BREAKING: Senate Votes to Confirm Amy Coney Barrett as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Barrett

(Greg Nash/Pool via AP)

It is done. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is now Justice Amy Coney Barrett…well, she will be shortly once she’s sworn in by, heh, Justice Clarence Thomas in a White House ceremony. The World’s Greatest Deliberative Body™, the US Senate, just voted to confirm her by a vote of 52-48. Maine’s Susan Collins was the only Republican who voted against confirmation.

And while President Trump nominated her and Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pushed her through the process, no one is more to thank for Justice Barrett being on the court today than former Senator Harry Reid.

Many in the media are claiming that the balance of power on the court now stands at 6-3 in favor of the conservatives. That, of course, is either wildly optimistic or ludicrously inaccurate as Chief Justice John Roberts now occupies the Anthony Kennedy middle seat, swinging both ways.

But with the addition of Justice Barrett, gun owners and gun rights supports can once again hold out hope that the High Court might finally end their decade-plus drought and take up Second Amendment cases to finally enforce the Heller decision, clarifying and extending the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Fingers crossed. In the mean time, here’s the Associated Press’s report on Justice Barrett’s confirmation:

By Lisa Mascaro, AP

Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court late Monday by a deeply divided Senate, Republicans overpowering Democrats to install President Donald Trump’s nominee days before the election and secure a likely conservative court majority for years to come.

Trump’s choice to fill the vacancy of the late liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg potentially opens a new era of rulings on abortion, the Affordable Care Act and even his own election. Democrats were unable to stop the outcome, Trump’s third justice on the court, as Republicans race to reshape the judiciary.

Barrett is 48, and her lifetime appointment as the 115th justice will solidify the court’s rightward tilt.

Monday’s 52-48 vote was the closest high court confirmation ever to a presidential election, and the first in modern times with no support from the minority party. The spiking COVID-19 crisis has hung over the proceedings. Vice President Mike Pence’s office said Monday he would not preside at the Senate session unless his tie-breaking vote was needed after Democrats asked him to stay away when his aides tested positive for COVID-19. His vote was not necessary.

With Barrett’s confirmation assured, Trump was expected to celebrate with a primetime swearing-in event at the White House. Justice Clarence Thomas was set to administer the Constitutional Oath, a senior White House official said.

“This is something to be really proud of and feel good about,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said during a rare weekend session Sunday ahead of voting. He scoffed at the “apocalyptic” warnings from critics that the judicial branch was becoming mired in partisan politics and declared that “they won’t be able to do much about this for a long time to come.”

Pence’s presence presiding for the vote would have been expected, showcasing the Republican priority. But Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and his leadership team said it would not only violate virus guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “it would also be a violation of common decency and courtesy.”

Some GOP senators tested positive for the coronavirus following a Rose Garden event with Trump to announce Barrett’s nomination last month, but they have since said they have been cleared by their doctors from quarantine. Pence was not infected and his office said the vice president tested negative for the virus Monday.

Democrats argued for weeks that the vote was being improperly rushed and insisted during an all-night Sunday session it should be up to the winner of the Nov. 3 election to name the nominee. However, Barrett, a federal appeals court judge from Indiana, is expected to be seated swiftly, and begin hearing cases.

Speaking near midnight Sunday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., called the vote “illegitimate” and “the last gasp of a desperate party.”

Several matters are awaiting decision just a week before Election Day, and Barrett could be a decisive vote in Republican appeals of orders extending the deadlines for absentee ballots in North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

The justices also are weighing Trump’s emergency plea for the court to prevent the Manhattan District Attorney from acquiring his tax returns. And on Nov. 10, the court is expected to hear the Trump-backed challenge to the Obama-era Affordable Care Act.

Trump has said he wanted to swiftly install a ninth justice to resolve election disputes and is hopeful the justices will end the health law known as “Obamacare.”

During several days of public testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Barrett was careful not to disclose how she would rule on any such cases.

She presented herself as a neutral arbiter and suggested, “It’s not the law of Amy.” But her writings against abortion and a ruling on “Obamacare” show a deeply conservative thinker.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, praised the mother of seven as a role model — “a conservative woman who embraces her faith.” Republicans focused on her Catholic religion, dismissing earlier Democratic questions about her beliefs. Graham said Barrett is “unabashedly pro-life, but she’s not going to apply ‘the law of Amy’ to all of us.”

At the start of Trump’s presidency, McConnell engineered a Senate rules change to allow confirmation by a majority of the 100 senators, rather than the 60-vote threshold traditionally needed to advance high court nominees over objections. That was an escalation of a rules change Democrats put in place to advance other court and administrative nominees under President Barack Obama.

Republicans are taking a political plunge by pushing for confirmation days from the Nov. 3 election with the presidency and their Senate majority at stake.

Only one Republican — Sen. Susan Collins, who is in a tight reelection fight in Maine — voted against the nominee, not over any direct assessment of Barrett. Rather, Collins said, “I do not think it is fair nor consistent to have a Senate confirmation vote prior to the election.”

Trump and his Republican allies had hoped for a campaign boost, in much the way Trump generated excitement among conservatives and evangelical Christians in 2016 over a court vacancy. That year, McConnell refused to allow the Senate to consider then-President Barack Obama’s choice to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, arguing the new president should decide.

Most other Republicans facing tough races embraced the nominee to bolster their standing with conservatives. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said in a speech Monday that Barrett will “go down in history as one of the great justices.”

But it’s not clear the extraordinary effort to install the new justice over such opposition in a heated election year will pay political rewards to the GOP.

Demonstrations for and against the nominee have been more muted at the Capitol under coronavirus restrictions.

Democrats are unified against Barrett. While two Democratic senators voted to confirm Barrett in 2017 after Trump nominated the Notre Dame Law School professor to the appellate court, none voted to confirm her to the high court.

In a display of party priorities, California Sen. Kamala Harris, the vice presidential nominee, returned to Washington from the campaign trail to join colleagues with a no vote.

No other Supreme Court justice has been confirmed on a recorded vote with no support from the minority party in at least 150 years, according to information provided by the Senate Historical Office.

comments

  1. avatar JohnnyL says:

    “This aged well” Chelsea Clinton on a definitive ruling by the Supreme Court regarding gun control. Yes, Chelsea you are right there will be a definitive ruling by the Supreme Court coming soon.

    1. avatar Paul says:

      I’m all for smart sensible gun control, little girl. Practice until you can hit what you’re aiming at, is smart and sensible.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        She’s a chip off the Horrid Hag,it’s coming little hag.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “She’s a chip off the Horrid Hag,it’s coming little hag.”

          It’s fun to laugh at Chelsea Clinton, but understand she *will* be entering politics, and will have full control of the over 200 million-dollar “Clinton Foundation” to finance her political campaigns…

        2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          and will have full control of the over 200 million-dollar “Clinton Foundation” to finance her political campaigns…

          She’d better have access to WAY more than that… Dems are spending in excess of 100 mil each just for a contested Senate seat… she’ll bankrupt the family in her first two attempts…

        3. avatar Anymouse says:

          Jeb spent $150M 8 years ago and got 2 delegates. Mini Mike won 6 delegates for spending $600M or more (plus some superdelegates). $200M isn’t going to buy as much as you think it does. The Clintons aren’t the Kennedys — Millennials don’t remember Slick Willy with fondness, and most know him for MeTooing or being buds with Epstein.

        4. avatar AndrewinVA says:

          “Millennials don’t remember Slick Willy with fondness, and most know him for MeTooing or being buds with Epstein”

          Agreed. The “Clinton” brand hasn’t aged very well. Her surname would likely hurt her as much as it helped her.

        5. avatar FedUp says:

          1. She’s not going to spend her own family wealth on political advertising, she’d rather have the money.

          2. I suspect she could become Senator from New York any time she really wants it, just on her name, just like Mommy Dearest did.

  2. avatar former water walker says:

    Ha ha! Yeah I’m hopeful but not holding my breath…Republican’s are notorious for being spineless(Republican judges in ILLinoyed are endorsing a longtime Dim judge who is a toady for Mike Madigan aka satan).

  3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Yeah!

  4. avatar jwm says:

    MAGA. And Trump will get his second term. Best outlook for America since the 1960s.

    1. avatar Paul says:

      Yeah – I’m almost convinced that Trump will be reelected, but I’m waiting for that final poll. I know most of those polls are fake, but it’s really hard to distinguish between them. Especially seeing that millions more voters are registered this time around! It still could swing either way.

