lawfag here reposting notables from the last time potus was picking a scotus nominee - amy will not be the nomineee and for good reasin

3 past notables will be posted

first one

FAKE AND GAY NEWS

look i hate DF as much as the rest of you but this is a slide

she questioned ACB on People of Pride NOT catholic church

ACB is not really a catholic - she is an evangelical "charismatic" christian with out of the mainstream religious views EVEN for evangelicals

this slide is getting worse every day

here is what feinstein said

"your speeches demonstrate that your dogma lives loudly within you and thats a concern"

here is why she said it:

Speaking to the 2006 Notre Dame Law School graduating class, Barrett said: “Your legal career is but a means to an end, and . . . that end is building the kingdom of God. . . . [I]f you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love, and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.” Admittedly, this is about lawyers and not about judges, but it speaks to her views on a legal career in general.

In a December 2015 piece for the University of Notre Dame Alumni Association, Barrett wrote that “[l]ife is about more than the sum of our own experiences, sorrows, and successes. It’s about the role we play in God’s ever-unfolding plan to redeem the world.” She continued: “That sounds lofty, but it’s about taking the long view. Do we see success through the eyes of our contemporaries, or through the eyes of God? Do we focus only on what God does for us, or also on what God can do for others through us.”

And from Catholic Judges in Capital Cases: “Judges cannot — nor should they try to — align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard. Perhaps their good example will have some effect.”

People of Praise.

https://peopleofpraise.org/

You're right that PoP is not a Catholic group. They appears to by nondenominational (they accept anyone) but with root in the Pentecostal movement. ACB is, however, a practicing Roman Catholic:

"Ms. Barrett told the senators that she was a faithful Catholic, and that her religious beliefs would not affect her decisions as an appellate judge."

https://archive.is/20170928142021/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/amy-coney-barrett-nominee-religion.html#selection-1997.0-1997.149

>>10710893

the ACB slide has been pushed every day for the last week

this slide falsely connects and conflates the Q post about a woman SCOTUS nominees to catholic haters and ACB

the purpose of this slide is to promote this person as nominee due to her membership in People of Pride and her antiquated views on women - need to serve and follow men she says

DS/RINO/Never Trumpers and single issue pro lifers support her

this is NOT a catholic smear FAKE AND GAY NEWS

look i hate DF as much as the rest of you but this is a slide

she questioned ACB on People of Pride NOT catholic church

ACB is not really a catholic - she is an evangelical "charismatic" christian with out of the mainstream religious views EVEN for evangelicals

this slide is getting worse every day

here is what feinstein said

"your speeches demonstrate that your dogma lives loudly within you and thats a concern"

here is why she said it:

Speaking to the 2006 Notre Dame Law School graduating class, Barrett said: “Your legal career is but a means to an end, and . . . that end is building the kingdom of God. . . . [I]f you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love, and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.” Admittedly, this is about lawyers and not about judges, but it speaks to her views on a legal career in general.

In a December 2015 piece for the University of Notre Dame Alumni Association, Barrett wrote that “[l]ife is about more than the sum of our own experiences, sorrows, and successes. It’s about the role we play in God’s ever-unfolding plan to redeem the world.” She continued: “That sounds lofty, but it’s about taking the long view. Do we see success through the eyes of our contemporaries, or through the eyes of God? Do we focus only on what God does for us, or also on what God can do for others through us.”

And from Catholic Judges in Capital Cases: “Judges cannot — nor should they try to — align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard. Perhaps their good example will have some effect.”

People of Praise.

https://peopleofpraise.org/

You're right that PoP is not a Catholic group. They appears to by nondenominational (they accept anyone) but with root in the Pentecostal movement. ACB is, however, a practicing Roman Catholic:

"Ms. Barrett told the senators that she was a faithful Catholic, and that her religious beliefs would not affect her decisions as an appellate judge."

https://archive.is/20170928142021/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/amy-coney-barrett-nominee-religion.html#selection-1997.0-1997.149

POTUS put out a SCOTUS nomination list and the ACB SLIDE began - debunked on this NEWS board and now the MSM has taken up the SLIDE!

WE ARE THE NEWS!

here is one post from the board digs that explains why ACB will NOT be nominated by POTUS - there are moar

LAWFAG here on why ACB is not going to be the next or any future nominee - soory its long BUT anons need to learn up on habeus corpus = detention of enemy combatants w/o court interference…

most anons know about her extreme "charismatic" catholic/evangeclical religious worship and it is not good at all - includes many women's issues easily attacked and also talking in tongues and other out of the mainstream biblefag stuff- however since she is so dogmatic many prolifers see her as a lock on that issue and that is as far as they go - i do NOT agree with this approach and believe her extreme beliefs DQ her.

