Wait..You hear her biased language/words right? She contradicts herself.. she states that it takes courage to move past your own beliefs and make decisions based off the constitution but ends with expressing her personal issues with the "who decides" questions. I really hope she keeps her religious beliefs out of decisions.
@@a.a.9244 Her Religious Beliefs don't automatically contradict the Constitution so how in the hell did she contradict herself by Justifying her Religious beliefs?
@@a.a.9244 to have the notion that killing babies is Women's human rights, is some serious mental illness. Constitution said thall should not kill, so we follow that.
@@b0bbymoon452 "Thou shalt not kill" isn't in the Constitution you know that right? That's from the Bible. I don't recommend killing anyone though, now that you know that! Especially babies.
Instead of a confirmation hearing if Barret gets the nomination from Trump, I suggest Congress just watch this video. At least she had no agenda when she spoke at this conference. Judge Barret seems to have a great knowledge of the law and the history of the Court.
@@BoardroomBuddha I wouldn't necessarily call that an agenda so much as a philosophy, or as you put approach for interpreting the law. It's not an end as an agenda would imply, but a process for doing things. That is what is so lost in a lot of this discussion. People are too worried about how a Judge will rule on so and so issue and not necessarily the process of how they arrive at rulings. When you start judging based on the process and not the end result in respect to the Judiciary it's easier to set aside bias. For example Kennedy occasionally had ruling where I agreed with the practical outcome, but I found his legal reasoning lacking where Gorsuch on the other hand has occasionally made ruling where I disagreed with the practical outcome, but agreed with his legal reasoning. Suffice to say I found the Gorsuch rulings more legitimate than the Kennedy ruling even if I liked the practical outcome of Kennedy rulings more. If we don't have proper and agreed upon process than the systems and the ends they create will have no legitimacy.
I am not responding here by a bias either way. I do want to add that this one video is not enough to show where her political lines lay in the law. Can she leave her own bias out of decisions. A judge must be neutral and lay out opinions based on the law itself. There are many ways to determine where one sits regarding their beliefs fit the job. If a judge is pro life for an example, and a case comes before her from the other of the matter, can she leave her ideals out of the law? It is better to review her works and add that info as part of the decision process to give the judgeship. Why is this important? This judgeship is for a lifetime. This is not a choice that will ebb and flow with changes in laws and politics. If the courts have these top judgeships where the balance shows no uniqueness in thinking or history of working experience, it will affect cases in the supreme Court. It can make some cases impossible to get heard without a solid bias. There have been some supreme Court judges that put personal politics in the courts. We have seen it. Off topic. When US candidates first started running, I heard a woman speak who was running for president. So much of her platform sounded republican at first, but once I really sat and listened to her, I realized that this woman was a perfect fit. She could walk the line to represent both left and right. Have you heard her speak? I am speaking of Tulsi Gabbard! Seriously, go listen to video of her talking about the issues. She is experienced, educated, and knows a lot more than what the current president can grasp. She speaks with poise, respect, and measures her thoughts before sharing them so we all can follow her shared ideals. I have never felt an unknown should step up into the top job, but I feel her stepping away from running was a tragedy. I would have paid to hear her debate issues with Trump. It is possible for all US citizens to feel represented one day, but not with the current sitting president. An error was made. After watching this video, I am going to look around for more of this woman nominated for her seat.
@@DGoldy303 She did not look at her notes a single time during the whole lecture. I believe that she knew that she was going to be on the court one day.
So what do you call it when the Supreme Court rules that corporations are individuals for the purpose of campaign finance (Citizens United)? That's a fairly economic right-wing interpretation of the law. You can say that all you want, but everyone has their biases including SCOTUS justices.
I watched the entire interview. She is genuine, clear on how judges should apply the law and obviously brilliant. She has a grasp of the history of the Supreme Court and how it has changed over the years. What a great Justice she will make. When you research her history and family you get the full picture of how amazing she is.
@Poppy Seifried I feel sorry for you Poppy. What have your read or experienced in your life to be that delusional? Lose EVERYTHING....seriously. She will prove you wrong. I guess you know nothing about her or heard her acceptance speech.
So impressed how she speaks to be understood -- not speaking down to anyone, just making sure she's using common terminology. (I'm on the dull side and understood her perfectly.)
@Gary Mark She's a homophobe, she's pro-life, she likes trump, she hates people of color, and believes women should submit themselves to their husbands
@All Things Lawyer From a political science point of view having the law behind you doesn't help when in the long-run you loose legitimacy. Legitimacy is the view by the majority of a population that those in power have the right to be there. Considering that the median voter in the US is centre-left on most issues and the first-past-the-post system as it is currently implemented favours rural voters (who tend to be more traditionalist) there is a ever greater leaning towards a conservative executive and conservative upper-house. This is going to increase the pressure on legitimacy in the view of the urban voters especially. By urban, I mean non-rural voters: I realise that in the US urban means people living in a city centre and excludes suburbs around a city, this is not my meaning here. I mean people who are not rural. If the judiciary also being viewed as increasingly conservative the legitimacy of the legal system comes under strain. As the lack of legitimacy increases, the rule of law becomes less attainable. There will also be increased pressure on the system to change. Apartheid South Africa also had a similar setup. It also had a first-past-the-post system that favoured rural farmers and small towns. The same with Mugabe's Zimbabwe, the urban voters and the majority of the country's population wanted him out. Yet rural traditionalist voters kept him in power. When you get this disconnect, there are basically three choices. Become a military dictatorship (crack down on urban revolt), make concessions to the system, or make concessions within the system. Steamrolling policy through will only accelerate the eroding of legitimacy in the mind of the population. Which takes me to constitutionalism. The view that a constitution can be reinterpreted to modern circumstance ("living constitution") protects its political legitimacy under these circumstances. By tacking hard away from the views of the majority of the population the constitutional interpretive court then erodes the political legitimacy of a constitution. From this reasoning I predict that, cit par, a more conservative court is more likely to make more liberal decisions. Should the electoral system be rebalanced it will open the window for more conservative decisions.
Right Mitch McConnell didn't even finish appointing key Administration officials to their positions so we weren't even remotely prepared for this pandemic so that they could pack all the courts with Republican owned judges so that they can maintain their grip on power, because no one wants what the Republicans are selling anymore, hypocrisy and lies.
@@skankhunt3624 "no one wants what the Republicans are selling anymore" FYI, Trump's approval rating re: Rasmussen is 52%, so a lot more than "nobody" likes what he's doing.
@@Red_Dead_Director : - ) Haha. But you're apparently making a quite unwarranted assumption about the poster you're responding to, Christopher, that IMHO really should make your reply's expressed trepidation about how you thought you might have ended up doing on any LSAT, that you previously decided it best for you to not end up taking, definitely irrelevant here. : - ) In other words, friend, please note that Hu David simply & specifically referred to never having "...had any professor who talks so clearly and succinctly and fluently and accurately as she does, and without notes!", not never having "...had any law school professor who talks so clearly and succinctly and fluently and accurately as she does, and without notes!". : - )
I was very disappointed she was passed over for Kavanaugh. I appreciate she has another chance especially in light of the historical resonance of following Ginsburg.
@@tlpricescope7772 - Brett Kavanaugh is the weakest of Trump’s Supreme Court appointees. Which is not very surprising, as Justice Kennedy asked to be replaced with him. While, I believe the allegations against him were unfounded. His appointment does not seem to be worth that amount of stress. Apparently, even his confirmation to the appellate, during the Bush administration, was contentious. Kavanaugh did not deserve to be slandered on national television, however the Republicans seemed to vote too hastily. In hindsight, it seems like they did it to stick it to the Democrats for attempting to filibuster Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation.
@@tlpricescope7772 like it or not , a woman has to be many levels better than a guy before she hopes to smell a chance of being chosen aft the guy has performed miserably
Loved the body language - when question time from the floor the arms folded tightly across the body. When giving her views of the law open arms and open hands. Loved the whole video - highly intellectual lady and very impressive. Hope she is nominated.
I actually really like her and how informed she is on the history of the court. I may have to listen to her voice pitched down an octave but that's beside the point
@plasticstuntmancom The History of her church, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE TRUE FAITH, is Founded in CHRIST HIMSELF, do not forget that the Bible is CATHOLIC!
@@terrystillabower7356 - yes served under Beer Kavanaugh & Indiana -where Pence hails. No mystery here, but sadly way too far right saying "Originalist" theory from two faced writers opinions should stand. Not to mention, the privileged monetary opinions, including allowing corporations to donate as if they were individual HUMANS, which they of course are NOT. Representative Democracy requires change as we learn more about the world and people, which is why we call this government an experiment.
@@terrystillabower7356 Both her and Kavanaugh were added on November 17, 2017. Gorsuch was added September 23, 2016. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Supreme_Court_candidates#Possible_nominees
35:10 Professor Barret's point about the allure of seeking judicial change vs legislative change is especially important now, when Congress is getting increasingly calcified. A strong argument to restore a functional Congress is that if we don't, the judicial branch will be drafted into lawmakers, and that would be a very bad thing.
That's the Republican play book, being read out loud ahead of time. That is what they are angling for. The Orange Cheeto is the lightening rod to prepare the way for the take over of justice and thence the legislature by those very actors. The Kochs and the rest. You're all being played.
Yet, the hard conservatives who back Barrett, are now screaming about Gorsuch. Despite, every one of his “swing” vote was due to the basic text of the law.
@@ChienaAvtzon It was clear from Yellow Bear that Gorsuch took a critical view of the government's ability to restrict civil rights. I thought at the time he was the absolute best pick the left could hope for.
@@dennisj.curran3575 I have the same feelings here. She barely mentioned Trump during the whole session except this one comment. She only talked about the possibility under Hillary's presidency but Trump won at the end. I think she does not have much respect about Trump like most people in academic. To me, being socially conservative on abortion is not enough.
Francisco III J Dy Britt Grant (F,42, Kavanaugh law clerk), Allison Jones Rushing (F,38, Thomas law clerk) will be much better. You can check out who they are from here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britt_Grant en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Jones_Rushing They are both very young (even younger than Amy), talented, and brilliant. GOP should learn from the strategic and aging mistake made by DEM (insisted to nominate Ginsburg at age 60 rather than choosing a younger liberal nominee) They should never take that kind of unnecessary and avoidable risk, considering there are so many good choices on the list.
Anyone who gets nominated will have beliefs. Even Atheists will have personal beliefs that he or she may allow to influence their judgement if they wish. What is important is to appoint a professional justice with enough integrity not to let their personal biases affect their interpretation of the consitution.
When politicians are sprinting through hell and high water to battering ram through a nomination before their electoral judgement, they are not doing it to appoint a professionally unbiased steward of the constitution.
@@jackvac1918 Bullsh*t. EVERY president has obligations and constitutional powers that are to be done even if in their 3rd year or last month of a lame duck admin. Get over yourself. The question the liberals hiss over is the fact that a true Christian will likely have a soul and believe an unborn child does have some constitutional rights. Liberals dehumanize the unborn and thus think it is merely about a 'medical procedure'.
I am not impressed with her ability to express a coherent thread of logic that clearly differentiates the conflicting origins of the thought patterns held by the holders of the office of the supreme court. It would be helpful if she started with the acknowledgement that it is not necessary for any member of the Court to be a lawyer or to be an admittee of any bar association. It is not a constitutional requirement. Perhaps she is not aware...
@@thomasquinn284 Did Kagen ever start any of her speeches with the acknowledgement that it is not necessary for any member of the Court to be a lawyer or to be and admittee of any bar association?
@@brotherlove6216 The founding fathers specifically did not make members of the legal profession as the sole requirements of Court membership. Perhaps your civic teachers were ignorant of that constitutional requirement. In addition, her reasoning for the Court's action overlooks the reservation to the States and the people of all powers not so enumerated. Maybe your teachers forgot to point that out as well.
A wonderful talented woman, mother, wife. Obviously a capacity for a great memory for facts. Ideal for Pres. Trump's pick in 2020. Praying Amy C Barrett is confirmed as SCJ - a voice of reason, decency, and jurisprudence.
"We shouldn't be putting people on the court that share our policy preferences, we should be putting people on the court that want to apply the constitution." Listen from 25:14 to 28:20 for what we can expect from Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court Justice; it's all here.
@DefinitelyNotDan Were you intentionally trying to be completely backwards on this? A Republic by definition protects the rights of minority from the wrath of the majority. Pretty much all the people who had a part in ratifying the constitution hated the concept of majority rule.
Agree. An originalist judge with integrity, another Scalia. Not a bad person but not a good Democratic pick. However, not the person the non-answers were manipulated to suggest either.
Amy Coney Barrett will make an Amazing Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court NEED Justices that are NOT Political Activist, but Render decisions based off what the Constitution actually SAYS. God bless Amy Coney Barrett.
This was very informative and calming during these incredibly hyperpartisan times. I like Judge Amy's perspective and intellect. I hope that she will be a great Justice, with the stature of RBG and her mentor Antonin Scalia.
What an incredibly unique thought. The text of the Constitution, expressed in words to future generations, means exactly what the writers and ratifiers intended.
@@HaleysComet81 Nobody cares what it meant to many people, it only matters what it meant to the people that ratified it. Textualism is not a Farce and the constitution is not a "living document."
Except for the 9th and 10th Amendments. The Constitution clearly points out that the people have rights beyond the reach of government... and beyond the text of the Constitution. So how do your arrive these "....certain rights..." that are not enumerated in the Constitution? You need a Ruth Bader Ginsberg to interpret that the Constitution is indeed a living document, at least in the case of the 9th and possibly the 10th amendments.
@@BattleDroid191 Most of the founders' wives were extremely active in politics and immeasurably influential in the shaping of the Constitution and other documents. So your insinuation that the founders thought women were idiot slaves is super far off.
26:24 is where she states the facts that the main stream media will never ever say. SCOTUS should never be appointed due to their political views, but views of the law. Not quoting her, but paraphrasing. She is amazing.
@@txnmia8613 Should people who work for left-leaning organizations (change dot org, Huffington Post, Think Progress, SPLC, etc) also be disqualified from office?
Here is a smart women. Amy would be an excellent Supreme Court justice to base her ruling on 'conservative' as written, interpretation of the Law. If Trump passes her by for Justice Kennedy's open seat, an error was made !
She is impressive! People can cry all they want. She will get confirmed. She's far more intelligent than all the senators trying to throw her under the bus!
@@mistax2k Seriously? The lady is smart. It's more than mere eloquence, she clearly knows the underlying law. Notre Dame doesn't employ academics cause they talk pretty. They employ them because they know about the law and are legal geniuses. You might disagree with her philosophy of law, or think her worldviews are disqualifying for filling RBG's seat. But trying to argue that she's not intelligent is utterly moronic. It would be as absurd as arguing that RBG, or Scalia, or Cardozo was dumb.
@@yelkatalaich60 Amy Coney Barrett cannot outrun the flood... NOW LEARN a parable of the fig tree (A) when his branch is yet tender and (B) putteth forth leaves ye know (C) that summer is nigh So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This (2 in the field) generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words (the 1 shall be taken) shall not pass away.
