Trump Plans to Nominate Amy Coney Barrett to Fill Supreme Court Vacancy - WSJ
By: Catherine Lucey and Kristina Peterson (WSJ)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON—President Trump has told congressional Republicans and others he intends to name Amy Coney Barrett, a solidly conservative judge with strong Republican support, as his choice for the Supreme Court, according to people familiar with the decision. The move will set up a politically charged confirmation battle in the weeks before Election Day, as he seeks to bolster a right-leaning court.
Judge Barrett, 48 years old, a member of the Chicago-based Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is a former law clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia. A finalist for a previous Supreme Court opening that went to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, she was seen as a likely choice given her conservative credentials and the president’s desire to nominate a woman to succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The White House didn’t comment. People close to the White House cautioned that the decision won’t be final until Mr. Trump makes the official announcement, which is scheduled for Saturday at 5 p.m. Eastern time.
Mr. Trump told reporters Friday at Andrews Air Force Base, near Washington, D.C., that he had made a decision “in my own mind” but declined to elaborate. Told it was being reported that Judge Barrett got the nod, Mr. Trump responded, “I haven’t said that…I haven’t said it was her but she is outstanding.”
Also under consideration has been federal appellate Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Cuban-American who spent the bulk of her judicial career in Florida’s state courts. Mr. Trump said Friday he hadn’t met with her while in Florida this week.
Justice Ginsburg, an advocate for women’s equality and leader of the court’s liberal wing, was honored in the U.S. Capitol in a private ceremony Friday. Her death from metastatic pancreatic cancer at the age of 87 prompted widespread public mourning.
The president’s nomination will kick off a likely speedy but bitter confirmation process, with Senate Republicans looking to confirm with a narrow majority before the November elections. Even before being named, Mr. Trump’s pick has likely already cleared the biggest political hurdle in the GOP-controlled Senate, securing the support of all but two of the chamber’s 53 Republicans to vote on a nominee this year. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) can lose no more than three Republicans to confirm the nominee, since Vice President Mike Pence can cast a tiebreaking vote.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is preparing a fast-paced schedule that would confirm the new justice by Nov. 3, a move many GOP lawmakers say is crucial in the case of delayed or disputed election results. The nominee—Mr. Trump’s third to the court—could shift the balance of power to the right for decades, with possible implications on a range of policy questions, including health care and abortion.
One of the court’s biggest pending cases, set for argument the week after the election, involves the future of the Affordable Care Act, the Obama-era health law. If a conservative-leaning judge is seated in time for that argument, she would vote on a case that could bring the entire law’s downfall after a lower court found the mandate to carry health insurance unconstitutional because Congress lowered to zero the tax penalty for failing to maintain coverage.
“The stakes are very real to people if the court invalidates the entirety of the Affordable Care Act a week after the election,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) “The stakes are very real if this court criminalizes abortion.”
Democrats contend that the American public should vote before a new justice is nominated, noting that Republicans made the same assertion when they refused to consider President Obama’s nominee , Merrick Garland, after Justice Scalia’s death in 2016. But they have few options given that the GOP appears to have enough votes to move forward. Republicans say the situation in 2016 was different because control of the Senate and White House was split between the two parties. Only two GOP senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, are opposed to holding a vote on the nominee this year. Ms. Collins has said she would vote no on a nominee before the election.
Mr. McConnell, who has said he considers confirmation of conservative judges central to his legacy, has promised a vote on the president’s nominee. The White House began reaching out to senators to set up meetings, which are expected to begin early next week, aides said Friday.
The Judiciary Committee could hold hearings the week of Oct. 10. The committee could potentially approve the nomination by Oct. 22, and a full Senate vote could happen around Oct. 26. Election Day is Nov. 3.
“There’s plenty of time,” Sen. John Kennedy (R., La.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said this week.
Adding to the partisan tension, Mr. Trump has indicated that he wants another judge installed before the election in case a dispute over the results lands before the court, telling reporters at the White House this week: “I think this will end up in the Supreme Court. And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices.”
“The results of the election must be accepted. The peaceful transfer of power must follow,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said on the Senate floor this week.
Coming just weeks before final votes are cast, Mr. Trump has seized on the court vacancy during his campaign appearances in an effort to galvanize Republicans and change the subject from what polls have shown is widespread frustration over his handling of the coronavirus pandemic and racial justice protests.
Mr. McConnell, who has said he considers confirmation of conservative judges central to his legacy, has promised a vote on the president’s nominee. The White House began reaching out to senators to set up meetings, which are expected to begin early next week, aides said Friday.
The Judiciary Committee could hold hearings the week of Oct. 10. The committee could potentially approve the nomination by Oct. 22, and a full Senate vote could happen around Oct. 26. Election Day is Nov. 3.
“There’s plenty of time,” Sen. John Kennedy (R., La.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said this week.
Adding to the partisan tension, Mr. Trump has indicated that he wants another judge installed before the election in case a dispute over the results lands before the court, telling reporters at the White House this week: “I think this will end up in the Supreme Court. And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices.”
“The results of the election must be accepted. The peaceful transfer of power must follow,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said on the Senate floor this week.
Coming just weeks before final votes are cast, Mr. Trump has seized on the court vacancy during his campaign appearances in an effort to galvanize Republicans and change the subject from what polls have shown is widespread frustration over his handling of the coronavirus pandemic and racial justice protests.
Democratic challenger Joe Biden has warned that a shift in the balance of the court could affect health care. But he said he also believes other issues besides the court could motivate his voters.
Like Mr. Trump’s previous court picks—Justices Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh—Judge Barrett is a relatively young jurist who could influence the court for decades. She interviewed with the president in 2018 for the vacancy that went to Justice Kavanaugh and impressed him and his advisers. But her short time on the appellate bench led Mr. Trump to tell allies that he would consider her for a later opening.
Unlike the eight justices on the court, Judge Barrett isn’t a graduate of an Ivy League law school. The New Orleans native graduated from the prestigious Catholic Notre Dame Law School. Before clerking for Justice Scalia, she served as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman, a well-known conservative in Washington, D.C. After her Scalia clerkship, she spent three years in private practice before returning to Notre Dame, where she still teaches, to launch her academic career.
She has written and spoken favorably of the conservative Justice Scalia and his close attention to the texts of statutes as written and support for originalism, or interpreting the Constitution according to what he believed was its original meaning.
A Catholic, like several of the Supreme Court justices, Judge Barrett has been a favorite of social conservatives because of her religious faith and their belief that she could give the Supreme Court an all-important fifth vote to overturn or limit Roe v. Wade—the 1973 precedent that established a constitutional right to end a pregnancy—given that Chief Justice John Roberts has signaled he may have reservations about doing so. Earlier this year, the chief justice, joining the court’s four liberals, voted to strike down a Louisiana abortion law, citing prior precedent.
Judge Barrett’s religious faith prompted questions during her 2017 confirmation hearing for the Seventh Circuit. A handful of Democratic senators, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, asked Judge Barrett—then a nominee—whether she would be able to separate her religious beliefs from her duty of impartiality as a judge. She said she could, adding that it was never appropriate for a judge to impose her personal convictions on the law.
Three Democrats ultimately voted for Ms. Barrett’s confirmation, which came on a 55-43 vote.
Judge Barrett still has a relatively short tenure on the bench, leaving her with less of a judicial record than those of Mr. Trump’s previous high court picks. She also has maintained a lower profile on the judiciary than some other Trump judicial nominees, who have been more outspoken in their court opinions.
Before she joined the appeals court, Judge Barrett built a record of academic articles that will surely receive scrutiny if she is nominated, on issues including abortion, religion and the law, and respect for Supreme Court precedent. In one 2013 article, then-Professor Barrett voiced support for Supreme Court justices voting to overturn past precedent when they fundamentally disagreed with it.
During her previous confirmation hearing for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barrett said she would respect and follow precedent, including Roe v. Wade. But lower court judges are bound by the Supreme Court’s rulings; if confirmed for the high court, she would have an opportunity not available to her previously: the option to vote against precedents she believes to be deeply mistaken.
