Dozens of Amy Coney Barrett’s Notre Dame colleagues call for halt to nomination

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | Latest Breaking News | Dozens of Amy Coney Barrett’s Notre Dame colleagues call for halt to nomination

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • Author
    • #368488
      • Total Posts: 388

      Eighty-eight faculty members at the University of Notre Dame, where Amy Coney Barrett is a law school professor, said she should call for a halt to her Supreme Court nomination until after the election.

      In a letter dated Oct. 10 but posted online Tuesday, Barrett’s colleagues congratulated her on her nomination, adding: “It is vital that you issue a public statement calling for a halt to your nomination process until after the November presidential election.”

      The signatories hailed from the university’s political science, sociology, history and other departments — none from the law school.

      The letter argues for Barrett to take this “unprecedented step,” saying that Americans are already voting in the general election and that moving forward at this stage would “deprive the American people of a voice in selecting the next Supreme Court justice.”


      Great letter. Think she’ll consider it?

      “We’re about to have an election in which Incompetent A is going to be contesting with Incompetent B when both of them have demonstrated nothing remotely like any shred of adequacy to the scope of the problems we face.”

      Richard Wolff

    • #368598
      Bernie Boomer
      • Total Posts: 518

      The fanaticism in her eyes during the past three days of ducking and dodging prove that.

    • #368607
      • Total Posts: 2,317

      She is the latest in a 40 year effort to perform a coop by the religious right…specifically the Dominionists (look them up)…horrible belief system that is pushed constantly by the 1% conservatives and even Hillary.

    • #368639
      Blue Meany
      • Total Posts: 214

      conservatives are “originalists” when it comes to the consitution but “textualists” when it come to interpreting law.  There is nothing in the constitution about judicial review, but framers appear to have favored it or assumed it would exist. Judicial review is a powerful anti-democratic weapon and they wouldn’t want to give them up.  But when it comes to laws passed by Congress, it has to be in the text; what they thought or intended is no relevant only their narrow reading of it.

      I wonder what would happen if a Demcratic admnistration asserted that judicial review has no constitutional basis–it is just a tradition like many of the norms that have been jettisoned in Congress under conservative rule–and can be ignored.  And then continue to enforce the law(s) declared unconstitutional.



Viewing 3 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.