@@tomneal5913 Na, you liberals are perpetually aggrieved. You'll forget about it and and move on to some new issue when you realize you can't win this one.
@@anthonybelcher8860 I hope libruls never let it go. I want her to take healthcare away from them as well as autonomy from women's bodies. These disgusting leftists deserve nothing but the worst the world has to offer and with a stacked supreme court we can really do some damage to scum like them.
@@cf3304 The same hair on fire response that liberals have made about every conservative justice and president in history. It never panned out, but liberal sheep believe the lie every single time. It's quite amusing to watch them scream and cry for a week, move on to another grievance, and nothing happens. You had your chance, it's time for us to run things a while and fix what regressive progressives have damaged in less than a decade..... You can still kill your babies, we know that means so much to you....
I bothered by how she explains the " 14th Amendment" and the hidden power the court assumed though it. Using it to interpret that if things have been doing it this way for a while, then that gives licence for the court to accept it as a right and establish it as law.
54368975 your “name” is an 8-digit number. What you are bothered by is irrelevant. Learn to write proper English before you second guess a Supreme Court nominated judge...
@@michaelkeymont501 thank you! My reply had to do with how she explains the"14 Amendment" ; how she derived the " secret powers" that Robers used to declare a tax for the ACA. Not seconding quessing anyone, only registering a method I was unfamiliar with. Thanks for the feedback. God bless.
If I remember clearly in Obama's few months left in his first term, he appointed Merrick Garland supreme court justices only one most after Antonin Scalia died. Of course, he wasn't approved because they were in the minority in the Senate. If Obama thought it wasn’t the right thing to do, then why did he nominate Garland? By the way, didn't Chief Justice John Roberts (Bush appointee) voted on LGBT rights and immigrant protections? Didn't he also on June 29th ruled in a 5-4 decision striking down a law that would have limited abortion access in Louisiana? The last time I checked, he was supposed to be "destroying" Roe v Wade. Get it together, people.
Chief Justice Roberts flip-flops on LGBT rights. His jurisprudence makes no sense, in most cases. He has no methodology in how he rules. Justice Gorsuch’s arguments when he “flips” are pretty straightforward, as he reads the law in its literal form. He is an originalist and textualist.
It’s not that we wasn’t confirmed, he was never even brought to a vote. THAT is the problem. This has nothing to do with ACB though. She’s qualified and deserves the spot.
On the contrary. She was practically created, groomed and carefully handpicked for this position. Perhaps the only unpredictable was replacing RBG. She is also against the ACA.
Actually a good video on a real discussion that applies very relevantly to today. Stuff like this should be discussed during the hearings instead of the dog and pony show that is put up by the media.
It could have been. She is allowed to answer anything that shevsaid in public prior to being a judge. If you wanted to ask her about tye ACA or R v W, you could ask about what she said here instead of inventing scenarios she can't answer.
That balanced 4 days of leaders questing her ability and make-up of character .. honestly, after a few moments attempting to watch the duel town meeting/ grilling of NBC .. I turned it off and glad I tuned into hopefully our next SCOTUS member ... very educational even for a sparky
She's a nightmare. She hasn't ever even tried a case. She sided with employers who wanted to call their employees ni** er at work. She has absolutely no experience.
@Erika T wow big fucking deal she’s been attacked non stop. And is the only person without any fucking notes what so ever. But but but she named 4 out of the 5
she is a most logical choice because she has recently been vetted by the current Senate...so if there were valid objections, they would have already been made...and she is fresh from dealing with their questions so the answers would come easily and she would be less intimidated....Al Fr. is gone so his harassment won't be missed....this is what a law professor sounds like, not the shuck and jive bo spewed out there all the time...she would be a most expeditious candidate....I pray for Justice Amy Barrett.
Robert Sparks No because they have to be confirmed for each appointment. But time is of the essence and having been through the routine just last year...all information gathered by the Senate is still current so there should be no delay excuses. But the dems would find some excuse I'm sure.
Michael...If the President nominates her, then I am hoping that Sen. Lankford and the rest who slammed the religious litmus test the dems tried last time...will stand up right at the beginning of the hearings and put a stop to it before they can do that. Collins is gritching about abortion and as anyone can see and hear in the video above, Judge Barrett already addressed that. Our country would be so blessed to have her become Justice Amy Barrett.
She is breathtakingly brilliant ... and would be an intellectual gift to the Supreme Court. And what a fine inspiration to young women she is. We need more like her.
If your basic belief of how the world works and people should behave is based on the myths of the bible, and you pledge your faith to a male-dominated church that has a sketchy record (centuries long) of misbehavior, then being breathtakingly brilliant only counts for the ability to twist words and deeds to to support your belief in these myths. We are all living in the real world of now. There are consequences to bad religion.
As a non-lawyer, I would have appreciated if Judge Barrett could comment on this idea: It sounds very nice to say that the legislators set policy through enacting laws and the courts only apply the law as written to cases; but by invalidating or upholding laws the courts (particularly SCOTUS) do in fact set policy.
I'm trying to learn about Amy Coney Barrett. If anybody knows any videos or links you've found useful, I'd appreciate you replying with them. Many thanks in advance.
I would encourage anyone interested in her possible appointment to the court to watch this. I think the fear mongers would themselves be very surprised and in favor of her nomination on both sides of the isle. Definitely for her appointment if it comes to her being Justice Ginsberg's replacement.
I fear Barett will be another Roberts judge , she favored lock downs , and she referred to popes decision on matters / scary La Goya is better choice , Geatz and Meadows endorsed La Goya and those two are straight .
not sure what the big commotion is about confirming her for the SCOTUS nomination lol??? she's very eloquent and interprets constitutional law as it is with no bias which is what we want in a Justice, no bs here or there. i think shes more than qualified to succeed RBG as Justice even though I don't support Trump in general.
can you show me where in the constitution it prohibits people of faith from holding public office? are you aware that many of the Founding Fathers had deeply held religious beliefs? doesn't your view violate the No Religious Test Clause in Article 6 of the Constitution?
so do you believe that those in public office have the right to hold religious views but they do not have the right to practice them? wouldn't that be a violation of the First Amendment? would you also consider it wrong for an atheist to bring their personal faith and belief system into government ?
on what basis do you make that claim? not all the Founding Fathers were simply Deists but many were Christians. would you believe that they were establishing the country in exact opposition to reason and laws?
how can you have reason and laws without a God? if we are the products of mindless unguided processes what reason do we have to trust the mental faculties that are produced? why would we as a society want to make laws to protect so-called rights of human clumps of matter? where would these rights transcend from?
She is simply a brilliant legal scholar and I trust her. Pretty simple. I trust she will apply the law without listening to the call of the Sirens. Just wonderful.
0Jebus0 a politician is lying when their lips move. It’s time for term limits to remove career politicians from the swamp. We need intelligent citizens that are willing to represent us to run for our political positions versus money and power hungry liars. The whole campaign system is fraught with corruption.
Here to see how she actually is, not any current media bias on how she is.
Yeah I was surprised
Wait..You hear her biased language/words right? She contradicts herself.. she states that it takes courage to move past your own beliefs and make decisions based off the constitution but ends with expressing her personal issues with the "who decides" questions. I really hope she keeps her religious beliefs out of decisions.
@@a.a.9244 Her Religious Beliefs don't automatically contradict the Constitution so how in the hell did she contradict herself by Justifying her Religious beliefs?
@@a.a.9244 to have the notion that killing babies is Women's human rights, is some serious mental illness.
Constitution said thall should not kill, so we follow that.
@@b0bbymoon452 "Thou shalt not kill" isn't in the Constitution you know that right? That's from the Bible. I don't recommend killing anyone though, now that you know that! Especially babies.