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        Many/most (nearly ALL) of those polls, just as in 2016, oversample dems by a 70/30 margin, many of those polls are samples of less than one thousand REGISTERED voters NOT “LIKELY” voters and are clouded with a slew of irrelevant questions instead of (Trump) or (Biden) “yes or no” as it appears on every ballot in the country.. It was a failed process then and it is a failed process now… And in three… two… one.. Cue the TROLLS…

        1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Hard to argue the truth you may need to put out an inflammatory opinion to get troll attention lately. Also damnit Philly not again.

      2. avatar Ron says:

        People who work in polling, and I mean the people who actually run the show, will tell you how much of scam it is. And the funny thing is, although it definitely is skewed to the left, it isn’t that way by original design. Why is this? Let me explain:

        Producing a poll has absolutely zero to do with reporting the thoughts/actions of the populace.

        Polling is entirely focused on one thing. And that’s making money. How do polling organizations make money? Producing polls for companies and most importantly, political orgs like the DNC.

        Example: the DNC pays polling org X big bucks to produce a poll. X wants continued DNC bucks, so they produce the poll the DNC is looking for, in turn for funding for yet another poll.

        Political donors aren’t going pour money into a candidate polling poorly (like Harris), but they will line up and poor more and more cash into Biden, hence the crescendo of Biden money and positive polling data. The skewing is then backed off closer to the election (regardless of events) so the polling org can save face when the real results occur, and also claim more money for the sake of a tightening race combined with the sunk cost fallacy.

        This is exactly what happened with Hillary.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Polling is entirely focused on one thing. And that’s making money. How do polling organizations make money? Producing polls for companies and most importantly, political orgs like the DNC.”

          And the way polling orgs insure future contracts, is to tell the customer what they want to hear. Like poll results showing them the winner.

          What I don’t understand is, why do they publish such lopsided results? Telling the public that candidate will win by a huge margin will depress the turnout. Exactly what they don’t want to happen. It would be much smarter to call the race a close one, to motivate turnout…

        2. avatar Ron says:

          It likely has to do with the idea that they think they can “depress” the opposition into just staying home. A similar tactic was used on Nixon go to convince him to resign. This is where the left started to really learn how to do this.

          The leftist elite, media ect… they continually attempt to drive the narrative home that conservatives are few in number, old, outsiders, and shunned from the ever increasing invincibility of youthful, numerous, cool, superior left leaning urbanites. They want conservatives to see themselves as outnumbered and outdated, and therefore simply give up.

          It’s just not true, however. More Americans identify as conservative as opposed to liberal and outside of the big cities, almost no one thinks this way.

        3. avatar Anymouse says:

          Polls are news stories, so a poll that incorrectly skews towards your party still gets reported, encourages your supporters, and discourages your opponents supported. The only poll that counts is the one taken Novermber 3rdish, or however long they’re going to drag the travesty out.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          “Producing polls for companies and most importantly, political orgs like the DNC.”

          Nah. The DNC and RNC each have their own internal polling apparatus which produces results that are not public. Generally they’re quite good. You can often tell what internals are telling the parties by the way they act. In 2016 it was reasonably obvious that national polls didn’t mean shit (they never really do in a Presidential election) and that the public statewide polls were screwed six ways from Sunday (I tore a couple of them apart here on TTAG back in the day). But you could tell from the way that Podesta acted, especially in some of the leaked stuff, that the DNC’s internal polling was not in HRC’s favor. Later “insider” talks confirmed this. This time Biden’s team isn’t leaking but they’re freaking. That’s essentially public information at this point.

          Publicly produced polls are a different animal as are the companies that do them. These companies have two main things that they do. Public opinion polls for news organizations/poli sci research groups and private public opinion polling for companies that are doing market research. They do big-time, and reasonably accurate stuff that is, for instance, an opinion poll on the actions of a company like Monsanto so that the company can start to gauge its position in public perception and how the public would respond to certain moves the company makes. This is usually taken to some quants who then try to figure out what that means in terms of market (stock) response to the move. In this way companies plot their next public moves and announcements. This is a big business for many polling companies and they take it quite seriously.

          Then there’s political polling and that’s a cluster of perhaps unethical, but understandable, behaviors that vary quite a bit depending on what the client wants.

          Sometimes the client is a news organization. In that case they may want a poll that tells their viewers what the viewers want to hear because you don’t try to sell a Camry to someone who constantly tells you they want an SUV.

