Amy Coney Barrett may be poised to split conservatives on the Supreme Court

[marble falls]

Amy Coney Barrett may be poised to split conservatives on the Supreme Court

Legal experts see signs of a “raging” philosophical debate among the court’s supermajority.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/19/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-conservatives-rift-00164047



-snip-

The question at the center of the spat may seem abstract: How should the court use “history and tradition” to decide modern-day legal issues? But the answer may determine how the court resolves some of the biggest cases set to be released in the coming days, particularly its latest foray into the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

-snip-

But Barrett recently foreshadowed that she is distancing herself from that approach. If she breaks with Thomas in the gun case, known as United States v. Rahimi, and if she can persuade at least one other conservative justice to join her, they could align with the court’s three liberals to uphold the gun control law.

That outcome would avoid the certain political backlash that would result from a high court declaration that alleged domestic abusers have a constitutional right to carry a gun. Thomas, famous for his intransigence, might not care about such backlash, but the more pragmatically minded Barrett is surely aware of it.

-snip-

The dispute over the historical approach — part of a legal philosophy known as originalism — also could have implications for Donald Trump’s pending bid to have the high court declare him immune from prosecution for attempting to subvert the 2020 election. The potential outcomes in that case, though, are less clear than in the gun case.

-snip-



It seems Justices Alito and Gorsuch are leaning towards Thomas’ 'historicalism' , while Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh are not seeming to lean towards 'historicalism.

[BlueKota]

1. I will believe any of the six will do the right thing by

the Constitution when I see them actually do it. As of now I see 0 reason to believe any of them are not cemented on the party line.

[Walleye]

5. They are maga

[S/V Loner]

11. I agree but they answer to their masters and the GOP...

probably doesn't want to deal with any of the headaches a pro gun ruling would dump in their lap before the election.

[CrispyQ]

2. I read she was disturbed about how radical state abortion legislation has affected women's access to healthcare.

She should be & I was both pissed & hopeful when I read that. Maybe she'll see the light? How Atwoodesque if the court split down gender lines.

[Iris]

12. How does someone with a law degree not see such consequences ahead of time?

Steeped in her preferred ideology

[jaxexpat]

17. Dominionism is overwhelmingly blind to logic. More powerful than mere education.

Remember, faith is the unshakeable "knowledge" of things without proof or evidence. You can't argue with that. And those at the top never forgo their 10% cut of the gross.

[Iris]

22. Good perspective.

I need to remember this

[hatrack]

15. Only if her sovereign lord and master husband approves . . .

You know, Justice Handmaiden and all that.

[Hekate]

21. I hope this is so. As a person who has actually given birth multiple times, she understands what those men...

…are incapable of grasping.

Consider Nancy Pelosi. She, like Joe Biden, is a Roman Catholic. They are each very devout in their own way. But aside from having been raised in Democratic households, they have also let their lived experience shape them profoundly.

For Nancy, this lived experience included having 5 babies in 6 years. She has said (in so many words) there’s nothing any priest or bishop can tell her about what that means. She knows.

Fingers crossed that Amy will prove to be the swing vote among that all-male rigidly ideological group on the Court. Even if only on the issue of women’s health, that would be huge.

[thomski64]

3. ..so strictly viewed..

..the gun humping knuckle
draggers should be allowed
all the muzzle loading single
shot pistols and rifles they
want to own...so they can be
in well regulated militias....
.. one would imagine to hunt
escaped slaves or suppress
a slave revolt...

[Voltaire2]

8. Or eliminate indigenous communities

[Walleye]

4. I hold out no hope for this Supreme Court

[marble falls]

6. She voted with the other three women on the court against the bumpstock, she's voted for disarming men ...

... arrested for abuse.

She's criticized Thomas in at least one opinion:

"Thomas wrote the majority opinion rejecting the trademark applicant’s claim. Barrett (and all the other justices) agreed with that bottom-line result. The quarrel came down to methodology.

In a concurring opinion, Barrett used unusually blunt terms to skewer Thomas’ history-based rationale for denying the trademark. She described his approach as “wrong twice over,” and she made clear that her gripes went far beyond this case alone."

[DemocratInPa]

13. Honestly, she is probably the least crazy republican on the SC..

She has been known for following the law in alot of decisions...

[Voltaire2]

7. I have zero confidence that any of the six sick fucks

will do anything other than destroy the republic.

[maxrandb]

9. What complete horseshit!

Any mention of this fucked-up court, with a 6-3 Confederate States of 'Murika majority, that does NOT highlight the fact that 3 out of 9 justices were appointed by a FUCKING felon, is worthless as teats on a bullfrog.

Politico is simply normalizing this shit-sandwich by trying to claim "hey, maybe the FUCKING serial killer may turn out to be a 'good neighbor'".

Fuck that noise.

[hatrack]

16. Yep, this.

.

[malaise]

10. Hearing

[ZonkerHarris]

14. zero chance she does the right thing for Americans

[Baitball Blogger]

18. I hope that some day that this hystericalism will be seen for what it is.

Voo Doo Conservative reasoning on the Supreme Court is going to destabilize the court system.

[FakeNoose]

19. SCOTUS has already shown they don't give a rat's ass about "legal precedent"

... whenever it suits their purposes.

[usaf-vet]

20. At this point in my listening I'm impressed that Dreeben continues to remind the Justices that for 200+ years.....

.....this has not been a problem that we have ever had to deal with until now, and he stops short of saying, "Trump is the problem."

I understand why he stops where he does, but Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch are definitely more interested in "Protecting Trump." than they are in the actual facts of this case, which is here ONLY because of the conman, criminal, and narcissistic personality disorder person in the individual of 45.

In my mind, Dreeben held our ground! Thank you! I hope his arguments don't fall on 6 sets of deaf ears.