It’s good to see so many people doing their own research by watching this interview. 👍🏻
Well, we can't trust the mainstream media to do a decent job, so we have to do our own digging...
No mask for her 7 children or herself at a super spreader event. A complete a hole.
This isn't an interview. It's a speech.
@@mp5249 By the end of the year, you will have to refer to her as Justice a hole.
Totally!
Who else is here after ACB got confirmed?
Marie why all the hate?
so interesting to listen in late october 2020
Me.
Who's here after she was confirmed?
me!
Me!
Me, enjoying the liberal meltdown. Enjoy years of conservative rule.
Me!!!
I watched before she was confirmed. Oh how the media lies.
“Who knows whom Trump would nominate”
Little did she know, she would be at the center of the whirlwind happening in DC now
What oh what will the progressive liberals drum up against this intelligent women?
@Out Side Are you suffering from hypochondria?
Her hasty reference to Trump's list tells me she knew her name was there. I think she worded her comments and responses with that in mind
@Christina McIntosh Yes. Rape would be an interesting allegation in this case.
Little did she know, it would be HER.
Instead of a confirmation hearing if Barret gets the nomination from Trump, I suggest Congress just watch this video. At least she had no agenda when she spoke at this conference. Judge Barret seems to have a great knowledge of the law and the history of the Court.
She has an agenda. You just happen to share it. It's called a textualist approach to the law. She's clear about that. Not everyone else does.
@@BoardroomBuddha I wouldn't necessarily call that an agenda so much as a philosophy, or as you put approach for interpreting the law. It's not an end as an agenda would imply, but a process for doing things. That is what is so lost in a lot of this discussion. People are too worried about how a Judge will rule on so and so issue and not necessarily the process of how they arrive at rulings. When you start judging based on the process and not the end result in respect to the Judiciary it's easier to set aside bias. For example Kennedy occasionally had ruling where I agreed with the practical outcome, but I found his legal reasoning lacking where Gorsuch on the other hand has occasionally made ruling where I disagreed with the practical outcome, but agreed with his legal reasoning. Suffice to say I found the Gorsuch rulings more legitimate than the Kennedy ruling even if I liked the practical outcome of Kennedy rulings more. If we don't have proper and agreed upon process than the systems and the ends they create will have no legitimacy.
I am not responding here by a bias either way. I do want to add that this one video is not enough to show where her political lines lay in the law. Can she leave her own bias out of decisions. A judge must be neutral and lay out opinions based on the law itself. There are many ways to determine where one sits regarding their beliefs fit the job. If a judge is pro life for an example, and a case comes before her from the other of the matter, can she leave her ideals out of the law? It is better to review her works and add that info as part of the decision process to give the judgeship. Why is this important? This judgeship is for a lifetime. This is not a choice that will ebb and flow with changes in laws and politics. If the courts have these top judgeships where the balance shows no uniqueness in thinking or history of working experience, it will affect cases in the supreme Court. It can make some cases impossible to get heard without a solid bias. There have been some supreme Court judges that put personal politics in the courts. We have seen it.
Off topic. When US candidates first started running, I heard a woman speak who was running for president. So much of her platform sounded republican at first, but once I really sat and listened to her, I realized that this woman was a perfect fit. She could walk the line to represent both left and right. Have you heard her speak? I am speaking of Tulsi Gabbard! Seriously, go listen to video of her talking about the issues. She is experienced, educated, and knows a lot more than what the current president can grasp. She speaks with poise, respect, and measures her thoughts before sharing them so we all can follow her shared ideals. I have never felt an unknown should step up into the top job, but I feel her stepping away from running was a tragedy. I would have paid to hear her debate issues with Trump. It is possible for all US citizens to feel represented one day, but not with the current sitting president. An error was made.
After watching this video, I am going to look around for more of this woman nominated for her seat.
Satan knows the Bible, so I'm sure she knows the law.
Shes cool.
Amy in 2016: What would we have in a Trump court? Who knows?! *laughter*
Me in 2020: LOOOOOOOOL
Bookmark: 12:55
Curb_yr_Enthusiasm_end.mp3
Little did she know...
Gross
@@DGoldy303 She did not look at her notes a single time during the whole lecture. I believe that she knew that she was going to be on the court one day.
Years after Pam Beesly quit at Dunder Mifflin, she applied to law school.
I knew I saw her somewhere! Haha
You are stupid and that's not funny.
uh-oh! better not confirm her then. should all of us know who pam beesly is btw?
@@gregy1570 she’s from the office
@@jodeytailor7462 it's very funny actually
The court shouldn’t be left or right. They are to follow the law the way it is intended.
So what do you call it when the Supreme Court rules that corporations are individuals for the purpose of campaign finance (Citizens United)? That's a fairly economic right-wing interpretation of the law. You can say that all you want, but everyone has their biases including SCOTUS justices.
Exactly
Agreed 💯 percent however the US Constitution while I believe is clearly written, is sadly interpreted differently endstate it's been politized.
People don't agree on how it's intended, obviously
@catothewiser LOL Facebook and Twitter are as left as crooked Hillary. You're embarrassing
I watched the entire interview. She is genuine, clear on how judges should apply the law and obviously brilliant. She has a grasp of the history of the Supreme Court and how it has changed over the years. What a great Justice she will make. When you research her history and family you get the full picture of how amazing she is.
Oh! She has a grasp of the History of the court! Wow! She can count to five also. Fantastic!
As much of a sycophant and you appear to be. Birds of a feather.
😍🕊🦋 🇺🇸
She's the type to "innocently" stab you in the back, knowing exactly what she's doing all along. I don't trust this woman.
@Poppy Seifried I feel sorry for you Poppy. What have your read or experienced in your life to be that delusional? Lose EVERYTHING....seriously. She will prove you wrong. I guess you know nothing about her or heard her acceptance speech.
So impressed how she speaks to be understood -- not speaking down to anyone, just making sure she's using common terminology. (I'm on the dull side and understood her perfectly.)
Yeah but she's an asshole
@Gary Mark She's a homophobe, she's pro-life, she likes trump, she hates people of color, and believes women should submit themselves to their husbands
@@Andy-qe6kk Lmfao sure if you're a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe, and a homophobe. She's a fucking bitch, full stop.
@Douglas Dearden: You can tell she's used to teaching AND she knew from the get-go that non-lawyers abound in the audience. :)
@@howdoesitfeel ok sure but she's the worst person ever
ACB: “who knows who Trump will pick?”
Life is funny like that.
Bruh, life surreal sometimes.
This link shows Trump is a traitor ruclips.net/video/KYvCPr1KgZk/видео.html
Why is everybody acting like this is weird, she she was on the shortlist last time if I'm not mistaken
NO FREAKIN KIDDING MAN! LOL!
@@mybsbuster6849 who cares he could shoot protestors himself and he's still better than any democrat
Who else here after she got nominated?
HER NAME WAS GIVEN AT THE BEGGING OF TRUMP IN OFFICE....HE ACTUALLY Gave his list before he took office
It was in the feed for next film, after watching a VoteVets ad which, I think, supports Trump's efforts to get the troops out of Afghanistan.
me
watching this nearly 4 years later and Judge Barrett is up for consideration for SCOTUS. Good Luck, Judge Barrett!
Anybody find that mysterious “ dogma” in her construction?
Posting this interview on Facebook. This is interesting. Grown-up conversation. Sadly missed, nowadays.