          Some of it is “push polling”. Again, a result is desired this time not because a consumer has a taste for the seller to meet but because someone desires to push an agenda. Attempting to pump up a group or depress a group are common reasons for this but there are more complicated concepts within this framework.

          Regardless the way that this kind of thing works is that the polling agency works as a contractor, like if you had your house appraised or had it looked at by a structural engineer. You’ll get a document that says it’s for your eyes only unless you authorize release of the document. Polls, private and public, are like this too. You can see it on the first page of most of them on the page marked “For [type] release on [date]” which is telling you that the client who commissioned the poll authorized this data to be released in a certain way on a certain date.

          That page also contains notes to the client. If you bother reading this, which most companies would prefer you just skip, you’ll often find notes from the polling agency about how the poll was conducted and what problems this may create. This is how the polling agency avoids unethical behavior, they tell you what they did and why. What the client does with this stuff is up to the client, in the case of a news org, how they “sell” it isn’t the pollsters deal. They did a contract job, properly declared themselves on page 1 and walked away because their job, including disclosures, was over.

          There was a CNN poll back maybe a month and a half ago done by a decent polling organization. I want to say it was done by SSRS. If you read the first page declaration it essentially said “So, this poll was done for CNN and is slated for immediate release. We provided what the client requested but be aware that for the following reasons this poll is essentially worthless trash. It’s not our job to tell the client what they should want, it’s our job to provide them what they tell us they do want” It went on to list oversamples of clearly idiotic proportions.

          So… yeah, they get paid for this. A lot. And they tend to produce what the client wants. Rasmussen is actually run by a gun who’s rich as hell and just wants to be right. Note that he currently has Trump a +1 nationally (again, national opinion not really mattering that much because electoral college).

          But they also tend to tell you exactly what they did, and why, on the first page of the poll. It’s just that no news org ever makes a big deal out of that and often make it hard to find the actual poll information itself.

        5. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Rasmussen is actually run by a gun who’s rich as hell and just wants to be right. Note that he currently has Trump a +1 nationally (again, national opinion not really mattering that much because electoral college).”

          A very informative breakdown, thanks. If things end up as you suspect, we could be in for a rough aftermath.

          And thinking about it a bit more, not knowing the final result on election night might be for the best, as it may act as a ‘circuit-breaker’ of sorts and hopefully reduce some of the knee-jerk rioting Leftists seem to be so good at… 🙂

        6. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          as it may act as a ‘circuit-breaker’ of sorts and hopefully reduce some of the knee-jerk rioting

          Ummmm… NO, because… you know… Trump… There is nothing “knee jerk” about what is going on, this is not the 60s… there are plans, logistics, communications, leadership AND hundreds of millions of dollars involved here and unlike the REAL civil unrest of the 60s/70s the ultimate goal now is the destruction of America and the downfall of our Constitutional Republic… Trump is just the excuse, IF he had done half the shit that he’s been accused of he would not only no longer be sitting in the Oval Office appointing Constitutionalist Judges/Justices, he would be in prison, because ALL of the American people would have DEMANDED it….

  5. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    Chuck Schumers 40 minute rehash of ALL the lies and the fearmongering that has followed “JUSTICE” Barrett throughout this process failed to impress anyone enough to change the vote.. I do hope Sen Collins loses her seat as a result of her abdicating her responsibility under the Constitution, Hell even head RINO Romney understood is job even with his Orangeman bad rant on the floor this evening… I don’t care if a Dem gets the seat we are going to turn at least two Dem seats Red which would still be a net gain of one…

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      The people of Maine should be ashamed of Sen. Collins,of course they never should have put Squish Collins in office in the first place.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Collins is under the illusion that the crazy libs will actually like her as long as she votes no. The reality is, they’ll never like her, and now, her real base will like her less.

        1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          When is her next primary?

        2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          When is her next primary?

          What primary? Colins is in a VERY tight re-election bid for her Senate seat… IF she wins her NEXT primary won’t be until 2026…. She voted NO on ACB in hopes of turning over a few Liberals in Maine to try to hold on to her seat…

    2. avatar Jeff says:

      I support Sen. Collins’ re-election. There’s no excuse for voting “no” this time around. But remember that she saved Kavanaugh’s nomination.

      Sometimes you have to take what you can get. Conservatives are sometimes conservative. Liberals never are.

    3. avatar FedUp says:

      While we’d love to see Collins, Murkowski, and Romney join Flake on the scrap heap of history, be careful what you wish for.