Judge Barrett has seven children and is married to a former federal prosecutor.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
41 visitors
Really no big surprise. The article is lengthy, I hope it won't bore those who don't like to read.
Trump's appointment of Barrett might just be another fine jewel in his first term accomplishments in strengthening the nation's Judiciary.
It’s a done deal! Let’s celebrate!
🇺🇸🗽🦅🥂🏅🏆
The Judiciary Committee, led by Senator Lindsey Graham, will hold confirmation hearings for four consecutive days beginning Oct. 12 . The full Senate could vote by the final days of October. Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, has not fully committed to a pre-election vote.
Lying Lindsey is advertising the need for him to go home this November. Lindsey! Go bye-bye!
Maybe the full senate will confirm her as a post election parting gift to the in coming Biden regime????
Go for it! Do it! Don't talk about it - be about it! Lying Lindsey go bye-bye!!!
It would be a silver lining to an otherwise dark Cloud event.
Trump's appointment of hard-core reactionary judicial activist Barrett will be another harsh blow in his crusade to ransack the nation's Judiciary.
I only wish!
Maybe that would counter 60 years of hard core liberal judicial activism.
Wow! Republicans and conservatives have that much pent-up judicial frustration to unleash? Damn! Y'all didn't win nothing in all those years? Really? Or is it salivatin' hunger for ownership of the nation that is the conservative curse?
It was liberals who couldn't win elections - they used the courts.
Untrue. And it is Trump conservatives who are so coarse that other republicans gagged, vomited, and hauled out the exits.
As for the courts, Trump conservatives will be using them now. Certainly you don't plan on having a conservative majority in the federal and high court which sits on its hands and eats bom-boms when liberals come a-knockin. No, that would be too pure to conservatism. Better to go after the liberals and take back all that gives them reason, life, and hope.
Vic, I see conservatism, and Trump conservatism, for what both are. I have no delusions or deliriums about what y'all about! Not one. I could walk you through the steps, but it would take too long and I am not so inclined to explain anything to people who either know what and who they are or who can't comprehend what and who they are until shit breaks up to their 'waists.'
Consider this, y'all have damaged your party - and where do you think those conservatives are going? Back to Trump? Or into the democratic party? Effectively now their choices are to take back "home" and kick Trump out or go somewhere else and start a NEW PARTY.
Are you comparing how Republican judicial nominees are treated vs how democratic judicial nominees are treated?
Really?
Show us democrat nominees that were treated like Bork or Thomas or Kavanaugh?
Apparently not!
I don't have to show you anything, as that is not my issue. We are not talking about degrees and nominations here. At least, I am not. I am discussing worldviews and outcomes.
What do you give a damn about 'treatment' anyway? These are lifetime appointments, a 'racking over the coals' or whatever, serves its proper purposes. Vengence? Really, that is stupid as an excuse for potentially "f-king" up people's lives.
That's right, you don't have to back up anything you say, but I'm going to keep calling out progressives on proof and links and backing up statements!
That is not my issue. Vengeance is for children, and we used to try to teach it out of them! But how can we continue that while Trump and his supporters run amok?
I think it is pathetic that some conservatives are not happy in this life unless they put women back in the mindset of "bare-feet and pregnant (we see what the esteemed conservative female jurists think about that), cause homosexuals to face love-less and unproductive lives largely on the skids, and minority acceptance of society's left overs.
You know, Mitch Romney stated something similar about 'liberals courts and enjoying themselves' (paraphrased). And I thought, so that is going to be the justification for trading off and away one's integrity? It is clear, Mitch is not fit for this senate, because somebody fed him the line and got in his head. As you just repeated it verbatim, I have high confidence Mitch was persuaded with it.
The fact is this: Life is precious. It is a jewel. We often take it for granted, because we're here so long relatively speaking. Subsequently, we "dream up" apparently infinity ways to be pains in each others asses. All in a world where the only thing that is bothers us politically, well is ourselves. We go out of our way to be unhappy, stupid creatures, in a world that we have all the power we need to be happy and stewards of greatness.