Barrett disputed Supreme Court Justice William Brennan’s statement that there “isn’t any obligation of our faith superior” to his oath to uphold the law. Barrett wrote that she does “not defend this position as the proper response for a Catholic judge to take with respect to abortion or the death penalty.” The bottom line? Barrett believes that judges should be able to put their religious views above their judicial oath to follow the law, the Constitution, and precedents of the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal.

1/2

>>10710902

2/3

that said POTUS did place her on the short list - IMO to appease said prolifers and evangelicals - however there is an indpt and objective reason why POTUS will not nominate her - and that is her announced position on habeus corpus.

as anons know a writ of Habeus Corpus is a legal device to get out of jail/arrest and into court - guaranteed by the Constitution no less - POTUS can suspend this writ in times of war and ER - OK great so what is the problem?

Well in 2014 this ACB wrote a vapid piece claiming that POTUS does not have the power to suspend habeus - ONLY CONGRESS - and went around the country giving this stinking opinion - heres the link:

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretations/the-suspension-clause-by-amy-barrett-and-neal-katyal

This legal opinion is unsound and illogical. The authors point out that the writ was needed because the monarch (executive) imprisoned persons w/o judicial process - the parliment thus passed a law prohibiting this action - the authors go on to point out that the founding fathers "…valued the Great Writ because they had this history in mind. Yet those who framed and ratified the Constitution also believed that in times of crisis, the executive might need leeway to hold suspects without answering to a court."

OK here is the disconnect - clearly the monarch had the power to imprison people - the legislature wanted to curb that power and did - that is the history - that is clearly was (is) the executive (monarch) that has this power.

So now on to the constitution - which ACB cites as her reasoning - Articl 1 Section 9 which provides that "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Seems pretty clear right? WRONG! This clause LIMITS CONGRESS POWER - NOT POTUS POWER - Proof? LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THIS SECTION WHICH READS:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

limits on congress! NOT POTUS. NOWHERE in the Constitution is POTUS historical power to suspend habeus corpus limited or made subject to Congress. Well what does SCOTUS have to say about this? NOT MUCH! The case taught in law scholl for the ACB position is Ex Parte Merriman - and it is true that case is cited for that proposition - but here is the catch - that was part of the legal confrontations in the runup to civil war - and decided by only ONE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE not SCOTUS - and BTW LINCOLN ignored it. So should we.

As a result of this prelim dust up Congress voted to grant POTUS the power to suspend habeus corpus but only for the duration of the civil war. So that long expired law does not address the current status of the matter.

Well after 9-11 Congress passed more national security laws including the detention of enemy combatants (sound familiar?) A litigation ensued with the court of appeals making the following decision:

"Because it is undisputed that Hamdi was captured in a zone of active combat in a foreign theater of conflict, it was not proper for any court to hear a challenge of his status… The broad warmaking powers delegated to the President under Article Two of the United States Constitution and the principle of separation of powers prohibited courts from interfering in this vital area of national security."

YES ANONS THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY 100% CORRECT IN 2004 - but then this correct decision went to SCOTUS - which body promptly grabbed back power with a counter-attack on seperation of powers. SCOTUS carved out an exception to this long standing rule of law in holding that '… due process required that Hamdi have a meaningful opportunity to challenge his enemy combatant status…"

>>10710908

3/3

To further point out the legal mumbojumbo that counts for SCOTUS opinions, consider this statement: "…we have made clear that, unless Congress acts to suspend it, the Great Writ of habeas corpus allows the Judicial Branch to play a necessary role in maintaining this delicate balance of governance." OK so does this ("unless") means that if Congress DOES suspend habeus under Article 1 Clause 9 (public safety) the court CANNOT review it? Doubtful but clear as mud - and SCOTUS has made clear that they can and will review excercise of POTUS power to suspend habeus - in either event the ACB logic fails as badly as SCOTUS.

OK so SCOTUS sticks to its principle that whatever Congress or POTUS do is always subject to judicial review - however - here is the reason they gave: "…. the Judiciary must not defer to the executive with respect to detentions. Instead the constitution empowers the judiciary to act as a check on executive power in this realm"

OK but once again - whose power is being reigned in? THE EXECUTIVE. Not Congress. There are other cases that do little to clear up this question. As always the law is an utter confusion and mess, with power politics playing the major role in every case. Bottom line though, is this - If I were WH counsel I would NEVER concede the power to suspend habeus to Congress - NEVER - Lincoln was right and we won. ACB just accepts this milk toast "CON LAW" with no thought at all.

PS - just for giggles check out her co-author - Neal Katyal - moar evidence why ACB is a big fat DQ

>>10711182

>Until I hear different it's Amy by a wide margin.

SLIDE

SHE AINT IT

>>10711257

well there are 15 senators who became scotus

bet they all sailed right through

https://www.senate.gov/senators/Supreme_Court.htm

>>10710899

he is as bad as ACB

she wrote that potus cannot suspend habeus

BS!

anyone wants lawfag piece on this speak out

>>10711438

>Amy Barnett

the slide continues

she aint it