      How much do you want Majority Leader Schumer?

      The answer to RINOs is in the primary election, or possibly a Georgia style runoff election. Unfortunately, short of assassination (maybe character assassination?), it’s virtually impossible to primary an incumbent Senator.

    1. avatar Vinny says:

      “a Christofascist state”,,, now that’s funny!

  6. avatar Debbie W. says:

    Congratulations Amy Barrett! And no thanks whatsoever to Susan Collins the lone Republican who for no good reason decided to be a colossal stick in the mud.

    TRUMP/PENCE 2020.

    1. avatar James Campbell says:

      ACA, meet ACB.😃
      Trump/Pence 2020

      1. avatar Chewboxa says:

        I’m glad you could take a break from running your imaginary gun import business to give us your ‘learned’ take on this issue, Cames. But then you post some ridiculous drivel that doesn’t have anything to do with guns or gun rights. For shame, 🚩🤡!

        Trump/Pence 2020

        1. avatar John in AK says:

          Tell me, what does one have to do or say to obtain an online camp follower? Are you something like a remora, or more akin to an intestinal parasite?

          Many here would enjoy the long-distance electronic ‘companionship’ of a trusty sidekick such as yourself, someone not terribly bright, but who will hang upon our every word and be willing to come up with inane, pointless comments about our postings to justify his own existence to himself. Is there a fee, or do you become a dead albatross out of your own sense of worthlessness? Is there a secret handshake, I mean other than the one you give yourself after posting?

          I’m sure that we’d all like to know.

        2. avatar Chewboxa says:

          ‘John in AK’, you are a truly dull person.

        3. avatar Geoff "Trolls, the other white meat" PR says:

          “Tell me, what does one have to do or say to obtain an online camp follower?”

          It’s *easy*.

          Just kick it square in the teeth anytime it opens its low-IQ mouth in the comment section.

          Since no one (who actually matters) will defend them anyways, it’s open season for treating them as your own fun punch-toy… 🙂

    2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Susan Collins is a Democommie.
      She stayed and took RNC money until she reached the “Peter Principle”. Now she has turned to her true beliefs.

      “God Save the Republic”

  7. avatar rdsii64 says:

    I’m looking forward to see where this takes us. I won’t be optimistic until I see action.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Agreed.

      I’m optimistic, but I won’t bring out the 25-yr bottle to celebrate until I see action. Wait until the ruling is filed and [insert favorite anti-gun or anti-right to life law] is formally overturned.

      After all, the invertebrate turncoat Roberts did us for a loop-dee-loo…

      1. avatar Mortimer Beetroot Plimpton says:

        Don’t try to save the 25 year old bottle for the right occasion. Opening that bottle IS the occasion.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I Haz a Question,

        anti-right to life

        To illustrate how depraved people are:

        Democrat finds human baby at 4 months gestation/development on another planet —
        “We just found life on another planet! There is life throughout the Universe! Evolution must be true!”

        Democrat finds human baby at 4 months gestation/development in mother’s womb —
        “It is not life! It is just a clump of tissue! It is a tumor/parasite! Mother can kill and remove it any time!”

        In other words Democrats declare whether or not a human baby is a life based on WHERE it is, not what it is.

        Note that Democrats apply the same “standard” to the recent “transgender” movement: Democrats declare whether or not a boy/girl is a boy/girl based on the FEELINGS of the boy/girl rather than what the boy/girl actually is.

  8. avatar gus says:

    why does it take 9 judges on a Supreme Court to write pages and pages of opinions on what “right to bear arms” and “shall not be infringed” means?

    1. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

      I’m not sure. I’ve looked into the requirements to become a SCOTUS judge and apparently you don’t need no fancy book larnin or college boy lawyer degree.

      I hereby humbly submit my name for Trump to consider for nomination during his second term. I promise to entertain the American people that watch my confirmation hearing in a way that has been missing

      I also promise to write all majority or dissenting opinions regarding 2a cases in blue crayon “shall not be infringed.”

      I’ll annoy the ever living shit out of the rich folks when I set up my shooting range at Martha’s Vineyard mobile home community which I’ll personally develop citing Kelo vs. city of New London as justification.

    2. avatar Not Left says:

      I have always wondered the same.
      The way I see it is the bill of rights isn’t “law”, per se, unless it is read as the law against the government. THE main focus on “Shall Not Be Infringed”. Not just the 2nd, but all Free Men’s Rights.