@All Things Lawyer From a political science point of view having the law behind you doesn't help when in the long-run you loose legitimacy. Legitimacy is the view by the majority of a population that those in power have the right to be there. Considering that the median voter in the US is centre-left on most issues and the first-past-the-post system as it is currently implemented favours rural voters (who tend to be more traditionalist) there is a ever greater leaning towards a conservative executive and conservative upper-house. This is going to increase the pressure on legitimacy in the view of the urban voters especially. By urban, I mean non-rural voters: I realise that in the US urban means people living in a city centre and excludes suburbs around a city, this is not my meaning here. I mean people who are not rural. If the judiciary also being viewed as increasingly conservative the legitimacy of the legal system comes under strain. As the lack of legitimacy increases, the rule of law becomes less attainable. There will also be increased pressure on the system to change. Apartheid South Africa also had a similar setup. It also had a first-past-the-post system that favoured rural farmers and small towns. The same with Mugabe's Zimbabwe, the urban voters and the majority of the country's population wanted him out. Yet rural traditionalist voters kept him in power. When you get this disconnect, there are basically three choices. Become a military dictatorship (crack down on urban revolt), make concessions to the system, or make concessions within the system. Steamrolling policy through will only accelerate the eroding of legitimacy in the mind of the population. Which takes me to constitutionalism. The view that a constitution can be reinterpreted to modern circumstance ("living constitution") protects its political legitimacy under these circumstances. By tacking hard away from the views of the majority of the population the constitutional interpretive court then erodes the political legitimacy of a constitution. From this reasoning I predict that, cit par, a more conservative court is more likely to make more liberal decisions. Should the electoral system be rebalanced it will open the window for more conservative decisions.
Which is why there is quiet support if you read the more serious, more reflective, left leaning literature on her selection.
Regardless on one's political flavor or beliefs, this is a great civics 101 class
It is? Why?
That "who knows" at 12:58 is so prophetic, writing now in Nov 2020.
if saying "duno" is prophetic then my name is Mogz the Prophet! BOW DOWN TO MY ETERNAL OMNISCENCE!
Saying “Who knows?” is the total opposite of prophetic.
God knew.
Back in 2016, nobody knew whether or not Trump was serious about his promise on judge nomination. Four years later, everyone knows.
Right Mitch McConnell didn't even finish appointing key Administration officials to their positions so we weren't even remotely prepared for this pandemic so that they could pack all the courts with Republican owned judges so that they can maintain their grip on power, because no one wants what the Republicans are selling anymore, hypocrisy and lies.
@@skankhunt3624 your contribution to the cup of Leftist Tears is appreciated. allow me to partake, lol
@@BaikalTii just wait until after the election, then we'll be filling up gallons of your repug tears 🤣🤣😂🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊
@@skankhunt3624 "no one wants what the Republicans are selling anymore" FYI, Trump's approval rating re: Rasmussen is 52%, so a lot more than "nobody" likes what he's doing.
@@randyjordan5521 yes uneducated racist bigots support Trump. And you know what Don the con always says about poles being fake right?
Glad to hear this in light of current events. She’s years before knowing what’s going to happen 4 years later.
I haven’t had any professor who talks so clearly and succinctly and fluently and accurately as she does, and without notes!
Well said..
I haven't had any professor (because I knew I would probably get a 119 LSAT score)
@@Red_Dead_Director : - )
Haha. But you're apparently making a quite unwarranted assumption about the poster you're responding to, Christopher, that IMHO really should make your reply's expressed trepidation about how you thought you might have ended up doing on any LSAT, that you previously decided it best for you to not end up taking, definitely irrelevant here. : - )
In other words, friend, please note that Hu David simply & specifically referred to never having "...had any professor who talks so clearly and succinctly and fluently and accurately as she does, and without notes!", not never having "...had any law school professor who talks so clearly and succinctly and fluently and accurately as she does, and without notes!". : - )
She is brilliant all around.
@@sweetparvardi 😒 **ShuT up.!!!!!*
What are the chances that while giving this speech, she would have imagined that she would be the one to replace Ginsburg in the Supreme Court?
She blushed when she first said, “who knows...”.😊
well it seem like she knew she would be the one chosen by Trump
I was very disappointed she was passed over for Kavanaugh. I appreciate she has another chance especially in light of the historical resonance of following Ginsburg.
Kavanaugh sounds like a dope next to her.
Divine intervention. Scalia's clerk. Ironical. Isn't it.
@@tlpricescope7772 - Brett Kavanaugh is the weakest of Trump’s Supreme Court appointees. Which is not very surprising, as Justice Kennedy asked to be replaced with him. While, I believe the allegations against him were unfounded. His appointment does not seem to be worth that amount of stress. Apparently, even his confirmation to the appellate, during the Bush administration, was contentious. Kavanaugh did not deserve to be slandered on national television, however the Republicans seemed to vote too hastily. In hindsight, it seems like they did it to stick it to the Democrats for attempting to filibuster Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation.
@@ChienaAvtzon But at least he really really likes beer!!
@@tlpricescope7772 like it or not , a woman has to be many levels better than a guy before she hopes to smell a chance of being chosen aft the guy has performed miserably
Loved the body language - when question time from the floor the arms folded tightly across the body. When giving her views of the law open arms and open hands. Loved the whole video - highly intellectual lady and very impressive. Hope she is nominated.
I actually really like her and how informed she is on the history of the court. I may have to listen to her voice pitched down an octave but that's beside the point
Seriously. Holy crap shes awfully pitchy.
@plasticstuntmancom The History of her church, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE TRUE FAITH, is Founded in CHRIST HIMSELF, do not forget that the Bible is CATHOLIC!
@plasticstuntmancom I am, and you're wrong.
If trump likes her she's bound to be rotten
@@whatithink9917 lol, kinda strange yt made this a “highlighted” reply. More like a high-ass’a reply. 😭
It’s ironic watching this now because when she says “who knows who Trump will appoint to the court if he won the election”
Was she already on the list at this time.?
Terry Stillabower I’m pretty sure she was on the shortlist with Kavanaugh during his nomination, but I’m pretty sure not with Gorsuch.
@@terrystillabower7356 - yes served under Beer Kavanaugh & Indiana -where Pence hails. No mystery here, but sadly way too far right saying "Originalist" theory from two faced writers opinions should stand. Not to mention, the privileged monetary opinions, including allowing corporations to donate as if they were individual HUMANS, which they of course are NOT. Representative Democracy requires change as we learn more about the world and people, which is why we call this government an experiment.
@@terrystillabower7356 Both her and Kavanaugh were added on November 17, 2017. Gorsuch was added September 23, 2016.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Supreme_Court_candidates#Possible_nominees
@Lars Magnus Samuelsson Svenssonsenn Magnussvensamuelsson Thor You gonna elaborate on that, or?
35:10 Professor Barret's point about the allure of seeking judicial change vs legislative change is especially important now, when Congress is getting increasingly calcified. A strong argument to restore a functional Congress is that if we don't, the judicial branch will be drafted into lawmakers, and that would be a very bad thing.
That's the Republican play book, being read out loud ahead of time. That is what they are angling for. The Orange Cheeto is the lightening rod to prepare the way for the take over of justice and thence the legislature by those very actors. The Kochs and the rest. You're all being played.
Yet, the hard conservatives who back Barrett, are now screaming about Gorsuch. Despite, every one of his “swing” vote was due to the basic text of the law.
@@ChienaAvtzon It was clear from Yellow Bear that Gorsuch took a critical view of the government's ability to restrict civil rights. I thought at the time he was the absolute best pick the left could hope for.
12:55
‘What would we have in a Trump Court? Who knows.’ (Barrett,2016)
‘You!’ (Trump,2020)
Destiny is calling, it's her turn.
Yes. I remember that reaction to the prospect of a "Trump Court." I thought her reaction was somewhat derisive.
