Carrie Severino Profile picture
Sep 26, 2020 6 tweets 2 min read Read on X
They attacked her faith, they attacked her family, now they are attacking her for a book review. /1

CC: @KamalaHarris @SenSchumer
Democrats and liberals can’t attack Judge Barrett’s qualifications, so they are falling back to scare tactics, the same thing they do every time they have no good argument. /2
The one quote Democrats and their allies are using is from a book review, not a ruling, not a case she heard. /3
This one sentence from a book review wasn’t an issue when a bipartisan majority confirmed her three years and it shouldn't be an issue now. /4
The idea a book review represents how she would rule as a Supreme Court Justice is pure desperation by her opponents. /5
No one is attacking pre-existing conditions, certainly not Judge Barrett, a mother of seven, one of whom has special needs. /end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Carrie Severino

Carrie Severino Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JCNSeverino

Jul 1
🧵In United States v. Trump the Court crafted a sensible line regarding immunity that balances the historical presumption that presidents are subject to some potential liability for their actions with the president’s need to be able to exercise executive power under Article II without courts second-guessing his judgment.
The Court noted the threat to a President’s ability to do his job boldly if he were immediately faced with a bevy of lawsuits upon leaving office—something that until recently was almost unheard-of but may be part of the new normal in our current environment of lawfare and polarization.
Going forward, courts determining whether an action is covered by immunity will begin by assessing the President’s authority to take that action. Courts cannot consider a president's motives when making this assessment.

Today's decision says that such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose.
Read 5 tweets
Jun 28
🧵Good riddance to Chevron deference, which put a two-ton judicial thumb on the scale of government bureaucrats against the little guy.

This is a big victory for the rule of law. Image
In these cases, the National Marine Fisheries Service claimed without statutory authorization the right to force fishing boats to pay government monitor salaries of up to 20% of their revenues.
This is a Court that cares about the separate but coequal branches of government doing what they are supposed to do.

Congress, for its part, needs to do more of its job, articulating what the rules are itself instead of abdicating in favor of unelected bureaucrats who are not given that power under the Constitution.
Read 7 tweets
Jun 21
Today in Rahimi, the Court did just what we expected.

It applied its Second Amendment test looking to historical firearm regulation benchmarks in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) rather than the justices’ own policy preferences in deciding this case.

Thread 🧵
The question is whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority when it enacted a prohibition on the possession of firearms by people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders barring them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child.
The circumstances of this case are particularly odd, because Rahimi was a clearly reckless man who had on five occasions been involved in shootings.

He shot at individuals and/or cars, including a constable’s vehicle. Yet he was not a convicted felon.
Read 10 tweets
Jan 18
🧵Thread:
 
Notre Dame Law School’s @DerektMuller conducted a comprehensive survey of the ideological leanings of the biggest law firms’ pro bono work at the Supreme Court as a way of gaining insight into the firms’ own ideological leanings.

The findings published expose just how deep the left-wing bias really is inside prestigious law firms.

journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/ideologic…Image
Muller looked at pro bono amicus briefs submitted in Supreme Court merits docket cases.

Over the four years between October 2018 and June 2022, Muller counted 851 amicus briefs (of the 3,280 filed in total) that were likely submitted pro bono by firms among the top 100 measured by gross revenue (the “Am Law 100”).Image
Overall, 64% of those briefs were aligned with the liberal position versus 31% with the conservative position, while the balance were in support of neither party.
Read 9 tweets
Jan 12
Chief Justice John Roberts will soon appoint a new director of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts—the chief administrative officer of the federal courts (AO).

Recently the AO has inappropriately engaged in the Left's DEI practices so it’s imperative the next person chosen for the role refocuses on doing the actual job.

🧵Thread

supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/pre…Image
Image
The AO came under fire last year when it was reported by @DailyCaller that it launched several DEI-focused initiatives in recent years, including launching its “Model Intern Diversity Program” in 2018 and even hiring a DEI officer in 2020.

dailycaller.com/2023/03/16/fed…
Image
As is typically the case with DEI, only immutable characteristics matter.

Merit and diversity of thought are not major considerations under DEI-hiring practices.

And of course, the AO’s annual report selectively highlighted the stories of only Democrat-appointed judges.

uscourts.gov/statistics-rep…Image
Read 6 tweets
Nov 30, 2023
Democrats want to destroy the Supreme Court:

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Senator @LindseyGrahamSC on how the Democrats’ unhinged rhetoric attacking the Supreme Court helped lead to an assassination attempt against Justice Kavanaugh:
@LindseyGrahamSC “This is about an ongoing effort to destroy this Court, to destroy Clarence Thomas’s reputation, to pack the Court, to get your way, to make sure the Supreme Court as it exists today can’t function.” - Senator @LindseyGrahamSC 🎯
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(