The Unsolvable Amy Coney Barrett Problem

16
251

Amy Coney Barrett is no originalist and probably isn’t even leaning right at this point. She joined the three radical leftists to say the President can’t use the Alien Enemies Act to deport terrorist cartel members. Even Justice Roberts didn’t join her.

This lends support to radical Norm Eisen’s recent remarks that she and his friend Justice Roberts hate Trump and will continue to vote against him.

We are stuck with her. Many conservatives had misgivings about her. Unfortunately, they lost.

She’s Out of the Shadows

When important cases come up, she is on the side of the radical left, and there is nothing we can do about it.

Barrett denied an appeal from students at Indiana University to block the school’s vaccine mandate.  She rejected an appeal from a Catholic hospital that was centered on the hospital declining to perform a hysterectomy on a biological woman who identifies as a man. She ruled against Texas on the border razor wire.

In June, Barrett was very confrontational with Thomas over a minor case about trademarking crude anti-Trump T-shirts. It was so aggressive that at least one legal observer said it seemed more than just about the T-shirt free speech case.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion that was joined in large part by most of their conservative colleagues and emphasized the tradition of allowing individuals control over trademark protections related to their names. While Justice Barrett agreed with the decision, she wrote that she saw less relevance to the history. She ultimately concluded that the restriction passes constitutional muster. Each of the three liberal justices signed onto at least some of Barrett’s concurrence.

Notably, just two years ago, Barrett appeared to be fully on board with the originalist approach that Thomas has long championed.

I think she lied about being an originalist to get the job, but that is neither here nor there.

Living Constitution?

On the question of upholding a gun restriction aimed at domestic abusers, Barrett and at least one other conservative might pivot away from Bruen.

A year ago, in a case involving the admissibility of confessions by conspirators, Barrett again accused Thomas of making too much of a very limited historical record.

“The court over claims. That is unfortunate,” Barrett wrote in a solo concurrence, referring to Thomas’s majority opinion. “While history is often important and sometimes dispositive, we should be discriminating in its use. Otherwise, we risk undermining the force of historical arguments when they matter most,” she declared.

In a speech last year at Catholic University, Barrett repeated the point. “We have to be very, very careful in the way that we use history, she said. She added that deploying historical evidence to advance a legal conclusion can be like “looking over the crowd and picking out your friends.”

It sounds like she is leaning toward a “living constitution.”

We know she rejected the case against the censorship of conservatives, and this week, she wants the illegal alien, provably an MS-13 gangster, back in the country.

Watch this analysis:

Remember how ridiculous she was over the George Floyd case? George Floyd was a violent career criminal, on drugs, passing counterfeit money at the time of his death. He almost certainly died from the enormous amount of drugs in his system.


You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:

PowerInbox
5 1 vote
Article Rating
16 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Anonymous
1 month ago

We look through the spectrum and ‘see what we see’ interpreting same through our experience and observation…Will just say that the ‘left’ fascinates me, but then our experiences and observations are NOT on the same ‘page’…Wonder what her experiences and observations were???

saminia
saminia
1 month ago

If Amy Coney Barrett believes the Constitution can be ignored depending on the whims of the times, she is demonstrably incompetent, and should be removed from the Court. Unfortunately, it will take a while before the House and Senate can be repaired so the votes and courage are there to accomplish that. Her argument about historical contexts sounds like she would want police to ignore crimes of shoplifting in order to save law enforcement concerns and resources for “really serious” crimes like, maybe, bank robbery or murder.

Impeach Amy Conehead
Impeach Amy Conehead
1 month ago

Amy Conehead Barret must be impeached. She’s part of the lunatic left and bad for America.

Cap
Cap
1 month ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA_iuwEWefU

USAID among others own her.

MicahStone
MicahStone
1 month ago

TRAITOR BARRETT: ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.