@@dennisj.curran3575 I have the same feelings here. She barely mentioned Trump during the whole session except this one comment. She only talked about the possibility under Hillary's presidency but Trump won at the end. I think she does not have much respect about Trump like most people in academic. To me, being socially conservative on abortion is not enough.
Francisco III J Dy
Britt Grant (F,42, Kavanaugh law clerk), Allison Jones Rushing (F,38, Thomas law clerk) will be much better.
You can check out who they are from here:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britt_Grant
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Jones_Rushing
They are both very young (even younger than Amy), talented, and brilliant.
GOP should learn from the strategic and aging mistake made by DEM (insisted to nominate Ginsburg at age 60 rather than choosing a younger liberal nominee)
They should never take that kind of unnecessary and avoidable risk, considering there are so many good choices on the list.
Trump said to her:”You are hired!”
“ We should be putting people in the court who follow the Constitution not according to their political preferences.”
that all i want and im pretty sure most people would say the same
😒 **WoRds aRe onE thinG.....AcTioN is anoTheR.!!* 🔑
I agree
For all of you who were duped, I told you so.
Amy is globalist baby killer not a believer yet? You will see..
Anyone who gets nominated will have beliefs. Even Atheists will have personal beliefs that he or she may allow to influence their judgement if they wish. What is important is to appoint a professional justice with enough integrity not to let their personal biases affect their interpretation of the consitution.
When politicians are sprinting through hell and high water to battering ram through a nomination before their electoral judgement, they are not doing it to appoint a professionally unbiased steward of the constitution.
Everyone has personal beliefs, yes, but the atheists is weak. The point is to have no religious influence. Duh.
@@jackvac1918 Bullsh*t. EVERY president has obligations and constitutional powers that are to be done even if in their 3rd year or last month of a lame duck admin. Get over yourself. The question the liberals hiss over is the fact that a true Christian will likely have a soul and believe an unborn child does have some constitutional rights. Liberals dehumanize the unborn and thus think it is merely about a 'medical procedure'.
The thing with atheists is their reasoning is not based on the belief of an all knowing sky fairy.
Green hammer, She comes across as such a Justice.
She sounds really coherent and smart, would make a great supreme court judge.
She sounds nails on chalkboard whiny.
Mitch Besser nope
I am not impressed with her ability to express a coherent thread of logic that clearly differentiates the conflicting origins of the thought patterns held by the holders of the office of the supreme court. It would be helpful if she started with the acknowledgement that it is not necessary for any member of the Court to be a lawyer or to be an admittee of any bar association. It is not a constitutional requirement. Perhaps she is not aware...
@@thomasquinn284 Did Kagen ever start any of her speeches with the acknowledgement that it is not necessary for any member of the Court to be a lawyer or to be and admittee of any bar association?
@@brotherlove6216 The founding fathers specifically did not make members of the legal profession as the sole requirements of Court membership. Perhaps your civic teachers were ignorant of that constitutional requirement. In addition, her reasoning for the Court's action overlooks the reservation to the States and the people of all powers not so enumerated. Maybe your teachers forgot to point that out as well.
And here we are at the moment in time where it looks like she’s gonna be the nominee !!
A wonderful talented woman, mother, wife. Obviously a capacity for a great memory for facts. Ideal for Pres. Trump's pick in 2020.
Praying Amy C Barrett is confirmed as SCJ - a voice of reason, decency, and jurisprudence.
If trump likes her she's bound to be rotten
"What would we have in a Trump court? Who knows?"
... You!
😀
How ironic, huh? 😃 God knew it all along.
@@mytreasuredcreations / there is no evidence for any deities or “god”. WAKE UP!
@@ok-kk3ic I am! 😉
Sure which is why I'm here. Here she is allowed to be honest.
"We shouldn't be putting people on the court that share our policy preferences, we should be putting people on the court that want to apply the constitution." Listen from 25:14 to 28:20 for what we can expect from Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court Justice; it's all here.
@DefinitelyNotDan Were you intentionally trying to be completely backwards on this? A Republic by definition protects the rights of minority from the wrath of the majority. Pretty much all the people who had a part in ratifying the constitution hated the concept of majority rule.
Agree. An originalist judge with integrity, another Scalia. Not a bad person but not a good Democratic pick. However, not the person the non-answers were manipulated to suggest either.
@@gejost: I like your take, very astute and balanced.
Judge Barrett will make a great Associate Justice of the SCOTUS! :)
20:50 One minor correction: Rehnquist was appointed by Nixon. That isn’t her fault-it’s hard to keep up with these things sometimes.
"... you have the courage and integrity to say 'I'm not going to interfere with the democratic process'"... We will hold you to these words, ACB.
Don't worry she will help Trump get over the line. Sweet irony if a woman has the final say lol.
She must be a very disciplined person to have 7 kids (5 biological) and still look like a million bucks at 46. This person has both brains and beauty.
clean living
Amy Coney Barrett will make an Amazing Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court NEED Justices that are NOT Political Activist, but Render decisions based off what the Constitution actually SAYS. God bless Amy Coney Barrett.
#AmyConeyBarrett took $ from virulently anti-LGBT hate group. See Al Franken’s 2017 questioning.
ruclips.net/video/B0C620T8knU/видео.html
None of the judges are political activists. Kavanaugh concerned me most but no evidence he has been political.
As long as you prefer church>state, I’d agree
"I don't know who Trump would appoint"
welp
LMAOOOoOooO
"what would we have in a Trump court. who knows? " Oh my god....
Who's here in 2020?
This was very informative and calming during these incredibly hyperpartisan times. I like Judge Amy's perspective and intellect. I hope that she will be a great Justice, with the stature of RBG and her mentor Antonin Scalia.
She keeps saying “who knows who Trump will nominate!”😂🤣
He ending up nominating her.
I wonder if Trump was randomly scrolling through RUclips and saw this video and was like "Yep, I'm definitely picking her"
Trump doesn't care and doesn't know her. Your Mitch daddy chose her. Why are you Trumptards so funny anyway?
That moron doesn't watch intellectual videos. He spends his time watching Fox news and reality TV lol
I think she could one day become a Supreme Court justice!
how insightful. Do you predict derby winners a minute after the race has finished as well.
@@iluatldm She is not jumping to soon. But you are likely right. Trump can surprise us sometimes.
Joe Rooney she will be the nominee.
I think one day you could be aware of what's going on in our country. She's a nominee you ...
@@iluatldm - Inciteful? Insightful! Unless you are attempting a pun but I doubt it.
What an incredibly unique thought. The text of the Constitution, expressed in words to future generations, means exactly what the writers and ratifiers intended.
The Constitution meant many things to many people, moron. In 1788 and in 2020. Textualism is a farce.
@@HaleysComet81 Nobody cares what it meant to many people, it only matters what it meant to the people that ratified it. Textualism is not a Farce and the constitution is not a "living document."
Except for the 9th and 10th Amendments. The Constitution clearly points out that the people have rights beyond the reach of government... and beyond the text of the Constitution. So how do your arrive these "....certain rights..." that are not enumerated in the Constitution? You need a Ruth Bader Ginsberg to interpret that the Constitution is indeed a living document, at least in the case of the 9th and possibly the 10th amendments.
@@howarddamico1237 That is the case that bothers the hell out of the originalists.
@@Uhtredrag1080 The people who ratified it are dead. If it is not a living document then please explain those things called amendments?
Who can predict what Trump will choose? Lol in hindsight
25:00 This response is so incredibly profound and will always be my opinion of the strongest case for textualist interpretation of the constitution.
Ironic, that the Founders would of thought of her as only a little higher than the slaves they owned.
@@BattleDroid191 you're special.
