Warm Southern Breeze

"… there is no such thing as nothing."

Judging Amy: Is Amy Coney Barrett A Right-Wing Radical?

Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, October 19, 2020

With the nomination and practical acceptance of Amy Coney Barrett being ramrodded through roughshod by the Republicans, it’s almost a practical assurance that the Judge from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will fill the seat vacated by the recent death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

It’s worth noting that the Federal Judicial Center “the research and education agency of the judicial branch of the United States Government,” notates her history (to date) as being a “nominated to the bench as Judge, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, was by POTUS Donald J. Trump on May 8, 2017, to a seat vacated by John Daniel Tinder. She was confirmed by the Senate on October 31, 2017, and received commission on November 2, 2017.”

So if she’s approved to be a Justice on the Supreme Court, it will have been done in less time than it took for her original nomination to be confirmed to the Federal judiciary – 5 months 24 days, versus 3 weeks 3 days/24 calendar days (to date), and counting.

Amy Coney Barrett at investiture to the Federal bench, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Proceeding therefrom, it now appears that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will no longer be tilting at windmills, but instead, will be significantly tilting toward the far right side of the political spectrum – the right-wing nut job side.

So, given that Judge Barrett, whom for one year clerked for late Justice Antonin Scalia, well-known for his interpretive style on the court – which he called “originalism,” and “textualism” – we can expect more nonsensical rulings in the 40+ years to come, the time for which she could reasonably be expected to rule.

Just like Neil Gorsuch’s infamous “Frozen Trucker” case.

And just so you’ll know – not that you would know – there’s a rather telling, and disturbing side of Judge A.C. Barrett’s judicial perspective, and interpretive style.

Case in point to illustrate: Kanter v Barr – a case in which she dissented involving a man who pleaded guilty to one count of a Federal Felony – mail fraud involving Medicare.

In the court’s ruling – an “en banc” decision, involving three judges – they wrote that:

“Kanter has since served his time and paid his criminal penalty, and he has not been charged with any additional criminal activity. However, because of his felony conviction, he is permanently prohibited from owning a firearm under federal and Wisconsin law.

The history of the ruling and case is summarized also in the case.

“Kanter brought suit in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and Wis. Stat. § 941.29(1m) are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to him. The United States moved to dismiss his claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and Wisconsin moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). In response, Kanter moved for summary judgment, arguing that his status as a nonviolent offender with no other criminal record meant that both statutes were unconstitutional as applied to him.

“The district court granted defendants’ motions and denied Kanter’s motion. In so doing, the district court held that, even assuming felons are entitled to Second Amendment protection, the application of the federal and Wisconsin felon dispossession laws to Kanter is substantially related to the government’s important interest in preventing gun violence. The court reasoned that Congress and the Wisconsin legislature are entitled to categorically disqualify all felons—even nonviolent felons like Kanter—because both have found that such individuals are more likely to abuse firearms. The court also noted that this “bright line categorical approach … allows for uniform application and ease of administration.” The district court entered judgment on January 2, 2018, and this appeal followed.”

Judge A.C. Barrett dissented.

In her opening remark to her dissent in the case, she wrote in part that,

“History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislatures imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791—and for well more than a century afterward— legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.”

In her defense, Judge Barrett is correct – “Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons.”

The reason “founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms” is because in that era, founding-era legislatures executed felons.

Nice try at spin, Amy.

So… in the future, we can likely expect to see more ludicrously injudicious decisions from her – especially since she’s okay with felons owning firearms.

So here’s one for the “textualists” and “originalists.”

True?

Or, False?

The United States Constitution guarantees all American citizens the right to vote.


False.

The right to vote is nowhere guaranteed in the United States Constitution.


And, just for funsies, let’s re-examine some of the late Justice Scalia’s quotes.

NOTE: Many of these quotes come from an April 28, 2008 interview on NPR’s news program Morning Edition with host Nina Totenberg.

“My Constitution is not living, it is dead. It means what the framers intended back at the founding of the Republic. So if capital punishment was constitutional in 1791, it still is today.”

“I am a textualist. I am an orginalist. I am not a nut.”
– Justice Scalia’s original remark was made on NPR’s Morning Edition, April 28, 2008, to host Nina Totenberg (b.1944), when asked to compare his judicial philosophy to that of Justice Clarence Thomas. The story is also told by Jeffrey Toobin in 2012 in a video available on YouTube.

“I don’t know why that’s taking sides. It’s happened in Canada.”
–– Justice Scalia contended that it is hard to distinguish invalidating a state law banning homosexual sodomy and making homosexual marriage legal, yet in the case where the court struck down a state law that made private homosexual conduct a crime, Scalia dissented vociferously, even accusing his colleagues of setting the stage for legalizing homosexual marriage under the Constitution.

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

 
%d bloggers like this: