I’ve thought about it. I think it’s more that she voted with the tribe, rather than gave any deep thought to what she was doing.
...just my take.
Barrett is an absolute disaster who clearly misrepresented her views on the Constitution during her confirmation hearing. I’m beginning to think she has some legal issues with the adoptions of her kids from Haiti.
Realistically speaking this justice ‘on the Left’ knows the piled on charges used against President Trump’s supporters could theoretically be used against Leftists in the future.
We are in an age when authorities want to shut down protests label all protests extreme astroturf racism-extremism to discredit and shut down any protest movements.
She is an idiot and DEI Hire. She is always different, but for all the wrong reasons. she couldn’t describe a women.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett is worthless.
Kadeesha Jackson brown? She can’t even decide genders! Guess she could be independent of thinking. So the wise Latinx and keg-one are left hanging?
hopefully she will “grow” into a swing vote the way many Republican judges have over the decades!
Roberts convinced the two noobs Brown and Barret to flip flop their votes to give the the press and public the appearance of the high courts absence of political bias.
Really a transparent move.
Over the years I had hoped that true scholars with actual experience like Scalia and Thomas would have an impact on Kagan and Sotomayor in how they viewed the constitution and application of the law. But really nothing changed as they are still reliable votes for the left. Sad.
Probably the blind squirrel syndrome but I’ll give her credit for being on the right side of this issue. I’m not optimistic that this will be a very frequent occurrence.
Maybe she’s being mentored by Clarence. People can change.
Barrett is a strong textualist like Scalia, which means she interprets the words of the law as they are written, not how someone today might write the same idea, or what the framers motives or intentions were. That doesn’t mean she is always going to side with the conservative position (justices should never take political positions).
As an example, read Art. 2 Sect. Clause 3 and you will know what the constitution says about Electors. A textualist will base their decisions on these words, not what someone might wish they said, which means they would say Mike Pence, acting as President of the Senate, followed constitutional law and had no other option than to do what he did, no matter how much FReepers think otherwise.
You can have textualism or you can view the constitution as “a living document” that is subject to interpretation by modern-day readers. Pick one.
Driving...A disaster...
Voting...A disaster...
SCOTUS...A disaster...
At least from this 90-year old’s perspective...
6-3. Her vote did not matter this time. She can show her independence someday when her vote makes a difference. Otherwise, she is just Joe Mannion, West Virginia 2.0.
BLACKBURN: "Can you provide a definition for the word 'woman'?"JACKSON: “Can I provide a definition? No. I can’t.”
BLACKBURN: "You can't?"
JACKSON: "Not in this context. I'm not a biologist."
I took that answer to mean biology determines whether a person is a man or a woman.
I get that Republicans just wanted a gotcha, but there are some rare conditions where outward appearance and chromosomes don't seem to match.