. When I consider that Biden himself said he would nominate Obama for the supreme court if he is Potus(https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/biden-obama-supreme-court-trnd/index.html) which is the epitome of divisive impartiality, I would suggest Trump plays this ball with more snarl. Ted Cruz would work, Stephen Miller better, Judge Pirro? If they scream "impartiality" for no reason with Barrett, I say make them rush for their feinting couches.

 

 

So Obama as SC justice is "the epitome of divisive impartiality", while Ted Cruz "would work" and Stephen Miller "better". Trolls will be trolls.

[donnacha]

She is a great choice.

Yes, a moderate, just as Kavanaugh is, but she will get slimed all the same. In fact they have already started.

Some Democrats will go too far. This is a likable mother and successful career woman. The attacks will tip some of the vital "soccer mom" demographic away from Biden.

As I've said from the start, this election is the Democrats' to lose.

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by donnacha

[Rimmer]

Some off topic posts and replies have been removed, topic is about:

 

Trump to nominate conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Ginsburg, sources say

[Mama Noodle]

36 minutes ago, donnacha said:

Some Democrats will go too far. This is a likable mother and successful career woman. The attacks will tip some of the vital "soccer mom" demographic away from Biden.

As I've said from the start, this election is the Democrats' to lose.

 

It always is, and she's not just a mother, she's adopted several kids from Haiti and raises them as her own. By all metrics a good person. 

 

One of her kids has downs as well. All around good person. 

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by Mama Noodle

[Surelynot]

4 hours ago, Thailand said:

And totally impartial, as you would expect a judge to be.

Right-wing, religious fruit cake.

[Surelynot]

4 hours ago, rooster59 said:

.......showing support for expansive gun rights and a hardline Trump immigration policy while bolstering the rights of college students accused of campus sexual assaults.

Very middle of the road (for the USA)

[Surelynot]

“Amy Coney Barrett said we should always remember that a ‘legal career is but a means to an end … and that end is building the Kingdom of God,'”

 

A secular state???

[Mavideol]

he's just laying ground for challenging the elections, at the SCOTUS,  if they are not in his favor, that's "his" democracy

[riclag]

2 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

“Amy Coney Barrett said we should always remember that a ‘legal career is but a means to an end … and that end is building the Kingdom of God,'”

 

A secular state???

She also said

"It's never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law,” she added.

 

 

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

She also said

"It's never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law,” she added.

 

 

So a huge conflict.......is she on the side of the people or God? Her stance on abortion clearly says she is on God's side....not that religion has caused many problems in the world.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

She also said

"It's never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law,” she added.

 

 

 

So it remains a question of which quote one wishes to post. I have no idea which one of them is more  'meaningful' for her and for her professional decisions.

[riclag]

5 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

So a huge conflict.......is she on the side of the people or God? Her stance on abortion clearly says she is on God's side....not that religion has caused many problems in the world.

So whats your biggest fear with this constitutional  scholar?

Edited September 26, 2020 by riclag

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

So whats your biggest fear with this constitutional  scholar?

 

She is quoted on one instance as expressing very strong religious beliefs. She is quoted on another saying such should not effect rulings. There is no way to tell which statement would carry more weight when push comes to shove. I wouldn't say 'fear', but probably some reason for concern. At the very least, she ought to be confronted regarding where exactly she stands.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

36 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

It always is, and she's not just a mother, she's adopted several kids from Haiti and raises them as her own. By all metrics a good person. 

 

One of her kids has downs as well. All around good person. 

 

 

 

Have to concur. She seems like a good person.

Some are concerned the judges will rule to keep Trump in power. I think that's not likely unless there was a good reason. The judges are smart people and I think 9 out of 9 probably think Trump is appalling.

Democrats have to be careful and stick to the issues, like the potential of voters to lose healthcare, and not go to personal attacks or her religion. I think they've got that worked out. 

Edited September 26, 2020 by Fat is a type of crazy

[riclag]

14 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

So a huge conflict.......is she on the side of the people or God? Her stance on abortion clearly says she is on God's side....not that religion has caused many problems in the world.

She's a constitutionalist ! She's noted for her ability to adhere to it! According to this article ! She won't be going against the constitution when it comes to God imop

The Declaration contains several references to God, the Constitution none at all. ... of the Founders' religious faith, but God-given rights had less to do with ... drafted the Constitution did not mention a higher power even once?

https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/02/why-god-is-in-the-declaration-but-not-the-constitution/

[Andy from Kent]

5 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Good point. Amy Coney Barrett is way too moderate. When I consider that Biden himself said he would nominate Obama for the supreme court if he is Potus(https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/biden-obama-supreme-court-trnd/index.html) which is the epitome of divisive impartiality, I would suggest Trump plays this ball with more snarl. Ted Cruz would work, Stephen Miller better, Judge Pirro? If they scream "impartiality" for no reason with Barrett, I say make them rush for their feinting couches.

 

 

Imagine living  in the USA with a person such as Stephen Miller on the Supreme Court.

 

I liked the comment on one interview clip where a person said "Now I know what it's like being dead inside".

 

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by Andy from Kent

[geriatrickid]

4 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Good point. Amy Coney Barrett is way too moderate. When I consider that Biden himself said he would nominate Obama for the supreme court if he is Potus(https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/biden-obama-supreme-court-trnd/index.html) which is the epitome of divisive impartiality, I would suggest Trump plays this ball with more snarl. Ted Cruz would work, Stephen Miller better, Judge Pirro? If they scream "impartiality" for no reason with Barrett, I say make them rush for their feinting couches.

 

The nomination of former President  Obama as member of the supreme court would be valid. The man, unlike the current president won his elections with decisive majorities,  and with the exception of the angry bigot segment, has the respect of most Americans.

The precedent was set when Republican President Warren Harding nominated, and the Republican dominated Senate approved, former Republican President, and conservative, William Taft, a Justice of the Supreme Court. He was then appointed Chief Justice. 

 

Ted Cruz doesn't want the job from Trump. Besides,  Trump needs Cruz in that senate seat otherwise it will likely go democrat. More importantly, Cruz  has no respect for Trump;

"I think people are asking themselves, 'How would we feel if our children came in repeating the words of the president of the United States if that president was Donald Trump? And if it would embarrass you to have your children repeat the words of the president, that's not a good thing. A president should unify us, should appeal to our better angels, should appeal to our shared values that make America who we are." 

 

Stephen Miller is unqualified to be a judge. Even  Thomas is better qualified than Miller

Miller has no legal training, no legal experience, no academic  credentials and no knowledge of constitutional law. Appreciably, you would like the USA to return to lynchings and mob justice, but it isn't going to happen just yet.

 

Pirro is not a judge. Stop calling her "Judge" She was elected to a minor county judge position in 1990 where she served for 2 years. She  is not a  legal scholar. hers is a history of financial scandal. As a reminder, Her refusal to reopen a murder case cost state taxpayers almost $42 million. A man was falsely convicted of murdering a child and spent 16 years in prison.

 

None of your positions display  any semblance of rational thought. One has the impression that you get a thrill out of tossing  extreme right wing notions for the chuckles. Unless you are taking your cue from the Russian sabotage unit. Whatever it is, you won't get the civil war you appear to want.

 

 

[Andy from Kent]

3 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Stephen Miller is unqualified to be a judge. Even  Thomas is better qualified than Miller

Miller has no legal training, no legal experience, no academic  credentials and no knowledge of constitutional law. Appreciably, you would like the USA to return to lynchings and mob justice, but it isn't going to happen just yet.

 

I agree with the majority of your post but for clarification I Googled the qualifications to become a SCOUS Justice.

 

From a USA government website:

 

" Are there qualifications to be a Justice? Do you have to be a lawyer or attend law school to be a Supreme Court Justice?

The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law. Many of the 18th and 19th century Justices studied law under a mentor because there were few law schools in the country.

• The last Justice to be appointed who did not attend any law school was James F. Byrnes (1941-1942). He did not graduate from high school and taught himself law, passing the bar at the age of 23.
• Robert H. Jackson (1941-1954). While Jackson did not attend an undergraduate college, he did study law at Albany Law School in New York. At the time of his graduation, Jackson was only twenty years old and one of the requirements for a law degree was that students must be twenty-one years old. Thus rather than a law degree, Jackson was awarded with a "diploma of graduation." Twenty-nine years later, Albany Law School belatedly presented Jackson with a law degree noting his original graduating class of 1912."

 

I therefore  suggest President Trump nominate Jerry Falwell  to become the next Supreme Court Justice.      He certainly has qualifications  that match those of  the president.

 

Mr. Falwell is both dishonest and deceitful which is handy for all politicians and especially for  President Trump.

 

Mr. Falwell believe in promoting the youth of the country.

 

Mr. Falwell is openminded as proven by his interest in sexual exploration.

 

Mr. Falwell is qualified at telling others to act properly which is something he may not do himself.

 

Long live Mr. Falwell.

 

[Rimmer]

Some baiting and bickering posts have been removed.

[Thomas J]

3 hours ago, Tug said:

Oh I don’t think the lady’s are going to be happy about losing control of their reproductive rights and I just wonder what she had to promise donald in return for the appointment 

Tug 

 

What BS.  Your statement is just fear mongering.  There is nothing absolutely nothing that shows that the Supreme Court under any set of judges would take away a woman's right to an abortion.  The only question that should be answered is if the federal government should be paying for a woman's abortion.  

[Thomas J]

Notice that Ginsburg a flaming liberal was still voted in by 96 - 3 with one abstaining because the Senate found that she had the qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice despite her liberal bias. 

What do you think the chances that Democrats will do the same for Barrett