Daily Mail: 'His philosophy is mine too': Judge Amy Coney Barrett says she will 'apply the law as written' like her mentor Justice Scalia as she formally accepts Trump's SCOTUS nomination in front of her family at the White House
* President Donald Trump officially nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve on the United States Supreme Court
* President Trump made the announcement in the White House Rose Garden on Saturday afternoon
* Barrett has been a judge since 2017, when Trump nominated her to the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
* A longtime University of Notre Dame law professor, she had already established herself as a reliable conservative in the mold of Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked in the late 1990s
* Conservatives heralded the pick of Barrett as heir-apparent of Justice Antonin Scalia who died in Feb 2016
* Barrett clerked for conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in 1998 and 1999
* Like Scalia, Barrett considers herself an 'originalist' and interprets the Constitution as she believes the authors had intended it during their own lives
* Barrett was accompanied by her husband Jesse and her seven kids
* The president has the votes in the Senate to push his Supreme Court pick through, but the move is controversial because of the closeness of the 2020 election
President Donald Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Saturday, capping a dramatic reshaping of the federal judiciary that will resonate for a generation and that he hopes will provide a needed boost to his reelection effort.
Barrett, a judge on the Chicago-based 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals and a devout Roman Catholic, has been hailed by religious conservatives and others on the right as an ideological heir to conservative stalwart Antonin Scalia, the late Supreme Court justice for whom she clerked.
Barrett said she was 'truly humbled' by the nomination and quickly aligned herself with Scalia's conservative approach to the law, saying his 'judicial philosophy is mine, too.'
Read more ....
WNU Editor: She says that she will base her rulings on what the framers of the US constitution wanted. We shall see.
More News On President Trump Nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett To The Supreme Court
Barrett accepts nomination, says judges must be 'resolute' in setting aside personal beliefs -- The Hill
Amy Coney Barrett thanks her husband and calls their seven children her 'greatest joy' as she prepares to become the first mom with school-age kids to serve on the Supreme Court if confirmed -- Daily Mail
Trump taps Barrett, launching brawl over Supreme Court’s future -- Politico
Trump tells 'Fox & Friends' he wanted to choose a textualist for Supreme Court -- FOX News
Trump caps judiciary remake with choice of Barrett for court -- AP
Senate GOP set to vote on Trump's Supreme Court pick before election -- The Hill
Republicans push Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings starting Oct. 12 as Democrats criticize timing -- ABC News
Biden says Senate should not act on Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination until after election -- FOX News
Supreme Court fight pushes Senate toward brink -- The Hill
Dems slam Barrett nomination over health care, 'illegitimate process' after Trump nomination -- FOX News
Senate Dems ready tactics to muck up Supreme Court confirmation -- Politico
Democrat Senators Hirono, Blumenthal say they won’t meet with Amy Coney Barrett -- FOX News
What you need to know about Amy Coney Barrett -- Politico
How it happened: From law professor to high court in 4 years -- AP
From law professor to a Supreme Court nomination in just FOUR YEARS: Amy Coney Barrett's, 48, meteoric rise -- Daily Mail
ReplyDeleteLet the pouting and howling begin.
What link to what liberal rag will Parrot post to try to discredit Barrett?
ReplyDeleteYeah that's the problem of the left
ReplyDeleteCannot attack a woman
Cannot smear her as a gang rapist in front of her family and national television
Never forget what they did to Kavanaugh and how all of the cabal backed a woman with no evidence. Not even her own friends believed her. But CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post and the New York Times were all ok with the most outrageous character assassination and slander.
Never forget
They'll find a way to attack her. Even if she's "perfect" which no one is, they'll invent it. Her chances of confirmation: pretty near zero. Once the attacks are done, her chances of being able to go back to her previous job are near zero as well. Remember politically America is left of center. Neither she nor anyone who supports her stands any chance of being elected UNLESS the democrats continue to act stupidly.
ReplyDeleteTrump’s Taxes Show Chronic Losses and Years of Income Tax Avoidance - The New York Times
ReplyDeletePoster: you are "an accountant"--ho ho--so this right up your alley
Trump’s Taxes: 18 Revelations from a Trove of Records
ReplyDeleteTax avoidance is legal. We work within the tax laws to legally minimize what we have to pay. There's three basic approaches people take. 1.) If it's a gray area, pay the tax. 2 ) Split the middle. 3.) Agressively pursue evey loop hole possible, expect audits, and battle it out. Stance 1 is not very common these days. Stance 2 is generally the most common among wealthy individuals. I've found stance 3 generally results in the client keeping the most money. Most can't handle the stress of it.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of POTUS, I think he opts for stance 3. Furthermore the fact that the tax returns haven't been "leaked" nor have we been able to meet and greet the auditors strongly suggests that there's nothing inherently wrong with the tsx returns. Furthermore the IRS has a criminal investigation division that would love a crack at Trump if there was any evidence of Trump wrong doing. My "gut" tells me that Trump is far wealthier than is generally known.
In major corporations (Fortune 100) the IRS have people in office at the corporation headquarters or so I have heard.
ReplyDeleteI found that strange and intrusive. But corporations are large and complex so you can;t just dump thousands of documents on them at the last minute or so I heard.
I cannot formulate a short yet accurate web query to look this up.
The point is that most companies would not think of trying anything other than something legal.
So to immediately assume that a company is doing something illegal is to bet against the odds. It is not something a newspaper should be doing.
I see Fred Lapides is hot and bothered at 6:16. He is still reading the NYT like it was a sheet of gospel music.
ReplyDelete