Republicans have hijacked the highest court in the land. First, they stole a Supreme Court seat from President Obama. Then, they changed a 70-year old rule to install two of Donald Trump’s far-right justices and confirmed Brett Kavanaugh despite credible allegations that he committed sexual assault and lied under oath.

Now, the politicized Supreme Court is enacting a far-right, partisan agenda that favors corporate interests and Republican Party special interests. Reproductive freedom, civil rights, environmental justice, common sense gun safety laws, and our right to vote are all at risk. And the Court is eroding confidence in our system of government with ethical lapses and lack of transparency.

Unearthed video from 2016 in a CBS News interview with Amy Coney Barrett shows her warning of Supreme Court appointments that “could dramatically flip the balance of power in the court.”

Judge Barrett has the approval of ultraconservative and anti-abortion groups, and her views are out of step with the majority of Americans, who overwhelmingly support access to safe, legal abortion care. Seventy-seven percent of people in this country believe the Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade. We need a Supreme Court justice who will honor precedent, including Roe v. Wade.

A former member of the secretive Catholic group People of Praise, known for its rigid gender roles and lifelong loyalty oaths, which apparent front-runner Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a member of is now speaking out against the organization. “Many call it a community, but I describe it as a cult,” says Coral Anika Theill, who was a member of People of Praise from 1979 to 1984.

NowMedia

Schutz and NowThis partnered to engage Gen Z and Millennial audiences by positioning Schutz as the go-to brand for elevating one’s style. NowThis highlighted Schutz’s NYC roots and trendy designs to as we defined them as ultimate destination to purchase perfect shoes for the holiday season.

Amy Coney Barrett Confirmed To Supreme Court Against RBG’s Dying Wishes

Per the above article; “In an unprecedented vote one week before voting concludes in the 2020 election, the Senate approved federal appellate judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve as the next Supreme Court Justice Monday night in a 52-48 vote along party lines. She is the first justice confirmed with support from just one party since 1869, according to The National Journal.

All Republicans except for Sen. Susan Collins of Maine voted to confirm Barrett, and all Democrats voted against it.

Barrett’s confirmation makes the Supreme Court a 6-3 conservative majority, with Trump having nominated one-third of the court. Five of the six conservative justices have now been appointed by Republican presidents who lost the popular vote (George W. Bush in 2000 and President Donald Trump).

This is the fastest a nominee has been confirmed to the highest court in the land since 1975 — and confirmation has never happened this close to an election, or in the midst of an election: as of Monday evening , at least 63.6 million Americans have already voted. That 1975 confirmation was for Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, who had much more broad bipartisan support than Barrett does: he was confirmed in a 98-0 vote, in stark contrast to Barrett’s 52-48 vote. President Trump and Republicans rushed to make that a reality in the midst of federal elections they are at risk of losing, breaking their own rules and precedents in the process.

The late Ruth Bader Ginsburg died of complications from cancer on September 18, 2020. Seven days after Ginsburg’s death, Trump held a nominating ceremony for Barrett in the White House Rose Garden, against the express wishes of Ginsburg. NPR reported that Ginsburg told her granddaughter in the days before her death, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

Once again, Republicans proved what Dirty Rotten Bastards they are by Cramming this Radical Right-Wing Nutcase down the Majority of American’s throats… who are NOT conservative and did NOT vote for Trump.

Radical Right-Wing Nutcase Amy Coney Barrett refused to say that the Supreme Court decision that protects access to birth control was rightly decided. When past Republican and Democratic-appointed nominees were asked the same question, their answers were very clear.

Barrett proves to be totally unfit to be a Judge in ANY Court, let alone the United States Supreme Court by being unable to answer the most basic legal and constitutional questions.

Another example of what you get when you elect Republicans…. INCOMPETENT IDIOTS.

Amy Coney Barrett Unable to Answer Easy Question About First Amendment

Jesse addresses a few moments from the Senate confirmation hearings of Judge Amy Coney Barrett who is Donald Trump’s unqualified nominee for Supreme Court Justice to replace the beloved late Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Amy Coney Barrett can’t name five freedoms in the First Amendment

Amy Coney Barrett Caught Lying To Senate?

Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court Senate hearing quickly went off the rails.

DARK MONEY CONTROL OVER SUPREME COURT

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse gives outstanding presentation how Big Business “Dark Money” has been playing a role in the Supreme Court nomination process.

Expert details the secretive ‘shadow network’ behind America’s radical right for the past 40 years

If Amy Coney Barrett Had Any Integrity, She Would Not Have Accepted The SCOTUS Appointment

How can we ever believe she is a Justice for the nation, when she would actively take a role most people disapprove of her taking?

Per the above article; “On October 26, 2020, Judge Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court. Just six weeks after Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg died leaving a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and a mere eight days from election day, the Republican-led Senate voted to confirm the controversial judge—and effectively shredded our last hope for a fair and impartial Supreme Court.

In 2016, the Republican-led Senate refused to even hold hearings for President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. The argument put forth by Senator Mitch McConnell at the time was that they could not confirm a potential justice in an election year because he wanted to “give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy.” Other senators confirmed this line of thinking. Senator Lindsey Graham said, “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, ‘Let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.”

Well, fast forward four years—we have a justice confirmed just eight days before an election. Eight days.

Judge Barrett was confirmed in an election week, let alone in an election year. An election that, if the polls are to be believed, is not going well for the impeached president who nominated Judge Barrett. Considering that the majority of Americans—57 percent according to a recent Post-ABC poll—support letting the winner of the presidential election nominate the judge who would fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat, who exactly is getting a voice in filling this vacancy? Certainly not the majority of Americans.

If Trump loses on election day, we have a Supreme Court Justice who was not chosen by the people. If Trump wins on election day, we have a Supreme Court Justice who believes the rules others are required to follow do not apply to her or those that agree with her. How can we ever believe she is a Justice for the nation, when she is willing to take an appointed role that most American citizens disapprove of her taking the week before a presidential election?

By proceeding with the confirmation days before an election, she has bought into something inherently unfair and unjust.

And the upcoming decisions she will now have a chance to weigh in on are crucial, and will affect all of us in countless ways, including our most precious civil and reproductive rights. Most pressing are the cases involving election disputes from North Carolina and Pennsylvania concerning absentee ballots and when they may be accepted. Even more pressing—the very real possibility that the results of the election will be disputed and decided by the court. The fact that she ignored the Republican’s glaring hypocrisy in order to take that seat at the Supreme Court, makes it sensible to wonder what other glaring hypocrisies she’ll ignore. It makes it hard to believe she’s able to apply rules fairly”.  (END OF QUOTE)

Amy Coney Barrett attacked for ‘cruelty’ in overturning prison inmate rape damages

Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has been accused of “unconscionable cruelty” for her part in overturning an award of millions of dollars to a female inmate who claimed she was repeatedly raped by a prison guard.

Per the above article; “Ms Barrett was reportedly one of three appellate judges who reversed a 2018 $6.7 million ruling against a Wisconsin county that ran the prison.

Milwaukee County was hit with the damages after one of their corrections officers was charged with repeatedly raping the 19-year-old inmate before and after her pregnancy.

Former prison guard Xavier Thicklen was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault in 2013, but they were dropped when he pleaded guilty to felony misconduct in public office.

“After a 19-year old pregnant prison inmate was repeatedly raped by a prison guard, Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the county responsible for the prison could not be held liable because the sexual assaults fell outside of the guard’s official duties,” Kyle Herrig, president of the progressive watchdog group Accountable.US, told Salon.com.

“Her judgment demonstrates a level of unconscionable cruelty that has no place on the high court.

“The only thing more concerning than the rush to confirm by Senate Republicans is what we are learning about Amy Coney Barrett’s extremist record”. (END OF QUOTE)

Advocates fear Barrett will strip away gay rights. It could begin next week.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, which could allow religious foster agencies to bar gay prospective parents.

Per the above article; “Amy Coney Barrett has been fueling the fears of LGBTQ advocacy groups since President Donald Trump first nominated her to the federal bench in 2017. Now, with Barrett officially confirmed as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, advocates worry that she and the court’s five other conservatives could start stripping away gay rights imminently.

The most immediate concern for national LGBTQ and civil rights groups is Barrett’s presence on the court for next week’s arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a case that looks at whether faith-based child welfare agencies can refuse to work with same-sex couples and other people whom they consider to be in violation of their religious beliefs.

Rachel Laser, CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called Barrett’s record on church-state separation “deeply problematic.”

“She has shown that she would allow claims of religious freedom to be misused to harm women, LGBTQ people, religious minorities and the nonreligious, among many others,” Laser said in a statement.

A number of LGBTQ and civil rights groups have also expressed concern about Barrett’s ties to the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that has been at the forefront of litigation arguing for an expansive view of religious freedom”. (END OF QUOTE)

Religious group scrubs all references to Amy Coney Barrett from its website

People of Praise, a tiny charismatic Catholic organization, admits removing mentions and photos of Trump’s supreme court pick

Per the above article: “A religious organization tied to Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump’s supreme court nominee, sought to erase all mentions and photos of her from its website before she meets with lawmakers and faces questions at her Senate confirmation hearings. Barrett, a federal appeals judge, has declined to publicly discuss her decades-long affiliation with People of Praise, a Christian group that opposes abortion and holds that men are divinely ordained as the “head” of the family and faith.

Former members have said the group’s leaders teach that wives must submit to the will of their husbands. After an AP reporter emailed the group’s spokesman on Wednesday about members of Jesse Barrett’s family, his mother’s name was deleted from the primary contact for the South Bend, Indiana, branch. All issues of the organization’s magazine, Vine and Branches, were also removed.

The AP was able to track the deletions and access the missing information through the Internet Archive, a non-profit group that has saved digital versions of more than 330bn web pages since 1996. Barrett, 48, did not mention People of Praise in her 2017 or 2020 Senate judicial vetting questionnaires, the most recent of which was released on Tuesday. And a request to interview her made through the seventh circuit court of appeals in Chicago, where she currently serves as a judge, was declined”. (END OF QUOTE)

A Beady-Eyed Religious Fanatic For The Supreme Court | Angry Bear

A Beady-Eyed Religious Fanatic For The Supreme Court Others may not see what I see when I look at a full-face photo of Amy Conet Barrett, but I see someone who looks like a fanatic to me, although that may be me reading in what I have heard of her views on things, she being […]

Per the above opinion article; “Others may not see what I see when I look at a full-face photo of Amy Conet Barrett, but I see someone who looks like a fanatic to me, although that may be me reading in what I have heard of her views on things, she being Trump’s nominee for the SCOTUS, with GOPsters in the Senate hypocritically ready to put her in there in time to help Trump steal the election.

I know we are not supposed to pick on people for their religious views, but she does belong to a weird cult, the Praise for People group, which is not strictly Catholic as many have claimed, but did come out of the Catholic Charismatic movement in 1971 with most of its members Catholic. It accepts such things as speaking in tongues, which is not something generally accepted by most Catholics, generally, something practices by extreme Protestant sects. It also is sexist, with women forbidden from holding leadership positions and with each member having to follow the lead of a “Head.

As an example of just how extreme she is I note one item, I have seen written about things she has written in academic publications. It is known that she is an “Originalist,” a term Scalia used for himself, which means one tries to rely on the original meaning of a term in a case from when the Constitution was written or when an amendment was adopted. However, what is not so well known is that there are factions among these people, and apparently, Barrett is part of an especially extreme faction that views both the 14th and 15th Amendments as not being legitimate because when they were passed by Congress, the Confederate states were not represented in Congress”. (END OF QUOTE)

Per info about Amy Barrett from demandjustice.org/stop-amy-coney-barrett;

Affordable Care Act

The Supreme Court is currently considering a case in which the justices could strike down the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, ending protections for Americans with preexisting conditions and kicking millions off their health insurance. Barrett has repeatedly signaled that she would support lawsuits to overturn the Affordable Care Act:

• Barrett criticized Chief Justice Roberts for his opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius , which upheld the ACA against a constitutional challenge, saying he “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.”
• In a 2015 NPR interview, Barrett expressed disagreement with the Supreme Court’s
  majority opinion in King v. Burwell, the second case in which the Court upheld the ACA, saying the dissent had “the better of the legal argument.”

Roe v. Wade

Barrett was the favorite choice of anti-choice activists because she has made clear that she does not respect the constitutional right to an abortion and would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade and curtail reproductive freedom.

• In a 2003 article, she suggested Roe v. Wade was an “erroneous decision.”
• In that article , Barrett wrote, “Courts and commentators have… thought about the kinds of reliance interests that justify keeping an erroneous decision on the books” — and the
  only decision she cited as an example of an “erroneous decision” was the Planned Parenthood v. Casey Supreme Court decision that specifically reaffirmed Roe v. Wade .
• In another article, Barrett gave examples of “cases that no justice would overrule, even if she disagrees with the interpretive premises from which precedent proceeds”—but did not list Roe .
• In 2018, the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit struck down an Indiana law that would have prohibited abortions at any time during a pregnancy based on the reason
  a person is seeking an abortion. The court held that the law “ clearly violate[d] well-established Supreme Court precedent .” Barrett went on record saying she disagreed with the court’s ruling and strongly suggesting that the law was, in fact, constitutional.
• In 2019, the Seventh Circuit struck down another blatantly unconstitutional law which would have required anyone under 18 to notify their parents prior to receiving an abortion, without exception. Barrett would have allowed the law to go into effect .
• She was a member of Notre Dame University’s anti-abortion Faculty for Life.
• Sen. Josh Hawley said that he would only vote for justices who have said that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and that Barrett “meets that standard.”
• Barrett signed an open letter that criticized the Affordable Care Act’s birth control benefit as an “assault on religious liberty” and referred to common birth control methods as
  “abortion-drugs” and “embryo-destroying ‘five day after pill.’”

Workers’ Rights

• Barrett has a troubling track record of siding with companies that engage in discrimination. Her record raises serious questions about how she would approach workers’ rights and civil rights issues on the bench.
• Barrett has ruled for corporations over people 76% of the time.
• Barrett upheld a ruling that allowed a company to “intentionally assign members of different races to [work at] different stores.” In a dissent, one judge called it a
  “separate-but-equal arrangement” and said it was “contrary to the position that the Supreme Court has taken in analogous equal protection cases as far back as Brown v. Board of Education.”
• Barrett ruled that a company had not engaged in illegal age discrimination by having a maximum number of years of experience for a job posting, even though the requirement
  severely disadvantaged older workers.
• Barrett dismissed a case brought by two employees against an employer who they claimed improperly fired them. The employees attempted to utilize the employers’ arbitration process, but eventually sued in court because the process had been stalled for years. Barrett’s dismissal kicked the employees out of federal court.

Gun Safety

Barrett’s record raises serious concerns about how she would approach gun safety laws. Last year, she dissented from a decision upholding a longstanding federal law that banned people who
had been convicted of felonies from possessing firearms, suggesting she takes a radical view on gun safety that could also lead her to strike down other, common-sense gun safety measures.

Immigrant Justice

Barrett has repeatedly ruled against the rights of immigrants, siding with the Trump administration on its public charge rule and repeatedly voting for overly harsh interpretations of immigration law.

• Barrett voted to let the Trump administration impose a so-called “public charge” rule that would have prevented immigrants from receiving legal permanent residence status if they had availed themselves of certain public benefits to which, by law, they were entitled. The Trump rule vastly expanded the definition of “public charge,” thereby expanding the universe of immigrants who were deemed ineligible for legal permanent residence.
• Barrett wrote the majority opinion rejecting an El Salvadoran immigrant’s request for protection from deportation. Though the immigrant in the case fled to the U.S. because he was the target of gang violence in his home country, his request for protection was rejected based on what the dissent described as “minor” and “trivial” inconsistencies in his testimony.
• Barrett wrote an opinion dismissing the case of a U.S. citizen who claimed his due process rights were violated when a consular official denied his spouse a visa based on unsubstantiated and contradicted allegations of wrongdoing.
• Barrett cast the deciding vote to allow for the immediate deportation of a legal permanent resident who had lived in the United States for over thirty years but who became deportable
  simply because of an arcane, and since-repealed, federal law that treats children of naturalized mothers and children of mothers who are citizens by birth differently.