God doesn't even intecede to ride us down! We just "f" ourselves and do so on a daily basis across decades—centuries even! Now, the enlightened people are doing it yet again. We're pretty damn pathetic as far as freedom is concerned.
Nobody but a senile old man seems to be "fit" these days. They truly are strange times we live in!
The fact is this: Life is precious.
Then please welcome Judge Barrett
Just keep in mind what Ms Barrett is about to go through:
"The courage it takes someone to accept a Supreme Court nomination from President Trump, knowing what the media and other partisans will do in an attempt to destroy you, your life, your family ... is just staggering to contemplate".....Molly Hemingway.
Mitt Romney is old too. As for judging senility, you are just promoting Russian propaganda on NT. Which is shameful, but well, you don't do shame.
I have no true qualm with Judge Barrett (at this point). My issue is with the f-ed up processes and activities that are threatening the peace of this nation and its union. Make the distinction in your mind.
I thought you knew. Russia loves its grassroots "useful idiots" and its kompromats. You don't have the memo? Volunteer to investigate more, before 'mouthing' the word, "freedom."
Those "stooges" in the street (and nearby) are (Russia's) useful idiots. Extreme right and extreme left. So, where do you stand? Say in the middle—please! Russia does not give a damn about 'Merica cops or its citizenry—including Trump conservatives. Russian internet trolls send a pox on all our houses!
The silent majority can be anybody, including republicans that detest a lying, cheating, thief, who pretends he has crippled Russia with sanctions and yet he can keep "small-talk and tea" with Putin in international calls. Putin is a KGB spy for life. Between a lifelong spy and Trump which one do you vouch gets the most out of the 'relationship'?
Trump can cross his legs all he wants, but Putin gets the 'goods' anytime he needs it.
Russia has big, massive nuclear weapons like impish North Korean leader - great equalizer. Now just need to 'f-up' American politics and sit back and what useful idiots "grass-roots" torch.
The former national security advisor H.R. McMaster blows Russian grassroots "faithful" and Donald "dear leader" in one interview. Yes Kraken, y'all are being fed a belly full of lies, misinformation, disinformation, and 'fundamentalists' BS! Donald makes small-talk with Russian-spy (Vladimir) on phone-phone regularly. Which one gets the most out of the relationship, Kracken. C'mon play.
Don't deflect. It's not a good look! And it messes with the thread 'decor.'
It would be if a conservative did something like that on a liberal members seed...
Now there you go again. Projection is not an art form. And once upon a time you were a rather groovy fish, now you're changed. Russia is real and Putin is flipping red states grassroots five years running! Little "regional" nation bought the American "pooch." Flip senate - democracy saved! Dead presidents go back to resting in peace.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CFnl3Ojp5TY/?igshid=1f40wk82q7an0
No, it can’t. Democrats have sole responsibility for the way these court battles have turned out. The next presidential term could have 1-3 more retirements to replace so democrat overreach by packing would be pre mature.
Don't boo - Vote.
Barrett, 48, was born and raised in New Orleans and was the oldest of seven children
As the nation awaits President Trump’s pick for a new Supreme Court justice, Judge Amy Coney Barrett remains the odds-on favorite.
Trump said he's narrowed the list to fill late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat down to five, and it's said to also include Judge Barbara Logoa of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, and Judge Allison Jones Rushing of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, among others.
Here are five things to know about Barrett, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge:
She’s a mother of seven
Barrett, 48, was born and raised in New Orleans and was the oldest of seven children. She now has seven children with her husband Jesse, whom she met at Notre Dame law school. Two of their children were adopted in Haiti. Her youngest child has Down Syndrome.
Barrett’s husband Jesse and she debated for years whether one parent should stay home to raise the children, and she has described "soul-searching and anxiety about balancing kids and work.”
Jesse’s aunt has helped watch the kids for years and Jesse, who formerly worked as a federal prosecutor and now works in private practice, took on more of the duties at home when Barrett became a judge.
