Skip to comments.Notable Opinions of U.S. Supreme Court Contender Amy Coney Barrett
Posted on 09/25/2020 2:32:08 AM PDT by GonzoII
Amy Coney Barrett, a front-runner for the open U.S. Supreme Court seat President Donald Trump is pushing to fill, is a favorite among religious conservatives.
As a judge on the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett, 48, has voted in favor of one of Trump's hardline immigration policies and shown support for expansive gun rights. Here are some of her most notable opinions.
Barrett indicated support for gun rights in a March 2019 dissenting opinion.
She was part of a three-judge panel that considered a challenge to a federal law that bars people convicted of felonies from owning firearms. A businessman who had pleaded guilty to mail fraud argued the law was unconstitutional as applied to him.
The two other judges, both appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, said the federal law and a similar Wisconsin one were constitutional.
In a dissent, Barrett said that, absent evidence the man was violent, permanently disqualifying him from owning a gun violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns," Barrett wrote. "But that power extends only to people who are dangerous."
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
Me likey! Shes stronger on the 2nd Amendment than those two Reagan judges she dissented from.
Her support of the Second Amendment is probably the most important quality of a Supreme Court judge.
We can’t let the left talk us out of supporting her,barring any rulings where she rejected the Constitution.
And, on further reading, shes no slouch on immigration and abortion either. Me likey even more.
In before the campaigners for Jebs Florida candidate.
Barrett would definitely be my choice. She at least has a track record of conservative opinions. Id be a bit wary of Lagoa.. first off, she garnered the votes of 27 dems when she was confirmed. That, along with her relatively scant track record, speaks to a redux of David Souter, who GHWB appointed without knowing his stances on abortion, 2A, etc.
No tendentious verbiage here! It's almost as if the publication doesn't understand that the United States has a published Constitution with, like, words in it and stuff.
The second amendment shall not be infringed. Those committing violent crimes need to pay with their life for the violent crime, so their second amendment shall not be infringed. It is a right we all have no matter what. If it is taken away of one, even seemingly justifiably because of the possibility of misuse, then it can be taken away from everyone.
Violent criminals should not be allowed to continue to terrorize society.
“Violent criminals should not be allowed to continue to terrorize society.”
It is really odd that a criminal can be deemed violent enough to not be allowed to legally own a gun, but is not deemed violent enough to still be in prison.
Very good point. And if we look back just 100 years, the death penalty would have been applied, in most cases.
Democrat support is a definite red flag.
I also like Britt Grant, confirmed to 11th Circuit on July 31, 2018, on a vote of 52-46:
Rest assured the Left does NOT want ACB...ha...just realized she’ll fit in nicely as she has a three letter acronym...ACB replaces RBG :)
Not even the ones in prisons!
Yep. That seals it for me. She is definitely my first choice.
I like Britt Gantt too. If Trump wins another term, he is likely to get 2-3 more Supreme Court nominations. Let Judge Gantt get another couple years of seasoning on the Circuit Court then elevate her to the Supreme Court.
That is how I read Lagoa also.
The true good picks bring out the Crazy Left.
“In June, Barrett said in a dissenting opinion that she would have let one of Trumps hardline immigration policies go forward in Illinois. The litigation was over the “public charge” rule, a policy of denying legal permanent residency to certain immigrants deemed likely to require government assistance in the future. Barrett dissented when a three-judge panel voted to halt the policy in Illinois.”
I like it.
I would love to know where she stands on DACA, travel bans, “birthright citizenship”, etc.
Amy is right.
The legal term felony applies to too broad a range of actual crimes to consider the rank of felony alone describing those conditions that should limit 2nd amendment rights. In essence Amy was saying felony was too broad of a term to restrict 2nd amendment rights.
I think Amy may have had federal felony convictions like these (and others) in mind, as not constituting crimes for which 2nd amendment rights should be diminished:
Concealment of Assets
Contempt of Court
Disclosure of Confidential Information
False Statements Relative to Healthcare Matters
False Statement in Application for Unemployment
Lobbying with Appropriated Moneys
Partial Birth Abortion
Picketing or Parading
Suits Against Government Officials
Violent criminals should not be allowed to continue to terrorize society..........It is really odd that a criminal can be deemed violent enough to not be allowed to legally own a gun, but is not deemed violent enough to still be in prison.”
There is no perfect application of our 2nd amendment rights. Sometimes what is fair, what is just requires a compromise. It is not unreasonable that we consider the length of prison as a limited time, and still think the commission of a certain crime ranks as qualifying for other restrictions that may still apply after the prison term is completed. Maybe further compromise would serve justice better by making the other restrictions apply only for certain time limits as well, and not permanent. It would probably be added that no other felony occurred during that additional time limit. That would make it like a “probationary” period where the formerly convicted person is demonstrating their abandonment of the behavior that got them into trouble; after which any additional restrictions would no longer apply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.