Amy Coney Barrett: Spits On SCOTUS (like NG and BK)

Amy Coney clerked for Scalia when I clerked for RBG. I like her, she's brilliant, and I respect her religious beliefs. She's "the Conenator." But doing this now is bullshit. I hope Amy will be a hero and turn down the nomination unless Trump wins. End this awfulness now, please.

— Jay Wexler (@SCOTUSHUMOR) September 26, 2020

Compare this, where (however it bothers you), she is praised but the basic fuckery of taking the nomination under the current situation is bullshit. And, Jay Wexler saying that about a friend, or at all probably, is notable from what I can tell -- he is one of those nice sounding types who don't talk like that blithely. Compare it that is to the winner of the Neal Katyal/Gorsuch 'hey he's a liberal!" Award winner ... Noah Feldman.

This is the woman who said that Obama in 2016 shouldn't have nominated someone (an older white moderate guy Republicans up to and including Chief Justice Roberts likes) someone who would shift the Court.  

[The discussion here -- which takes a modified Josh Marshall/don't get involved approach by from what I can tell saying they can show up to the hearing but not ask questions -- notes the hypocrisy claim is off. Looking at the full video -- noting it is just there -- he has a point. He does eventually suggest she is defending, not just describing, what is happening.  But, she doesn't say it is the only right approach. Again, in that interview. So, I probably kneejerked there some. See my whole remarks.]


Reading her remarks at SCOTUSBlog accepting the nomination from Trump -- the guy who can't say he will accept the result of the election and yet again was the subject of a woman saying she was sexually attacked by him [this really pissed off the Strict Scrutiny Podcast women] -- made me fucking pissed at her.  Immoral hypocritical asshole.

Let me again quote her FRIEND who says as well (as did I! at least, if the choice was her, Kavanaugh or some cookie cutter Federalist Society person) he supported her nomination for the last seat. This after she accepted the nomination (on Twitter too):

It’s so disappointing that Amy Coney is letting herself be so blatantly used for political purposes by a man who assaults women and brags about it, puts children in cages, mocks the disabled, and lies to no end. A seat on the Court isn’t worth cooperating with such depravity.

"Disappointing" is one way to phrase it.  Note that RBG was not buried yet. Obama, probably taking too long but still, waited a month. A week is seen as generous now.  Again, per the SCOTUS website:

A private interment service will be held next week at Arlington National Cemetery.

A few people, including a criminal justice warrior, was upset at people quoting RBG's dying wish that someone else nominated the person to replace her.  (Ted Cruz had "asshole had a point" cred when he opposed a Senate resolution in her honor that tossed in that bit via the Democrats; it shouldn't be there in a non-partisan, non-controversial resolution.)  That is a bit much, especially right after she died. But, this sort of thing is a bit disrespectful, eh?  And, thought Rewire News Group (new name for Rewire) Boom! Lawyer podcast referenced that, who else did?

Josh Marshall says:

Don’t participate. It’s madness.

I don't believe all the Dems won't meet with her etc., but the "Garland treatment" does seem appropriate.  I really didn't think that there was a chance (though people dream about it -- it's akin to talk of impeaching Trump judicial noms left and right) of even a strong attempt to pack the Supreme Court.  Or, however, you want to phrase it. But, this sham travesty, for RBG (the sixth seat to me always was different, including on an emotional level, which is a thing for humans) makes it possible.

I was hopeful -- admit it -- that Scalia's death would result in a 5-4 Court, a change that was due after decades, including six of seven (!) plurality/majority wins.  [One can count the last one.]  Merrick Garland would have been an objectively good choice.  He would not likely to be on there for thirty years into his mid-nineties.  He was someone Republicans said they liked. He was (really) a moderate liberal, on a Court that would turn on them (Breyer, Kagan, Garland, Roberts and Kennedy ... at times ... would be the core of the center).  Went another way.

Enough.  And, sorry if it makes Rick Hasen cry, but this whole thing makes the whole Court illegitimate.  It has to be expanded. As I have noted for years, the federal courts are not merely above the fray independent guardians with judicial review powers. They are filled via a political process, which affects the final product. The process, however, has to be legitimate, including in a constitutional norm way.  "I'm not touching you" while your sister sticks a finger an inch away is not that.

Talking about process, how many kids she has (she's younger than me and has -- by a mixture of ways -- seven damn kids), her religion (Dems are so anti-Catholic their House Speaker and nominee are both Catholic!) etc. is dust in the eyes here. I guess it's time to write some justices again.

ETA: This clip pisses me off.  No "character issue"? She took the nomination, including when last time she said Obama should not do the exact same thing (and as Kate Shaw underlines, the shift is more blatant here than with Garland), enabling Trump here. The election dispute is "not her fault"? She chose the job and would choose to take part if she doesn't recuse.  Can't we bluntly say what the fuck is happening? Call her out Melissa Murray or Leah Litman!  You can do it behind the scenes.