@@BattleDroid191 Most of the founders' wives were extremely active in politics and immeasurably influential in the shaping of the Constitution and other documents. So your insinuation that the founders thought women were idiot slaves is super far off.
26:24 is where she states the facts that the main stream media will never ever say. SCOTUS should never be appointed due to their political views, but views of the law. Not quoting her, but paraphrasing. She is amazing.
That means her and all the other heritage foundation stooges should be disqualified
@@txnmia8613 Should people who work for left-leaning organizations (change dot org, Huffington Post, Think Progress, SPLC, etc) also be disqualified from office?
@@txnmia8613 Yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is a smart women. Amy would be an excellent Supreme Court justice to base her ruling on 'conservative' as written, interpretation of the Law. If Trump passes her by for Justice Kennedy's open seat, an error was made !
His 3rd pick is coming!!! Where's RBG??
Well, you were both right
Trump realized his oversight. Hopefully the Senate agrees next Thursday.
Everyone was her friend until they weren't...
Shimon ... don’t misquotes your texts .Thinks rightly...
She is impressive! People can cry all they want. She will get confirmed. She's far more intelligent than all the senators trying to throw her under the bus!
Amen! I love this Lady, she has a awesome intellect.
she is very intelligent, no doubt about it. but she is also a craven corpratist...
No, she's not. Eloquence doesn't mean intelligence. You're confusing the two. A common mistake by the unintelligent.
so cute the expression ... “ throw her under the bus”
@@mistax2k
Seriously?
The lady is smart. It's more than mere eloquence, she clearly knows the underlying law. Notre Dame doesn't employ academics cause they talk pretty. They employ them because they know about the law and are legal geniuses.
You might disagree with her philosophy of law, or think her worldviews are disqualifying for filling RBG's seat. But trying to argue that she's not intelligent is utterly moronic. It would be as absurd as arguing that RBG, or Scalia, or Cardozo was dumb.
A woman called "for such a time as this".
Brilliant ! Gift to humanity! Thank you God !
Nice comment.👌
enough, thats enough of this bullshit for now
@@danielendara3838 I dunno, you're pretty cute yourself!
@@yelkatalaich60 Amy Coney Barrett cannot outrun the flood...
NOW LEARN
a parable of the fig tree
(A) when his branch is yet tender
and
(B) putteth forth leaves
ye know
(C) that summer is nigh
So likewise ye,
when ye shall see all these things,
know that it is near,
even at the doors.
Verily I say unto you,
This (2 in the field) generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled.
Heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my words (the 1 shall be taken) shall not pass away.
Very quick mind, and very well spoken.Very likable, I must add.
Judy S.
and doesn't wear a commie outfit, but does look nice in just a casual way, fits her style of speaking too.
America is very lucky to have such a intelligent woman working for our Constitution 🇺🇸
YEEEEEEEEEEEES. THANK YOU MR TRUMP
You may not like her, but this is one seriously intelligent, measured and knowledgeable lady. I am a Brit but she would get my vote every time.
Couldn’t ask for a better justice nominee. She sounds as if she’s already ON the court. Most knowledgeable one I’ve ever heard. Should breeze through.
Praying Amy C Barrett is confirmed as SCJ - a voice of reason, decency and jurisprudence
Eater of Broken Meats lol. Wowwwww.
@Eater of Broken Meats I suggest you go ahead and join Jesus today.
13:37 it’s genuinely funny how at this point in time she had absolutely no idea the nominee would be her…
She's gonna be a great justice...
Always to be tainted with the trump manure brush....
@@tomneal5913
Na, you liberals are perpetually aggrieved. You'll forget about it and and move on to some new issue when you realize you can't win this one.
@@anthonybelcher8860 I hope libruls never let it go. I want her to take healthcare away from them as well as autonomy from women's bodies. These disgusting leftists deserve nothing but the worst the world has to offer and with a stacked supreme court we can really do some damage to scum like them.
@@cf3304 The same hair on fire response that liberals have made about every conservative justice and president in history.
It never panned out, but liberal sheep believe the lie every single time.
It's quite amusing to watch them scream and cry for a week, move on to another grievance, and nothing happens.
You had your chance, it's time for us to run things a while and fix what regressive progressives have damaged in less than a decade..... You can still kill your babies, we know that means so much to you....
Lmao all these youtube comment tough guys
Lol. He's going to appoint you :)
Oh, he will
Wow. Prophetic from 2 years ago!?
@@missjennemeg1 she was Trump's second choice after Kavanaugh in 2018
This aged so well. Nice prediction.
Wow, whatever u said 2 years ago came true today!
"A Trump court? Who knows?" Who indeed. XD I guess we'll see this Saturday if this comment will take on an ultimate irony. lol
I bothered by how she explains the " 14th Amendment" and the hidden power the court assumed though it. Using it to interpret that if things have been doing it this way for a while, then that gives licence for the court to accept it as a right and establish it as law.
54368975 your “name” is an 8-digit number. What you are bothered by is irrelevant. Learn to write proper English before you second guess a Supreme Court nominated judge...
@@michaelkeymont501 thanks!
@@michaelkeymont501 thank you! My reply had to do with how she explains the"14 Amendment" ; how she derived the " secret powers" that Robers used to declare a tax for the ACA. Not seconding quessing anyone, only registering a method I was unfamiliar with. Thanks for the feedback. God bless.
@@michaelkeymont501 about my name it is my Nam conflict id number. I cherish it very much. Perhaps you are too young to know such things.
Oh life! Just how thankful I am to see this video.
29:07 for those who want to hear about Obergefell v. Hodges
Lovely person and explains such boring subjects in a wonderfully honest way.
The new Supreme court justice
She may replace Ginsberg
1776 good call
Tell me tell me more time traveler :
What knowledge, perfect presentation, integrity, and inspiring personality!
Indeed, this Laddy deserves to join the SUpreme Court.
If I remember clearly in Obama's few months left in his first term, he appointed Merrick Garland supreme court justices only one most after Antonin Scalia died. Of course, he wasn't approved because they were in the minority in the Senate. If Obama thought it wasn’t the right thing to do, then why did he nominate Garland? By the way, didn't Chief Justice John Roberts (Bush appointee) voted on LGBT rights and immigrant protections? Didn't he also on June 29th ruled in a 5-4 decision striking down a law that would have limited abortion access in Louisiana? The last time I checked, he was supposed to be "destroying" Roe v Wade. Get it together, people.
Way to cherry-pick your evidence.
Chief Justice Roberts flip-flops on LGBT rights. His jurisprudence makes no sense, in most cases. He has no methodology in how he rules. Justice Gorsuch’s arguments when he “flips” are pretty straightforward, as he reads the law in its literal form. He is an originalist and textualist.
It’s not that we wasn’t confirmed, he was never even brought to a vote. THAT is the problem.
This has nothing to do with ACB though. She’s qualified and deserves the spot.
@Dutch Meyer - Obama did nominate someone. The senate just refused to hold a hearing, since they were not planning on confirming anyway.
She needs to find a good real estate agent in Washington DC.
Bad idea.
Good real estate agents don't let you choose Washington DC.
huh?
Good call bro, did you find her a nice place?
@@logwind you still saying huh? Lol, did you get wiser in past couple years
Rent for a while, buy after the crash
"What would we have in a Trump Court?" You, Amy!
It's amazing how much real information you get from reading dissent's.
She is exceptionally eloquent, articulate, intelligent, engaging, and very enlightening. I think she is a wonderful choice for the SC.
She’s a super human, she has 7 kids and looks that beautiful?!!!
She has handmaids
@@sadhu7191 PAID handmaids. big, huge difference
Right now the left is frantically searching for this years version of Dr Christine Blah Blah Ford.