LGBTQ+ Rights

Barrett’s track record suggests she could be on the side of reversing decades of progress when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights, a fact made all the more troubling by her stated willingness to disregard precedent when it conflicts with her own analysis.

• She has defended the Supreme Court’s dissenters on the landmark marriage equality case of Obergefell v. Hodges, questioning the role of the court in deciding the case.
• She has said Title IX protections do not extend to transgender Americans , claiming it’s a “strain on the text” to reach that interpretation.
• She has misgendered transgender people, referring to a transgender women as “physiological males,” while casting doubt on transgender rights.
• She has been paid $4200 for addressing a legal group affiliated with Alliance Defending Freedom , a group that advocates have called “arguably the most extreme anti-LGBT
  legal organization in the United States.”

Partisan Ties

Barrett has been a loyal footsoldier in the Republican Party’s attempts to subvert the democratic process in the interest of partisanship, working on the Bush v. Gore case and defending Republicans’ choice not to fill a Supreme Court vacancy during President Obama’s term in office.

• Barrett started her legal career working to win the 2000 presidential election for George W. Bush . She describes Bush v. Gore as one of the most significant legal activities she has pursued. She even spent time in Florida researching and briefing the case.
• Trump promised before his election in 2016 that his judges would all be “ picked by the Federalist Society .” Barrett was a member of the Federalist Society from 2005 to 2006 and rejoined the group in 2014, citing “the opportunity to speak to groups of interested, engaged students on topics of mutual interest.” A mere three years later, she was nominated by President Trump to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and within eleven months, she was added to Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist.
• In 2016, Barrett took to the airwaves to defend the Republican Party’s unprecedented decision to block President Obama from choosing a replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia. After tersely reviewing the history of election-year Supreme Court nominations, distinguishing each example that failed to support the GOP’s position, she concluded that “the president has the power to nominate and the Senate has the power to act or not.”

Substituting Her Own Views Over Binding

Barrett’s radical views are all the more dangerous because she has made clear she would not be bound by the traditional principle that Supreme Court justices should defer to precedent set by past Supreme Court decisions. Barrett would be a dangerous Supreme Court justice because she would substitute her own views for long-standing law.

• Barrett wrote that Supreme Court justices should not follow precedent they disagree with, but instead have “a duty” to substitute their own “best understanding” of the Constitution.
• The Los Angeles Times noted that Barrett has been “unusually frank in her support for overturning precedents that are not in line with the Constitution.”

There’s nothing in the constitution which guarantees lifetime appointments to Judges. Laws can be changed, so I feel at the soonest opportunity, she should be removed when Democrats have the votes to right the wrong which was done by her being confirmed against the majority’s wishes and against the last dying wish of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

I also feel Democrats should “pack the courts” to help nullify the wrongs done by our UN-Democratic Government & Republicans cramming 5 “Justices” down the majority’s throats which was installed by Republican “Presidents” (Bush & Trump) not elected by the majority since 2000.

I will NEVER accept or recognize Amy Coney Barrett to be a legitimate “Justice”. Trump who appointed her, became president due to help from the Russians and other questionable & unscrupulous means. He was definitely not elected by the majority so by every measure of Democracy, he’s an ILLEGITIMATE President.

Trump was IMPEACHED for violating his Oath of Office and should have been removed from office. He should not have been permitted to fill any Federal or Supreme Court Judaical seats.  The fact the Republicans failed to remove him proves how LAWLESS Republicans are.

I feel Barrett is on a personal mission to force her Radical Right-Wing values and ideologies down the majority of Americans throats.

IMO, Amy Coney Barrett is a Radical Right-Wing Nutcase unfit to be a Judge in ANY court.

Hits: 326