Barrett's Scholarship is superlative; She is the philosophical Obverse of Ginberg

Is Justice Barrett the Latest Shot in the “Deconstruction of Government” Pt. 3 / Justice Amy Coney Barrett may not be one of the most qualified candidates for the Supreme Court to receive confirmation, but her scholarship credentials are superlative. Barrett earned her law degree, summa cum laude, in 1997 at the #22 law school in the country, according to USNews, Notre Dame. She also taught law there since 2002. / She was confirmed as an Appellate Court Judge in the Seventh Circuit on Oct 30, 2017. That means she’s been a Circuit Court Judge for all of three years, during which time she wrote 79 majority opinions. So, there is ample written record in her 79 opinions to give researchers an opportunity to measure her abilities to analyze legal issues and write concise opinions. / The uproar over her nomination and confirmation seems to stem largely from her almost categorical obverse legal philosophy from that of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. And, she inherits some of the angst from Sen. McConnell’s refusal to even process Pres. Obama’s last Supreme Court Nomination. She’s 48 years old and, barring any demographic anomaly, will likely be on the Supreme Court for 20 years or more. Her addition to the Supreme Court creates a solid 6-3 majority of conservatives and will likely delay reconstruction of the deconstruction by a generation of more. (You are invited to share your thoughts and ideas as this series proceeds. Please document or cite any assertions you make, as a means of keeping the discussion constructive and on track. )

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sec. of State Handles Calls for Help from Other States

On Behalf of WEA’s More Conservative Members #60 Examples of Sec. of State Wyman’s Media Appearances #3 - NBC - Coronavirus 'worst-case scenario': Could the presidential vote be done by mail? 3/26/2020 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/coronavirus-worst-case-scenario-could-presidential-vote-be-done-mail-n1168151 8.24.20 This series is in response to WA State Democratic Party Chairperson’s claiming Sec. of State Kim Wyman has not been “championing vote by mail across the country” . •Wyman said she's been inundated with calls from colleagues in other states seeking advice. •"The first thing I say is people need to understand the context," she said. "I am probably the biggest champion of vote by mail in the country, but it took us five years to move from polling places to vote-by-mail." •Every state that isn't used to voting primarily by mail will have to prepare for a huge increase in volume. •Voters need to be told not only how to v
Read more

ARE THE ATTACKS ON USPS AN ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTION?

SERIOUSLY! ARE YOU KIDDIN’ ME!! #10 ARE THE ATTACKS ON USPS AN ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTION? Aren’t These People Supposed to Know Better? 8.26.20 -The US Postal Service was created by an enabling act in the US Constitution. (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7). -Under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, election protocols are the responsibility of the States, subject to the US Constitution. (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.) It is, therefore, my opinion that the recent actions taken by Pres. Trump’s recently appointed Postmaster General Louis DeJoy constitute a double assault on the US Constitution. Furthermore, the timing and targeting of mail sorting and delivery capabilities are clearly intended to disrupt the upcoming General Election and set the scene for a refusal by Pres. Trump to honor the results of the election, should he be defeated.
Read more

The Righteous US v. The Evil Them

Could This Be the Beginning of a Trend? #15 The Righteous US v. The Evil Them 7.8.20 There’s a great line, spoken by Ben Franklin, in the stage play/movie “1776”. I’m paraphrasing here, but it goes something like this…. “Revolution in the first person, our revolution, is always good. It’s only bad in the third person, their revolution.” As I look at the text of President Trump’s Mt. Rushmore speech, I see this concept in the form of an effort to emphasize an “US v. Them” scenario. On the Fourth of July, I would imagine a speech would emphasize the “WE”, but that does not seem to be the case. For example: "Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children." To start with, I’m struck by the scenario of “our nation”, not theirs; the “our history”, not theirs; “our heroes”, not theirs; “our values”, not theirs; and “our children”, not theirs. It implies “they” are not p
Read more