Radical Right-Wing Republican Extremist Amy Coney 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.

 

Truth Behind Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Cult Ties

It has been revealed that Kevin Ranaghan, the founder of the Christian fundamentalist group the People of Praise, of who Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is a powerful member, controlled almost the entire life of a female member of the group. Kevin and his wife Dorothy allegedly had multiple inappropriate instances with the woman’s children in addition to controlling financial decisions and dating relationships. Jun 11, 2022

 

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

 

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’s Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing Exposes Hypocrisy of Graham and McConnell

Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham refused to hold a hearing on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, pledging to the American people that there would be no Supreme Court justice confirmation hearing in the fourth year of a Trump presidency. In what will go down in history as perhaps the single worst and most offensive act of political hypocrisy, Graham is now presiding over the very hearing he promised the American people would not take place. This video explores the hypocrisy or Lindsey Graham, the duplicity of Mitch McConnell and the (secular) piety of Ben Sasse, all on full display in today’s confirmation hearing of Judge Barrett.

 

Exposing the Constitutional Abuses of Mitch McConnell

 

Republican Appointed Right Wing Judges Lied Under Oath to get their Seats and should be IMPEACHED / REMOVED

 

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.

 

As tweeted by Matt O’Brien (Formerly with the Washington Post & the Atlantic) on Oct 26, 2020… “Nothing says “I will be an impartial judge in any election-related cases” like showing up at a rally with one of the litigants”

 

Amy Coney Barrett is a far-right, activist Judge who threatens to upend the lives of millions of Americans

 

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. What does Barrett have to hide?

 

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”.

 

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”.

 

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.

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.”

 

Supreme Court nominee served as ‘handmaid’ in religious group

Amy Coney Barrett was a high-ranking female leader in the People of Praise religious community.

Per the above article: “Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett served as a “handmaid,” the term then used for high-ranking female leaders in the People of Praise religious community, an old directory for the group’s members shows. Barrett has thus far refused to discuss her membership in the Christian organization, which opposes abortion and, according to former members, holds that men are divinely ordained as the “head” of both the family and faith, while it is the duty of wives to submit to them”.

 

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.

We need a Supreme Court that can be trusted to be fair, nonpolitical, and ethical. We need to reform the Supreme Court.

 

Amy Barrett being submitted for consideration of being a Supreme Court Judge within days of the passing of Ruth Ginsburg and within weeks of the 2020 election when Republicans BLOCKED President Obama’s nominee during the last year of his Presidency is an outrage.

 

• The MAJORITY voted for Al Gore in 2000 by over 500,000 votes yet George W. Bush was crammed down the American Majority’s Throats. The election was STOLEN by the Electoral College, PLUS Florida Republicans illegally purged thousands of minorities off voters rolls and vote counting was stopped by the Republican Majority Supreme Court. The installation of George W. Bush caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis due to the misguided and unjustified war with Iraq. Trillions was added to the National Debt due to George W. Bush’s incompetence.
• Bush appointed 2 Justices against the will of the MAJORITY = 2 Supreme Court Seats Stolen
• Republicans STOLE a 3rd Supreme Court Seat from the American Majority by blocking President Obama’s Supreme Court appointment stating “The people should decide” during an election year.
• The MAJORITY voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 by over 2.89 Million votes yet Donald Trump was crammed down the American Majority’s Throats. The election was once again STOLEN by the Electoral College which made the LOSER the “winner”.
• Trump filled Obama’s Supreme Court Seat, plus a 4th Supreme Court Seat against the Will of the Majority
• After Ruth Ginsburg died Republicans proved to be PARTISAN HYPOCRITES by committing to fill her seat weeks before the 2020 election with Conservative Supreme Court nominee Amy Barrett who is being appointed SOLELY because she’s expected to rule on issues like Roe V. Wade & “Affordable Healthcare” a certain way
• Appointing & confirming “Justices” because they are expected to rule on issues a particular way is not justice… it’s a BANANA REPUBLIC RIGGED KANGAROO COURT
• The Senate is RIGGED for Republicans and doesn’t represent the MAJORITY. Half of the US population lives in just nine states yet is only represented by 18 Senators. Democrats led Republicans by more than 12 million votes in Senate races in the 2018 election, yet suffered losses due to our UN-Democratic Rigged-for-Republicans Government
• The Supreme Court is now Rigged for Republicans and doesn’t represent the MAJORITY. It’s just another tool to cram unpopular conservative ideologies down the Majority’s Throats.
• Republicans are behaving like Fascist Authoritarians, who only care about power and cramming what they want down citizens throats, lacking decency, fairness, ethics and integrity
• The MAJORITY of Americans are NOT Conservative and does not support BACKWARD, REPRESSIVE, CONSERVATIVE, 1800’s ideologies and values
• The President SHOULD be elected by the MAJORITY
• The Supreme Court SHOULD represent the values and will of the MAJORITY.

 

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.