  9. avatar Roger J says:

    Republican appointees are prone to switching sides. Remember the great Chief Justice who was hailed as the great conservative? Didn’t take him long to switch sides. And the media claims the Court is 6-3. At best its 5-4. When was the last time the other 4 sided with us on an IMPORTANT case. NEVER.

    1. avatar CentralVirginian says:

      Bush Sr. did the same crap to us when he put David Souter on the supreme court. John Roberts is just David Souter 2.0.

      1. avatar LKB says:

        Yup. My old boss (Edith H.Jones) was the runner up for the Souter seat. To his minor credit, Bush later indicated that picking Souter over Jones for SCt. was one of his biggest mistakes as President.
        A bit of inside baseball on ACB . . . I know a guy — a Jedi-level trial attorney who I have worked with for years — who knows ACB quite well (both personally and professionally), and he assures me that she is the real deal. We are looking at another seriously conservative justice with the charisma and leadership of Nino Scalia, the intellectual gravis of a Robert Bork (which is why the left had to sabotage his nomination), and the moral compass of Clarence Thomas.
        CJ Judas Roberts (may the fleas of a thousand camels infest his nethers!) has just been decisively outflanked, and if he keeps siding with his new friends on the left it will now be the de facto Thomas Court.
        Pop the popcorn, things are about to get interesting.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          LKB, a short while back you commented to me that there will likely not be ‘One Case To Rule them All’ when it comes to restoring gun rights.

          Could you please lay out for me how you believe that will play out? What cases should be decided before expanding gun rights even further?

          What ‘stepping stones’ do you see as a valid way to solidify gun rights before ‘going for the gold’?

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          You know, I actually considered the possibility that you were an experienced litigator right up until you used the phrase “intellectual gravis”.

          So you are suggesting that Robert Bork has a degenerative nerve disease, I had no idea!

          One would think that an accomplished attorney would know the difference between gravis and gravitas, knowing Latin and all, what a surprise.

    2. avatar Anymouse says:

      They’re apt to switch because spineless Republican Presidents chose judges they could get through the Senate without much fight. Even then, nominees got torpedoed, like Miguel Estrada, because they couldn’t let a Republican name the first Hispanic Justice. Nominees were picked that had little paper trail for controversial cases. Say what you will against Trump, but he picked judges based on their record and evaluation by the Federalist Society. He was quite happy for a fight, especially after Reid got rid of any filibuster and need for consensus.

  10. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Never had any doubt that her confirmation would become a reality…

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        One more to go, Roberts has to administer her judicial swearing in, as I understand it…

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Clarence Thomas had the honor of doing that, as shown in the video I linked. 🙂

        2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Clarence Thomas had the honor of doing that, as shown in the video I linked

          That was purely for show… The OFFICIAL swearing-in by the Chief Justice is held in private at the Supreme Court the day after confirmation…. OBTW, anyone with a TV and was allowed to stay up past 9 PM most likely saw THAT ceremony live last night..

        3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          There’s one more, done in private at the SCOTUS building by the chief justice, then she can get down to the business of the court, I heard earlier.

          Either way, it’s a done deal. She’s in like Flynn. 🙂

          (Maybe Errol Flynn wasn’t the best metaphor, he had a thing for underage starlets ‘back in the day’…)

          “Errol Flynn’s Illicit Romance with a 15-Year-Old, as Remembered by The Last of Robin Hood”

          https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/09/errol-flynn-toronto-film-festival

      2. avatar James Campbell says:

        Woulda been sweeter if they used A Scalias bible for the swearing in.
        Trump/Pence 2020

  11. avatar SeizureDoc says:

    ACB on Supreme Court. Heck yeah. If
    Trump/Senate/House comes to pass we will have all 4 branches of government. (YES, I know). Still probably won’t do anything about the FBI, or the Clintons, or the Biden’s, or…

    1. avatar Austin is not Texas says:

      Three branches, Senate and House are the Congressional or Legislative Branch.

      The three branches as mandated by the Constitution are Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

      1. avatar SeizureDoc says:

        No occasional cortex jokes. I passed civics unlike her. Better check your sarcasm meter. The correct setting is 4.

    2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      we will have all 4 branches of government. (

      FOUR branches of govt is a DEMOCRAT DREAM.. Currently there actually only three…

      1. avatar Anymouse says:

        They count the media as a branch.

