As expected, the nominee is Judge Amy Coney Barrett. More than any nomination in history, this is a celebration of conservative feminists. It comes close to the day of the confirmation of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. thehill.com/opinion/judici…
...While they reached very different conclusions on constitutional interpretations, Justice Ginsburg and Judge Barrett have striking similarities. Both graduated at the top of their law school classes. Both went into teaching at leading law schools. Both joined the bench ...
...with deeply rooted views of the law and its role in society. Both also publicly discussed the importance of their faith to their careers and their convictions.
Barrett's nomination is an important moment in another respect. I have long criticized the near monopoly held by Harvard, Yale, and Columbia in modern nominations. A graduate of Notre Dame, Barrett brings a long needed educational diversity to the court. jonathanturley.org/2010/05/12/sup…
This will likely prove the single most consequential and transformative nomination in the modern history of the Supreme Court. A long line of cases dangle on a 5-4 majority. The common denominator in those cases was Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
..The hyperbole is now approaching hysteria. Speaker Pelosi has declared that a vote for this nominee is a vote to kill the ACA. That is simply untrue. The ACA turns on severability, an issue that cuts across ideological lines. Kavanaugh just issued a pro-severance decision...
...The individual mandate (which was eliminated years ago) is most likely to be severed from the rest of the ACA. Indeed, it is not clear that Barrett would take an opposing view on severability. The most likely count, even without Ginsburg's vote, would be to preserve . . .
... the rest of the ACA. Yet, Democratic leaders are declaring the imminent death of the ACA and Hillary Clinton is bizarrely claiming a "diabolical" anti-ACA plot behind this nomination. Many web sites seem like a communal primal scream session disconnected to the actual case.
Sen. Hirono just refused to say whether Barrett is "qualified." She stated that she will vote on how Barrett is expected to vote. However, she said that she will refuse to meet with her.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It is 6-3 in upholding the constitutionality of the board that issued rules for the covering of preventative case. This avoids a massive potential disruption on covered health care services.
...Justice Thomas dissents with Alito and Gorsuch. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett join with the liberal justices...
Five-minute warning. Once again, we have ten cases in the pipeline. We will be watching for any retirement announcements. Justices Thomas and Alito are the most obvious. Thomas may want to extend his time as one of the longest sitting justices, so the best money may be on Alito.
...Both Thomas and Alito would likely want to retire when they can be replaced with a like-minded nominee...
...Alito could well have the Mahmoud case out of Maryland on parental rights and LGBTQ material in public schools...
President Trump just announced that the United States has attacked the nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow. As discussed in today's column, Trump has history on his side in taking this action without congressional approval... thehill.com/opinion/white-…
...Since Iran has threatened to attack the United States in response to such an operation, it could trigger a series of cascading decisions. For example, under Article Five of the NATO treaty, an attack on one member is an attack on all...
...That is just one of the issues that could arise in a more prolonged conflict if Iran carries out its threat of retaliating against U.S. assets.
Today's decision upholding the Tennessee law restricting gender transition care for minors has enormous implications for a variety of transgender cases. Chief Justice Roberts declared "The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements."...
...The Court rejected the use of intermediate scrutiny that was just used by a judge in Boston to bar the Trump administration from requiring either male or female designations on passports...
...There is still room here for future challenges. The Court found that there was no discrimination on the basis of transgender status and noted that "absent a showing that SB1’s prohibitions are pretexts designed to effect invidious discrimination against transgender individuals, the law does not classify on the basis of transgender status."...