FLASHBACK: AMY CONEY BARRETT PRESSED BY DEMS IN 2017 HEARING OVER CATHOLIC FAITH
Her Catholic faith has become a point of contention
Barrett's devout Catholic faith has been the target of Democrats, even before her name was floated to succeed Ginsburg on the court.
In December 2017, when she was appointed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett had to assert numerous times that her faith would not influence her jurisprudence. “Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that dogma and law are two different things, and I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Barrett.
“And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern.”
The senator told Barrett she was a “controversial” nominee, “because you have a long history of believing that your religious beliefs should prevail” over the law.
AMY CONEY BARRETT'S FRIENDS PRAISE HER AS 'FAIR,' 'A POWERHOUSE'
“You’re controversial because many of us that have lived our lives as women really recognize the value of finally being able to control our reproductive systems,” she said. “And Roe entered into that, obviously.”
She clerked for Antonin Scalia
Barrett's judicial philosophy is often likened to that of her former boss, and her scholarship focuses on originalism. She has spoken and written praise of Scalia's close attention to the text of statutes.
Her ties to Scalia coupled with her Catholic faith have drawn the ire of abortion rights advocates. Scalia railed against the Supreme Court's rulings on abortion. Barrett has asserted she would have "no opportunity" to overturn previous abortion rulings such as Roe v. Wade.
“There would be no opportunity for me to be a no vote on Roe,” Barrett responded. “And I would faithfully apply all Supreme Court precedent.”
"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.
She teaches at Notre Dame Law
Barrett graduated first in her class from Notre Dame Law in 1997. She served as a visiting professor at George Washington University Law School before returning to her alma mater in 2002.
At Notre Dame, she's been named "Distinguished Professor of the Year" three times and has taught Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Federal Courts, Constitutional Theory Seminar and Statutory Interpretation Seminar. She continues to teach seminars as a sitting judge.
Her academic work focuses on constitutional law, originalism, statutory interpretation, and stare decisis.
She'd be the youngest justice on the bench
At 48, she'd receive a lifetime appointment as the youngest justice on the bench and the fifth woman.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are both in their mid-50s. Sonia Sotomayor, John Roberts and Elena Kagan are in their 60s. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are in their 70s and Stephen Breyer is 82.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-amy-coney-barrett-5-things-to-know
No one can speak to the future, so the best laid plans can blow up in a conservative model's face!
I would think the extraordinary career of Barrett should be a celebration of feminism. However, we know what's coming.
Ya, that is going to be interesting. Too bad we don't have storm troops to surround their houses and call them that (like they do)!
Just give Donald the mic and let his empty-head 'pop-off'! As for Christian-haters, some trump supporters barely mouth the word, "Jesus." Because, they know they do not have a place to come from in the New Testament. Christianity? From some Trump supporters—laughable.
Concerned Women for America sees it that way!
What "utopia" are you needing to deflect again? For the record, you can't use mules to change the subject. And as far as religion goes: You got religion? When, where, and in what size 'container'?
They don’t care in the least about being Christian haters and regard that as a badge of honor that they are rewarded for. As to women, they’ll just say she’s not the right kind of woman and is really a man in a dress because of her beliefs and values.
I'll leave this open for the requested 24 hours.
Good night.
Honestly, I don’t think there’s much point in reacting to it until it happens.
People are calling her the judicial version of Laura Ingraham. If that is the case it is unfortunate for our country.
What the Democrats need to do at this point is win the presidency and the senate so that they can pass bills containing language that will be less susceptible to Supreme Court intervention. It can be done and I believe is already being discussed.
so they will actually be following the constitution...
I will believe it when I see it.
Biden believes he would have authority to impose national mask mandate as president
under the constitution, the president does not have the authority to do that = period.
I’ll be happy to test that authority when I openly defy it if he’s elected.
What people? What are they saying?
What the Democrats need to do at this point is win the presidency and the senate so that they can pass bills containing language that will be less susceptible to Supreme Court intervention.
Oh yes, they fully intend to radically change everything if they ever win the WH, the Senate and hold the House. Fortunately that is beginning to look less likely by the day.
Self-delusion is a thing.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CFnRmICFQ3_/?igshid=1eryj3pcjsozz