Amy Coney Barrett has been confirmed against the “Will of the people” further de-legitimizes the Supreme Court and is turning it into a Right-wing Kangaroo Court to cram their unpopular values down the throats of the American Majority

 

Per an article at theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-4-the-constitution-doesnt-separate-church-and-state/240481/

“James Madison, the father of both the Constitution and the First Amendment, consistently warned against any attempt to blend endorsement of Christianity into the law of the new nation. “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions,” he wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments in 1785, “may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?” Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution conspicuously omits any reference to God.

The words “separation of church and state” are not in the text; the idea of separation is. Article VI provides that all state and federal officials “shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (which Christine O’Donnell had apparently not read) provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”–meaning that not only no church but no “religion” could be made the official faith of the United States. Finally the Free Exercise Clause provides that Congress shall not make laws “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion”.

 

 

HOW TO GET RID OF CONSERVATIVE JUDGES AND RE-SHAPE THE COURTS AFTER REPUBLICANS ARE VOTED OUT

If Republicans think they’ve won and have successfully crammed their Conservative Judges down the MAJORITIES throats for as long as they live, they are mistaken.

Numerous articles claim Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas lied under Oath during their confirmation hearings. It’s possible that many of Trump’s Unqualified Federal Judge nominees also made false statements during their confirmation hearings. All who made false statements could be removed without impeachment proceedings or majority votes in the Senate.

The removal of Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas would tilt the Supreme Court back in Democrats / Liberals favor and rightly so… because as shown in elections since 2000, the popular votes ALWAYS favor Democrats so the MAJORITY of Americans are Liberal and should have a Supreme Court which reflects THEIR values!

 

In a video titled “How to Undo Mitch McConnell’s Packing of the Courts” Ex-Federal Prosecutor Glenn Kushner explains how when Democrats take over the White House, the new head of the DOJ could order the FBI to review the confirmation hearings of Kavanaugh, Thomas and every Trump appointment and check for false statements. Anyone who lied under oath could be charged with perjury, arrested, removed as a judge and disbarred. Each could face years behind bars. They could be given a choice to resign when confronted with evidence of perjury in exchange for dismissal of prosecution.

Per the above article: “A Democratic Congress and a future Democratic president could remove Kavanaugh (and others) from the Supreme Court if they wanted without needing to impeach him. There are two other ways to kick a sitting justice off the court – neither of which requires a supermajority.

In the first, a new president would nominate and the Senate would confirm by majority vote a justice – in this case Kavanaugh – to a different post on an intermediate court of appeals (say the D.C. Circuit, where Kavanaugh formerly served). The justice would, in effect, be demoted.

It finds support in an 1803 Supreme Court case called Stuart v. Laird. The fading Federalist Party of John Adams had created 16 new federal judgeships in 1801 – in part to spare Supreme Court justices from having to “ride the circuit” and hear regional appellate cases. Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans triumphed at the polls and abolished the new positions in 1802.

The second alternative method of relieving a justice of his or her duties. In a 2006 article in the Yale Law Journal, two scholars (conservatives, as it happens), Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, amassed historical evidence that the Framers understood the “good behavior” standard to be judicially, rather than just politically, enforceable.

They pointed out that judicial removal proceedings were used in English law in the 1780s, and were included in the New York, South Carolina and Massachusetts pre-1787 constitutions. Moreover, they noted, “good behavior” was included by the Continental Congress as a standard in the 1787 Northwest Ordinance for courts in the territories – before there were a separate House and Senate to conduct an impeachment.

As (roughly) proposed in the Yale article, Congress could pass a statute authorizing a specially constituted bench of federal judges – say, five randomly drawn judges – to determine whether a particular judge (here, Kavanaugh) had violated the “good behavior” standard. That special bench could hold a hearing and, if convinced by the evidence, make the requisite finding to trigger exit from the bench. This approach wouldn’t require a congressional supermajority. It would need a presidential signature.

Current federal law contains a trace of this mechanism. When a judge is convicted of a felony, whether in state or federal court, the law now states that he or she “shall not hear or decide cases” unless a council of judges decides otherwise. To be sure, the judge keeps a salary in the interim. But the judge is effectively sidelined – as completely as if he or she were impeached.

The creation of a new vehicle for judicial peer review seems to be the optimal option, as it would create a nonpartisan, procedurally robust device for disciplining judges.

Supreme Court justices right now have no real supervisors when it comes to ethics, and impeachment has come to seem excessively partisan. A standing body, available for all cases of misconduct – not just a ticket for one ride only – would resolve that problem, no matter who the appointing president.

 

Reuters | Breaking International News & Views

Find latest news from every corner of the globe at Reuters.com, your online source for breaking international news coverage.

There’s nothing in the Constitution that explicitly promises federal judges “lifetime appointments.” The language of Article III says justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior,”.

The Constitution was written at a time when it was inconceivable that someone would live long enough be a Supreme Court Justice for 30-plus years.

It’s just a matter of time until Term Limits Legislation is passed