#amy coney barrett

[mysharona1987]

[odinsblog]

This is an illegitimate and deeply corrupt Supreme Court

[porterdavis]

[wardsutton]

My latest for today's Boston Globe.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Erin Reed at Erin In The Morning:

Today's Supreme Court hearing in United States v. Skrmetti was historic, featuring Chase Strangio as the first openly transgender attorney to present arguments before the Court. Strangio's advocacy was both impactful and insightful, addressing justices who hold the future of equal protection for transgender individuals in their hands. The case challenges Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth, and also will determine if transgender people can be legally discriminated against. Reactions to the oral arguments have been mixed, with some expressing pessimism about the prospects for transgender rights. However, a notable moment occurred when Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared surprised to learn about the historical de jure discrimination against transgender individuals through anti-crossdressing laws, suggesting she could be a potential wild card in the eventual ruling.

The topic first arose when Justice Barrett posed a question to Solicitor General Prelogar regarding historical de jure discrimination against transgender people. Barrett asked, “You point out in your brief that in the last three years there have been these laws, but before that, we might have had private societal discrimination. However, I don’t know of any instances—am I missing something? Is there a history that I’m unaware of where we have de jure discrimination?” Several minutes later, Justice Samuel Alito questioned Chase Strangio, expressing skepticism that transgender people could be granted quasi-suspect classification—a legal designation that would subject laws affecting them to heightened scrutiny—due to what he saw as a lack of historical legal discrimination, to which Strangio replied that such historical discrimination existed legally in two places: the military and in anti-crossdressing laws.

The latter appeared to take Justice Barrett by surprise, something that she would return to a few times during her oral arguments. In a follow-up line of questioning towards Strangio, Barrett admitted that she never knew about the long history of cross-dressing laws, indicating that she may be convinced by Strangio that de jure legal discrimination was indeed part of transgender legal history. “Mr. Strangio, I wanted to give you a chance to clarify. I’m not sure if you named all the laws when we were discussing de jure discrimination earlier. You mentioned bans on cross-dressing and bans on military service. I had thought of the military service ban, but I wasn’t aware of statutes prohibiting cross-dressing. Can you think of any others?” She asked, her tone indicating surprise.

[...]

Cross-dressing laws have long been used to target the transgender community. The first such laws appeared in 1843, prohibiting individuals from “wearing the apparel of the other sex.” These laws became tools of enforcement during police raids in the 1960s, particularly around the time of the Stonewall riots. Responding to Justice Barrett’s questioning on social media, the ACLU’s Gillian Branstetter highlighted a 1964 case challenging a cross-dressing law, quoting a newspaper report on the defense: "The defense submitted by the ACLU contends that it is unconstitutional to arrest as a vagrant a transvestite who has done nothing more than wear the clothing of the opposite sex."

Attorneys working on other LGBTQ+-related cases have privately shared intrigue over Justice Barrett’s questioning, with one expressing “surprising hope” about her potential stance on the case. During other portions of the hearing, Chase Strangio appealed to Barrett’s previous rulings on COVID-related cases, where she acknowledged that medical care could intersect with equal protection issues, particularly in the context of religious services. Barrett also gave Strangio an opportunity to discuss the political powerlessness of transgender people amid recent waves of anti-trans legislation—a point Justice Sotomayor later underscored in questioning Tennessee’s attorney. Sotomayor remarked, “When you are less than 1% of the population, it’s very hard to see how the democratic process is going to protect you.” Collectively, her discussion could make her a potential swing vote in the case.

It is also important to note that Justice Barrett has recently sided with liberals in choosing not to hear major cases on LGBTQ+ rights. Justice Barrett refused to reinstate Florida’s drag ban in November of 2023. She also refused to hear an appeal on Washington’s conversion therapy ban, allowing it to stand and joining Roberts and Gorsuch along with the liberals in that decision.

During oral arguments at SCOTUS in the Skrmetti case, Justice Amy Coney Barrett admitted that she was surprised by the history of “three article rules” used to target crossdressers and trans people. Could this be a faint glimmer of hope that Coney Barrett could be on the side of protecting gender-affirming care?

[lenbryant]

Corrupt Supreme Court in their boss's shoes.

[eyes-stiched-open]

Abortion bans brutally triple maternal deaths it’s a betrayal of their right to live.

Republicans want women dead.

[siriuslydandy]

🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕

[geezerwench]

Most of the US Supreme Court is corrupt.

