Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Notable Opinions of U.S. Supreme Court Contender Amy Coney Barrett
Reuters via US News ^ | Sept. 20, 2020 | BY JAN WOLFE

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.

GUNS

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."

ABORTION....

(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; 7thcircuit; abortion; acb; amyconeybarrett; banglist; constitution; courts; federalistsociety; immigration; judiciary; law; politicaljudiciary; prolife; scotus; secondamendment; seventhcircuit; supremecourt; supremes; trump; trumpjudge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
Good creds IMHO...
1 posted on 09/25/2020 2:32:08 AM PDT by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Me likey! She’s stronger on the 2nd Amendment than those two Reagan judges she dissented from.


2 posted on 09/25/2020 2:39:53 AM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

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.


3 posted on 09/25/2020 2:41:00 AM PDT by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is thp at they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

And, on further reading, she’s no slouch on immigration and abortion either. Me likey even more.

In before the campaigners for Jeb’s Florida candidate.


4 posted on 09/25/2020 2:44:00 AM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Barrett would definitely be my choice. She at least has a track record of conservative opinions. I’d 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.


5 posted on 09/25/2020 2:53:28 AM PDT by ScottinVA (First, let’s deal with the election; then we’ll deal with BLM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Barrett, 48, has voted in favor of one of Trump's hardline immigration policies and shown support for expansive gun rights.

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.

6 posted on 09/25/2020 3:09:09 AM PDT by Tax-chick ("What we can see of God's canvas is laughably small." ~Bp. Barron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

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.


7 posted on 09/25/2020 3:30:33 AM PDT by teeman8r (Armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world or something)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teeman8r

“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.


8 posted on 09/25/2020 3:38:21 AM PDT by 21twelve (Ever Vigilant. Never Fearful!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

Very good point. And if we look back just 100 years, the death penalty would have been applied, in most cases.


9 posted on 09/25/2020 3:49:41 AM PDT by exnavy (american by birth and choice, I love this country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

Tru dat.


10 posted on 09/25/2020 3:50:44 AM PDT by teeman8r (Armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world or something)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA
I’d be a bit wary of Lagoa.. first off, she garnered the votes of 27 dems when she was confirmed.

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:


11 posted on 09/25/2020 3:56:30 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 ("Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." -- Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

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 :)


12 posted on 09/25/2020 4:33:49 AM PDT by ripnbang ("An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man, a subject.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: teeman8r
Violent criminals should not be allowed to continue to terrorize society.

Not even the ones in prisons!

13 posted on 09/25/2020 4:34:20 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

Yep. That seals it for me. She is definitely my first choice.


14 posted on 09/25/2020 4:38:38 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

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.


15 posted on 09/25/2020 4:41:35 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

That is how I read Lagoa also.
The true good picks bring out the Crazy Left.
Bork
Thomas
Kavanagh


16 posted on 09/25/2020 5:11:29 AM PDT by Zathras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

“IMMIGRATION

“In June, Barrett said in a dissenting opinion that she would have let one of Trump’s 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.


17 posted on 09/25/2020 5:18:43 AM PDT by SharpRightTurn (Chuck Schumer--giving pond scum everywhere a bad name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
From the article:

ABORTION
Abortion rights groups have expressed concern that if appointed, Barrett could help overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

Although Barrett has not ruled directly on abortion as a judge, she has cast votes signaling opposition to rulings that struck down abortion-related restrictions.

In 2016, Indiana passed a law requiring that fetal remains be buried or cremated after an abortion.

After some judges found the law unconstitutional, Barrett voted in favor of rehearing the case. She was outnumbered, but the Supreme Court later reinstated the Indiana law.

In 2019, Barrett voted to rehear a panel's ruling that upheld a challenge to another Republican-backed Indiana abortion law. The Indiana measure would require that parents be notified when a girl under 18 is seeking an abortion even in situations in which she has asked a court to provide consent instead of her parents.

The Supreme Court ordered in July that the case be reconsidered.


These seem to be awfully weak arguments against ACB for the lovers of abortion.
18 posted on 09/25/2020 5:48:23 AM PDT by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

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:

Bond Default

Computer Crime

Concealment of Assets

Contempt of Court

Copyright Matters

Disclosure of Confidential Information

False Statements Relative to Healthcare Matters

False Statement in Application for Unemployment

Lobbying with Appropriated Moneys

Medical/Healthcare Fraud

Partial Birth Abortion

Picketing or Parading

Shoplifting

Suits Against Government Officials


19 posted on 09/25/2020 8:34:50 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

“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.


20 posted on 09/25/2020 8:46:42 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson