Amy Coney Barrett, law professor, can’t name the First Amendment protections

Judge Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearings

Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearing is going so poorly. The hearing is all political theater at this point, because Barrett is absolutely going to end up on the Supreme Court. All because over 50% of white women chose Donald Trump to protect their privilege in 2016. Elections have consequences, and here we are. The Republicans are going to put this compulsive liar and fraud on the Supreme Court because dumbasses kept screaming “both sides!” Barrett is so f–king ignorant, she couldn’t even name the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. This was a question from a Republican!!

Again, this dumbass is a LAW professor. I know the average citizen probably wouldn’t be able to name the freedoms spelled out in the First Amendment either (although it’s a question on citizenship tests, so naturalized citizens would know it). But for a law professor? Jesus. I guess she only cares about the laws when it comes to treating women like property.

Barrett can’t say whether climate change is real or science is just a myth invented by a dinosaur-riding Jesus.

Here’s Lindsey Graham asking Barrett about “the good old days of segregation,” a comment which he later said was sarcastic (it was not) and a comment which Barrett did not challenge in real time or at all.

What else? Barrett refused to say whether or not Donald Trump could delay the election. Hint: the answer is that he cannot. Barrett has failed to disclose at least a dozen anti-choice speeches she’s given over the years, and it’s super-convenient that she’s just so forgetful about those speeches in particular. And again, this isn’t just about abortion, it’s about all reproductive choices, including birth control (she will take away birth control access) and IVF. Fertility doctors are seriously alarmed by her stances on IVF and other fertility treatments.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearings

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

46 Responses to “Amy Coney Barrett, law professor, can’t name the First Amendment protections”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. souperkay says:

    the absolute hubris to not prepare for these hearings makes me ill, she does not deserve to be considered for the supreme court. I do not understand her, sticking her hand in a metaphorical meat grinder and daring her own body to not need birth control, an abortion, or other life saving medicines that she would like to take this medicine away, this medicine that her omnipresent and omnipotent god created. The ego is and self-involvement to believe it’s okay to be in these hearings because the god that created abortion has deemed just her the chosen one to take it away, totally bananas and disqualifying.

  2. LightPurple says:

    But hey, she could define “standing!” Which qualifies her to move onto the second week of law school.

    Also, the Republicans on the committee,, in particular, Graham, Joni Earnst, and Marsha Blackburn, have all erased Sandra Day O’Connor from their collective memory.

    Griswold v Connecticut – the right to birth control – is in serious danger.

    Graham tried to fundraise for his re-election campaign from his committee chair position and again in his interview in the hallway afterwards. This is highly unethical and illegal.

    It is also illegal, a violation of the EEOA, to ask questions about an applicant’s family and housework distribution in a job interview, which numerous Republican Senators did. But Amy made it very clear that she’s not a proponent of the EEOA, especially not when it comes to age discrimination.

    A follow-up on above, Medicare is toast too as far as she is concerned. Yes, not only is she going to toss people with pre-existing conditions and adult children under 26 off health insurance, she’s coming for the elderly and disabled too

    Marsha Blackburn took the opportunity to insult and make discriminatory, stereotypical comments about Catholic women. No, Marsha, we are all not conservatives. Indeed, few of us are. And again, you did your daughter a grave disservice if she never heard of Sandra Day O’Connor.

  3. Becks1 says:

    She is incredibly dangerous and part of why she is so dangerous is because she looks like the average suburban mom, who by all accounts is very nice (I have a friend who had her as a professor in law school and liked her a lot, although said friend is horrified by this process and very against her nomination, because as she says, a nice/good professor isn’t enough to make one suitable for SCOTUS….) , she’s intelligent, etc. This is how we lose our rights. Its not going to be because of someone like Alito. It’s the upper class white woman who is going to smile graciously while she reads a decision overturning Roe.

  4. Amy Bee says:

    It’s clear, she wasn’t chosen because she was a knowledgeable law professor but because she’s anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-equal rights and anti-climate change.

  5. TQ says:

    This women is a reactionary monster. She is such a threat to so many freedoms we hold dear. Given her age it’s going to be a long and bumpy road with her on SCOTUS.

  6. BearcatLawyer says:

    As a lawyer, this offends me. The First Amendment is one of the most basic things one learns in constitutional law – her alleged area of interest!

    Republicans have sold their souls. Pathetic.

  7. Angela says:

    She’s dumb Ted talk over

  8. Digital Unicorn says:

    She is just awful – she is literally Serena Joy.

    Also is Trump doing her makeup? Its very orange looking in patches.

  9. MissMarierose says:

    It makes me absolutely furious that this ignorant bitch will replace the brilliant and indefatigable RBG.

  10. I’m not American so I don’t quite understand the process or how this should work.

    Is a lifetime appointment set in stone? I.e., could it be overturned on the grounds that no one’s nomination should have proceeded?

    In Canada we have the Caretaker Convention. During an election period, new appointments and non routine expenditures are deferred until after an election and/or a new government assume power.

    ETA. Is there anything equivalent in the US law?

    • manda says:

      no. the republicans made up a “rule” that we would do that when obama was president, but then threw it out the window this time. A lot of our stuff is based on the idea that people will act they way they are supposed to. For instance, there is a senator who is in charge of the senate, and his job is to introduce bills into the senate process that have passed through the house of representatives. There is nothing that says he HAS to put those bills into the senate process, and so the guy who currently has the job (mitch mcconnell) just doesn’t do it with the bills he doesn’t like. He basically controls everything as one odious man and there is very little that can be done about it because of the way our laws are written

      • Becks1 says:

        Yes, its been rather eye opening to realize how much of our system is based on what people “should” do, not what people “can” or “cant” do (i.e., Trump should have released his tax returns, but theres no law saying he has to, so he didn’t.)

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        It’s supposed to be the honor system, but Republicans have no honor and they somehow figured out that Americans would do nothing to them if the behaved with no honor. What the republicans are doing should have really caused a revolt, but here we are going to our regular jobs, showing up on time and completing our task, to start again the next day.

    • Charfromdarock says:

      Thank you for answering.

  11. Veronica S. says:

    She’s a snake. She knows exactly what she’s doing double-talking around every one of those questions, and it tells me just how dangerous and disingenuous she is. Republicans are dead set on slamming her through, though, so I’m not exactly sure what we’re going to have to do to fix this, whether it’s expand the courts or add term limits.

    • Esmom says:

      Yes. Her evasiveness isn’t smooth, it’s slippery and slimy. I can barely stand to look at her face. I do know judicial activists are looking at ways to reform this court, both in the shorter and longer terms, which is about the only thing that gives me hope.

  12. Kathgal says:

    If someone asked Biden and he couldn’t name all five, Republicans would be losing their minds, saying he has memory issues and is too old and senile. This happens and…crickets.

  13. Godwina says:

    This person disgusts me and I want her to step on a landmine. The process is a sham, and this hideous theocrat has no business in your Supreme Court.

    THAT SAID I would bet my life savings she normally does know the 5 rights. Exhaustion and stress do a number on memory (as do age and menopause). I have a PhD and have forgotten the odd weird thing-I-should-know when tired–momentarily forgotten. There is so much to attack her over, judicially and ethically, that we don’t need to mire ourselves in ableism.

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      I disagree. She is trying to get unto the most powerful court in the land, she doesn’t get any breaks, she doesn’t need them. She has the job. She should have been able to answer that question, and I will call her out for that, it’s not ableism. Stop making excuses for a monster who is set to destroy so much of what women have fought and died for.

  14. Mumbles says:

    I had taken for granted that she was smart because that’s all I heard in the media. Plus she had impressive credentials – Supreme Court clerkship, law school professorship. But after watching her the last few days I realize it’s not that, she’s just well programmed. I bet if we did some digging we find an ambitious young Amy correctly assessing that attending the Federalist Society events in college and law school, and the Federalist Society seeing a religious young woman who’s a good student as someone to invest in and nurture. They saw this coming down the road 25 years ago. The Republicans play the long game.

    This was probably the first question she hadn’t been impeccably prepped for and I’m surprised it was even asked (Sasse is a bit of a goofball so maybe he didn’t get the memo?)

    • Esmom says:

      Well-programmed is a really good way to put it. The Federalist Society has a process of grooming candidates from elite academic circles and you are absolutely right that they have been playing the long game,

    • Becks1 says:

      Well-programmed is the perfect way to put it and its why she cant answer questions about hypotheticals. She doesn’t have the brain power to consider the hypos (that, and she’s trying to avoid answering at all costs.)

    • Tiffany says:

      She graduated 23rd in her class. That explains why she never set foot in a court room or filed a case. She never got a job as a practicing lawyer, yet was able to get a job as a teacher.

      And she gone have the audacity to be arrogant to Sen. Harris and Hirono.

      THAT is white privilege.

  15. Onerous says:

    You know what I keep thinking about? The other sitting Justices. They must be like, “Seriously? We have to work with *this*? I mean – she just seems…. vacant…

    I’m not saying all the rest are Mensa members, but come on… this is embarrassing in so many ways.

    • alexc says:

      Well in all fairness Thomas is as mediocre or worse than she is and I doubt Kavanagh is much better. They’re all 100% political appointments so their ability and qualifications are secondary. Not sure which is worse Marshall to Thomas or RBG to this fanatic. It’s truly obscene.

      • Esmom says:

        Agreed. Thomas is appallingly awful and Kavanaugh is probably just excited to see someone he could maybe enjoy a BEER with.

      • Veronica S. says:

        The fact that Roberts went out of his way to personally rebuke Kavanaugh in the ruling on the California COVID restrictions speaks volumes, to be honest. It’s clear there’s some among the court who recognize this is going to destroy public faith in the SC as anything that can be impartial. It’s time, anyway. There was no reason to ever pretend this wasn’t a partisan position.

  16. AL says:

    Of course she missed assembly/protest.

  17. SJ Knows says:

    The way in which people are being awarded serious jobs with huge responsibilities = this entitled “My Buddy System” is getting worse in every area in the US.

    POTUS = sh*t show.
    SCOTUS = sh*t show
    ELECTED POLITICAL OFFICE on damn near every level = same, same, same

    Nothing new under the sun. Except to say that .. at what point will the politics and buddy system be over ruled by intelligence?
    The USA is going down the crapper faster

    I am truly worried for the future, for everyone.

  18. LouLou says:

    The 53% of white women who voted for Trump enabled this to happen. Yes, there were other factors, but those white women sold us out and sold out themselves. I will never forget that.

    • Edna Mode says:

      Ladies please stop saying 53% of white women voted for trump. you can’t possibly think that 100% of white women voted when only about half did. which means @bout 25% of white women voted for Dump and about 25% of white women voted for Hillary Clinton.
      AND please remember that most medicalTreatments and most RX were NEVER tested on women or girls at all. I have the most common disease of girls/women all my life and most women know nothing about these facts. MEN controlling the conversation again and blaming women of all colors.

      • Tiffany says:

        Yeah, no. The percentage of white women who actually voted was 53% of the ones that was registered.

        You showed your ass and are being called on it. Black women always knew, a majority of Latina and Asian women knew. Y’all knew and did not care.

        You can try and spin this white feminist ‘men control’s it. Stop blaming us’ all you want, but receipts. Don’t. Lie.

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        The commenters on this site are intelligent, we know what she means, the number is accurate no matter how you break it down. That so many White women choose such a man is disgraceful and the writer of this post is correct, it was to protect their privilege.

      • A says:

        It doesn’t matter what percentage of white women actually voted or didn’t vote. 53% of the white women who voted in the 2016 election, voted for Trump. In doing so, they aided him to victory, and the rest of us have to sit here and suffer this garbage.

        White men are a foregone conclusion, but white women, particularly suburban, college educated women, who are supposed to know “better”, who are supposed to give a shit about things like abortion rights and gender equality–enough of them showed up at the polls and voted for Trump. They are the swingiest of swing votes in this country.

        Ask yourself why enough of the women who voted that day voted out of loyalty to white supremacy rather than their gender, instead of whinging about how it hurts you on a personal level to hear the truth.

  19. Grant says:

    I’m a trial attorney so I haven’t studied the First Amendment since Con Law and my First Amendment course in law school and I even I remembered those protections. She’s only been on the bench for like four years (can’t remember the exact length of her tenure) … This is all so twisted and awful. My husband and I want to ex-patriate to Europe if Trump wins again, I just don’t know what we would do about our two precious kitty boys.

  20. A says:

    Amy Coney Barrett belongs to the Phyllis Schlafly school of traditionalist ideology. She has seven kids, but I bet she has 8 nannies for each of them. She benefits off the work other women have put in to afford the opportunities she’s had in life, but she won’t do the same for anyone else, particularly vulnerable women who don’t have the protections she does. So let’s call her what she is–a rank hypocrite.

  21. Ashley says:

    I don’t know… if you want to get rich white women right where it hurts taking away their IVF access seems like comeuppance. You gotta be hella rich to afford IVF or be willing to go into a lot of debt, and I have yet to see a brown person getting IVF. I know that’s an incredibly generalized statement, but out of all of the media I’ve seen on the subject, it’s always a rich white woman and “her journey”.

  22. Delphine says:

    You guys she basically wore the handmaid’s dress. I think it was yesterday but the days all run together now. Same exact shade of red, same sleeve length and same hem length. I wish I could post a pic. She’s trolling us.

  23. Ni says:

    Putin’s pick.