Posted on 04/08/2025 11:07:21 AM PDT by Signalman
One of President Donald Trump’s picks for the U.S. Supreme Court turned on him Monday, siding with liberal justices in a bid to constrain his ability to deport illegal immigrants suspected by the administration of being affiliated with violent South American gangs.
MAGA conservatives are incensed with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whom the president nominated and was confirmed for her role during his first administration. Barrett briefly became a right-wing celebrity after she held up her blank notebook during a U.S. Senate confirmation hearing to show that she brought no prepared talking points with her.
Now, she is under fire after conservative commentators online singled her out for attempting to limit President Trump’s ability to deport illegal immigrants under a wartime powers law known as the Alien Enemies Act. Barrett sided with the court’s three liberal justices in a dissent, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, stating that the administration’s conduct “poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law.”
A majority of the justices overturned a lower court’s ruling temporarily halting U.S. flights deporting illegal immigrants to mega-prisons in El Salvador and countries of origin, though the freedom to resume movements comes with new restrictions.
Going forward, all deportees must be afforded their due process, and the ruling leaves the door open to future legal challenges if filed in Texas, where plaintiffs were being held, rather than an improper venue like in the case before the high court.
Rogan O’Handley, known as DC_Draino, wrote about Barrett, “While this Supreme Court victory for Trump allowing him to deport cartels is huge, it was only a 5-4 decision. Guess who joined the 3 liberal Justices to keep cartels here in America? Amy Coney Barrett.”
Catturd, another MAGA influencer who boasts 3.6 million followers on the platform, agreed.
“There’s nobody I have less respect for in the entire country besides Dr. Fauci than Amy Commie Barrett – Trump appointed her and gave her her dream job and complimented her and praised her – and she’s been an ungrateful, backstabbing POS since day one. She got a million dollar Liberal book deal within weeks and her whole goal in Life is to be praised by The New York Times,” they wrote, Newsweek reported.
The post added: “Weak, coward, sellout, fraud. She’s everything that’s wrong with this country. She’s an Absolute disgusting fraud.”
Other supporters of deportation proceedings noted that it was only the women on the court who opposed them.
“All the men on the Court voted the law. All the women, including Amy Coney Barrett, voted their feelings,” wrote conservative commentator Jeff Younger.
Although Barrett only sided with parts of Sotomayor’s dissent, glaring passages offer a window into her opposition to boundless deportations.
“If the District Court were to resolve the question in plaintiffs’ favor, the Government could have appealed to this Court in the ordinary course, and we could have decided it after thorough briefing and oral argument,” Sotomayor wrote in a passage co-signed by Barrett.
“In its rush to decide the issue now, the Court halts the lower court’s work and forces us to decide the matter after mere days of deliberation and without adequate time to weigh the parties’ arguments or the full record of the District Court’s proceedings.”
(And of course the other team never has this problem with their Justices.)
That’s close, yes. Too much is at stake to gamble on that again.
If you were a major league hitter and you batted 70% you’d be the ALL STAR of the Century. If you’re an NFL team and you win 70% of your games, you’re a dynasty. If I sell to 70% of my customers whom I interact with, I wouldn’t be here talking with you. I’d be on an island, somewhere.
IF the Dems hit 98% and the Pubbies hit 70%, we’ll never win.
“if a judge has ever deviated from the approved conservative view of an issue, that judge is thereafter considered worthless. “
Yeah? And what’s your point? “The approved conservative view of an issue” = The Constitution.
Vote against The Constitution and you’re worthless.
“a hyphenated last name, USUALLY a dead give away”
That was one of the three big red flags for me when her name first was mentioned.
1. The stylish last name.
2. The car full of Whole Foods shopping bags.
3. The contrived designer family.
I dealt with these woman when we lived in SoCal, and I knew exactly what she was, even if not in California.
My point is that people do not look at a judge’s entire record.
We have to agree to disagree. You apparently think that if a judge does not rule the way you would like , on any individual case, it completely cancels out all their other rulings. I disagree with that sentiment.
Have your opinion . We all have opinions.
[in the future don’t listen to recommendations from career RINO politicians, as Trump did in the Barrett pick]
In this case, I’m not 100% convinced she was a “recommendation”. I’m more apt to believe that Mitch told PDJT that she was The One who would be confirmed and not bother to waste time on anyone else.
It was posted here that during the first term that he was given a list of who would, and who wouldn’t, be confirmed by the Senate.
The Constitution is (should be) the Final Authority in our government, just like the Bible is (should be) the Final Authority in our faith.
Opinions aren’t a thing in these cases; certain issues aren’t subjective.
Well, judges are the ones who have to interpret the constitution, and apply the constitution against whatever cases come up. There are differences of opinion on the issues involved with cases. So what can any of us do?
Sure we will. Cuz GOP gets all the other votes. Trump won FOUR in the last 48 hours.
Stop being a doomspooger. We’re kicking ass.
I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em—and I always will.
Roberts got a shot across his bow with the Eisen link, combined by Congress’s growing willingness to take some district court toys away from him.
But you sound like the usual “moderate” mush here. I take it you were a big Coney supporter because of her position on abortion?
Nope. I was a Coney supporter because Steve Bannon told me their #1 criteria in putting forth these justices was to overturn Chevron, the single biggest reason for Deep State growth. Abortion #2, guns #3. Bannon said that they weren’t looking for “social conservatives,” but for people who would overturn the bureaucracy. She has been, to use your rating, 100% on those issues.
Two strikes against you, if I might respectfully offer:
1) Pushing Barrett, and
2) Listening to Bannon.
(But I’ve long enjoyed your posts here.)
Yet Bannon said it exactly as it happened. The people he named were in fact those who were nominated. All I am saying is that he gave me the reasons they selected those people.
In the long run, they are perfect, and since abortion and guys are my other top three issues, I have very few complaints about ACB.
We can agree to disagree.
Clearly Trump’s got better legal counsel this term, however; so I expect he’ll respond to any openings better than he did in his first term, when he dined from the very suspect Federalist Society buffet.
We absolutely agree on that. NO MORE FEDERALIST SOCIETY CHOWDERHEADS. Maybe some judges who at one point were defense attorneys instead of prosecutors.
The Amish will take over, next century!!
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.