Lol 😂 but seriously...
That would be some snively beta male who would talk about how she hurt his feelings when she turned him down for a date.
on the bright side, SHE probably didn't sexually assault anyone while drunk.
@@susanjonas7139 Nether did Brett.
At that point in time, she had no idea that she would end up in trump's court.
She was already on several conservative lists and groomed to overthrow Roe vs Wade if a Republican president came into power.
On the contrary. She was practically created, groomed and carefully handpicked for this position. Perhaps the only unpredictable was replacing RBG. She is also against the ACA.
Actually a good video on a real discussion that applies very relevantly to today. Stuff like this should be discussed during the hearings instead of the dog and pony show that is put up by the media.
It could have been. She is allowed to answer anything that shevsaid in public prior to being a judge. If you wanted to ask her about tye ACA or R v W, you could ask about what she said here instead of inventing scenarios she can't answer.
12:56 "What would we have on a Trump court?"
We would have YOU!
She's my pick. I'll be announcing it tomorrow at 9 pm ET
LoL!
Wow.
I don't get it
That balanced 4 days of leaders questing her ability and make-up of character .. honestly, after a few moments attempting to watch the duel town meeting/ grilling of NBC .. I turned it off and glad I tuned into hopefully our next SCOTUS member ... very educational even for a sparky
Who’s here after watching the first day of the ACB confirmation hearings? Much respect for her!
Me me me me me
She's a nightmare. She hasn't ever even tried a case. She sided with employers who wanted to call their employees ni** er at work. She has absolutely no experience.
@@weedweaver943 source ?
She avoids all the questions. An ideologue. Not fit for the highest job of the land.
@Erika T wow big fucking deal she’s been attacked non stop. And is the only person without any fucking notes what so ever. But but but she named 4 out of the 5
she is a most logical choice because she has recently been vetted by the current Senate...so if there were valid objections, they would have already been made...and she is fresh from dealing with their questions so the answers would come easily and she would be less intimidated....Al Fr. is gone so his harassment won't be missed....this is what a law professor sounds like, not the shuck and jive bo spewed out there all the time...she would be a most expeditious candidate....I pray for Justice Amy Barrett.
Wait, she was already vetted by the Senate? Doesn't that mean Trump can just appoint her?
yep you are spot on Mr. J (i assumed your gender, if wrong sorry)
Robert Sparks No because they have to be confirmed for each appointment. But time is of the essence and having been through the routine just last year...all information gathered by the Senate is still current so there should be no delay excuses. But the dems would find some excuse I'm sure.
J...collins is talking shit about how she might not back barrett yet he voted for her to be on the 7th circuit
Michael...If the President nominates her, then I am hoping that Sen. Lankford and the rest who slammed the religious litmus test the dems tried last time...will stand up right at the beginning of the hearings and put a stop to it before they can do that. Collins is gritching about abortion and as anyone can see and hear in the video above, Judge Barrett already addressed that. Our country would be so blessed to have her become Justice Amy Barrett.
She is breathtakingly brilliant ... and would be an intellectual gift to the Supreme Court. And what a fine inspiration to young women she is. We need more like her.
If your basic belief of how the world works and people should behave is based on the myths of the bible, and you pledge your faith to a male-dominated church that has a sketchy record (centuries long) of misbehavior, then being breathtakingly brilliant only counts for the ability to twist words and deeds to to support your belief in these myths.
We are all living in the real world of now. There are consequences to bad religion.
As a non-lawyer, I would have appreciated if Judge Barrett could comment on this idea: It sounds very nice to say that the legislators set policy through enacting laws and the courts only apply the law as written to cases; but by invalidating or upholding laws the courts (particularly SCOTUS) do in fact set policy.
She’s going to be a legend of the Supreme Court for all time
Most likely yes
12:55
“What would we have in a Trump Court...”
_Trump: You!!!_
No! A court that rules as the Constitution is written. Dem judges rule as the party wants them to rule.
I find it amusing at this juncture that the assumption was that Clinton would be elected. This is a very good discussion!
If only it was possible to go back in time and tell her right there that she would fill ruth's seat. I'd like to see her reaction to that.
12:55 "What would we have in a Trump Court?... Who knows?..." Ohhh sweet serendipity.
You were wrong 2 years ago, but I think you’re on the nose now
I never knew anything about her, but after seeing/hearing this, she'd be a Great pick.
Coney-Barrett seems extremely smart & brilliant.
I agree
Extremely smart and brilliant to really dumb people, sure
Watching this lovely lady from Europe. I am really impressed!
I'm trying to learn about Amy Coney Barrett.
If anybody knows any videos or links you've found useful, I'd appreciate you replying with them.
Many thanks in advance.
The Ford charade almost ensures she will be Trump's next pick.
I would encourage anyone interested in her possible appointment to the court to watch this. I think the fear mongers would themselves be very surprised and in favor of her nomination on both sides of the isle. Definitely for her appointment if it comes to her being Justice Ginsberg's replacement.
She is a Roberts type , scary ,,,,,,, pick LA Goya
Uh, no. She rails against Obama filling the seat. 100% political, zero jurisprudence.
Im not getting much comfort in her words....there is no "interpretation" nor "precedent" not to give equal rights to everyone.
I fear Barett will be another Roberts judge , she favored lock downs , and she referred to popes decision on matters / scary La Goya is better choice , Geatz and Meadows endorsed La Goya and those two are straight .
@@anthonybourdon4642 I think you are right. To stay away from Socialism, It would be smart to choose LaGoya. Maybe POTUS will surprise us!
Superb and still timely discussion, very well moderated too!
not sure what the big commotion is about confirming her for the SCOTUS nomination lol??? she's very eloquent and interprets constitutional law as it is with no bias which is what we want in a Justice, no bs here or there. i think shes more than qualified to succeed RBG as Justice even though I don't support Trump in general.
Next SCOTUS justice!
do you believe people with religious beliefs are unfit for public office or service on the supreme court?
can you show me where in the constitution it prohibits people of faith from holding public office? are you aware that many of the Founding Fathers had deeply held religious beliefs? doesn't your view violate the No Religious Test Clause in Article 6 of the Constitution?
so do you believe that those in public office have the right to hold religious views but they do not have the right to practice them? wouldn't that be a violation of the First Amendment? would you also consider it wrong for an atheist to bring their personal faith and belief system into government ?
on what basis do you make that claim? not all the Founding Fathers were simply Deists but many were Christians. would you believe that they were establishing the country in exact opposition to reason and laws?
how can you have reason and laws without a God? if we are the products of mindless unguided processes what reason do we have to trust the mental faculties that are produced? why would we as a society want to make laws to protect so-called rights of human clumps of matter? where would these rights transcend from?
She is simply a brilliant legal scholar and I trust her. Pretty simple. I trust she will apply the law without listening to the call of the Sirens. Just wonderful.
I am designer, but I am so enjoyed her speech, thanks
She's the kind of law professor that students crush on.
I've tried to find the "Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dying Wish" clause in the Constitution, to no avail... anybody?
It probably never even happened, just leftist bullshit. I look forward to their tears when Justice Barrett is sworn in.
I heard from a good source that her last words were: 'hmmmmmmpffff why have you left me satan pffffff'
It's a living document. I'm sure it's in there when we twist the clauses sufficiently. Ask any leftist.
Yes, it's called the Freedom of Speech. Say anything necessary to get your ways.
0Jebus0 a politician is lying when their lips move. It’s time for term limits to remove career politicians from the swamp. We need intelligent citizens that are willing to represent us to run for our political positions versus money and power hungry liars. The whole campaign system is fraught with corruption.