Samuel Alito

Amy Coney Barrett

Neil Gorsuch

Brett Kavanaugh

John Roberts

Clarence Thomas

President Biden is working to change that. He proposed an amendment to the Constitution there is no immunity for presidents for crimes committed while in office. The No One is Above the Law Amendment.

18-year term limits. Bill that has been introduced by Democrats.

Binding Code of Ethics. Bill that has been introduced by Democrats.

Of course, Republicans are opposed to these bills.

[mysharona1987]

[odinsblog]

Republicans and religious cults go together like dogshit and flies

👉🏿 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/03/fbi-people-of-praise-amy-coney-barrett-faith-group-abuse-allegations

[porterdavis]

She's auditioning for a SCOTUS seat alongside ACB.

[lgbtally4ever]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Kyle Cheney at Politico:

Donald Trump is on the cusp of emerging unscathed from his four criminal prosecutions — thanks almost entirely to the decisions of four judges he appointed. Trump’s three Supreme Court picks formed a decisive bloc to declare presidents immune from prosecution for official conduct — freezing the charges he faces in multiple jurisdictions for trying to subvert the 2020 election and putting his New York conviction in doubt. Then his nominee to the federal court in Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon, handed him another victory by dismissing the charges he faces for hoarding classified documents and concealing them from investigators.

Her decision earned a shout-out from Trump as he accepted the Republican nomination on Thursday. “A major ruling was handed down from a highly respected federal judge in Florida, Aileen Cannon,” he said. Trump’s string of victories reflects what experts say is extraordinary luck and timing. He’s the first president since Ronald Reagan to appoint three justices to the Supreme Court, and the first to ever face criminal charges that, soon thereafter, landed in front of the very judges he put on the bench. “This is a perfect example of serendipity, how the occurrence of events and trials and tribulations of the judicial process have all combined to work in favor of Donald Trump,” said Gene Rossi, a former federal prosecutor and civil litigator.

But it’s also a function, those experts say, of the fact that Trump rose to power in an era when conservatives — who had been burned in the past by judicial picks that later broke ranks — had begun perfecting a strategy of appointing judges who would more reliably rule in their favor. President Joe Biden, too, has appointed judges whose backgrounds appear more reliably liberal, though it’s not yet clear whether he will have the same impact on the judiciary as his predecessor. “Today, given that politics are so important in securing a judicial appointment, I can see how that sort of concern can spread,” said David Zaring, professor of legal studies from the Wharton School of Business. “[Trump] got so lucky — people don’t usually get a chance to appoint three justices to the Supreme Court in one term. Trump got it and then the Supreme Court gave him a very favorable ruling after that.”

Cannon’s ruling in the documents case had nothing to do with the substance of the charges — widely considered to be the most clear-cut case Trump faces. Cannon found that Attorney General Merrick Garland overstepped his authority when he named Smith special counsel, invalidating the entire prosecution. But the decision — which legal experts suggested would likely be reversed on appeal — nevertheless put Trump’s already-slim odds of facing trial this year effectively out of reach. [...] Cannon, in particular, represents a stark example. She was confirmed to the bench in November 2020, days after Trump lost reelection to Joe Biden. And she drew widespread criticism two years later after she slowed the investigation by granting a longshot push by the defense to require that an independent monitor review materials the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago.

[...] Not all of Trump’s appointees have ruled uniformly in his favor throughout his yearslong odyssey through the criminal justice system. In 2022, the Supreme Court rebuffed his effort to shield his White House papers from the Jan. 6 select committee, and it declined to consider his Cannon-backed effort to keep the documents investigation frozen.

This Politico article details the influence that the judges Donald Trump appointed are helping him evade legal trouble.

[aunti-christ-ine]

[burnouts3s3]

A content creator I used to follow, Bob Chipman, Moviebob, tells voters to show up & vote Democrat in elections for SCOTUS. Bob grew up in a dying factory town and became a film Youtuber. Bob was right; President Trump picked Ginsburg's replacement thus overturning Roe v Wade.

President Trump was able to appoint 3 Supreme Court Justices to the Supreme Court: Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who helped overturned Roe v. Wade. It's very likely Trump will be re-elected and pick Justice Thomas' replacement.

Bob resents the idea of low voter turn out or voters choosing to vote Republican for the promise of manufacturing jobs since he grew up in a dying factory town, considering manufacturing jobs to be obsolete as opposed to getting skills in tech or entertainment.

Bob will vote in November 2024 for Kamala Harris for the sake of the Supreme Court. But given the current polling, it is very likely that Trump will be re-elected back into office to a Republican Senate allowing more confirmations of Trump picked Judges and Justices.