  12. avatar Tim says:

    We vote for President Donald J. Trump……….because he delivers.

    1. avatar James Campbell says:

      Well…..that, AND the sweet, SWEET TDS entertainment the leftards provide. 🍿
      Trump/Pence 2020.

  13. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

    John Roberts now has a swing vote that just leaves him hanging. We now have a 5 – 1 – 3 Court, so he went from being a powerful swing vote to being powerless. No doubt he will wait until there is a Democrat President before he resigns because that is the kind of guy he is.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Roberts is now checkmated, no reason to impeach the Leftard, as he is now relegated to a inconsequential POS.

      1. avatar LKB says:

        Yup. CJ Judas Roberts is not a happy camper tonight.

        “America— fuck yeah!”

    2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “John Roberts now has a swing vote that just leaves him hanging. We now have a 5 – 1 – 3 Court…”

      Maybe not.

      I fully expect the Leftists will make serious efforts to do what they did with Roberts, meaning flipping another justice to the ‘dark side’…

  14. avatar TP says:

    It’s Good Day!

  15. avatar Wayne says:

    To the democraps in the Senate. You need to be deported to the country of your choosing on a one way VISA to never return to this country. You hate this country so leave!

  16. avatar NORDNEG says:

    ——————————WINNING——————————
    “””””FREE KYLE””””
    RINO’s SUCK…S. Collins, (directed at u).
    …. M A G A ….

  17. avatar Leigh says:

    You know…Sotomayor is not in great shape either. If Trump gets a second term there might be ANOTHER pick

    1. avatar Dude says:

      I haven’t heard. Breyer ain’t exactly a spring chicken. Thomas could always retire…

    2. avatar Geoff "Time for a Sotomayor heart attack watch" PR says:

      “You know…Sotomayor is not in great shape either.”

      Diabetes, isn’t it?

      Combining that with being seriously overweight could do her in early.

      We hope… 🙂

    3. avatar Zack says:

      Could you imagine the meltdown if 2-3 more died/stepped down.

  18. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

    All in all, it’s just another brick in the wall.

  19. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    And president Trump swore her in, oh the pizzing,screams, moaning ,gnashing of teeth of the Leftards,it’s sweet music. Now For Trumps fourth and fifth picks, of which the next candidate should be St. Roger T. Benitez.

    1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      Yes you could hear the “SHRILL, BLOODCURDLING SCREECH from Chappaqua as the Killdabeast screamed “THOSE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE MY PICKS!!, it’s just not fair” AND that soft sighing sound you heard after was the dying breath of gun control….

      1. avatar James Campbell says:

        Pure gold.
        Trump/Pence 2020

      2. avatar gus says:

        “I guess at this point, what do you matter? bwaahahaha!”

  20. avatar Darkman says:

    Breaking News: Chief Justice Roberts breaks with Liberal Justices to reject the acceptance of late mail in ballots in Wisconsin. After the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals had okayed a 6 day extension allowing ballots to be excepted until November 9th. So there is that as far as it goes. Now with Justice Barrett on the court the reliance on a vote from Justice Roberts holds less need in Protecting the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a whole. #Still Winning #MAGA2020

    1. avatar De Facto says:

      Roberts is a freaking narcissistic COWARD and I hope history remembers him for the weakwilled selfish, unprincipled and spineless political animal he is. The moment he is no longer the “maverick swing vote” he has to join the other side to regain his importance. What a piece of feckless piece of excrement.

      1. avatar LKB says:

        Yup. I so wish Bush the Younger had listened to his sane advisors and appointed Mike Luttig instead of this spineless POS.
        May the fleas of a thousand camels infest the nethers of CJ Judas Roberts, and his arms be too short to scratch . . . .

        1. avatar Geoff "Time for a Sotomayor heart attack watch" PR says:

          “I so wish Bush the Younger had listened to his sane advisors and appointed Mike Luttig instead of this spineless POS.”

          I bet the Leftists wish RBG would have retired during the Obama administration so he could seat a young politically-reliable replacement… 🙂

      2. avatar Anymouse says:

        I expect him to be part of many 6-3 decisions so that he can assign the author of the majority opinion. If another conservative sides with the libs, he’ll probably flip too for a 5-4.

        1. avatar hawkeye says:

          That’s my thought also. Selecting who writes the decision and has their name on the masthead would give him a little control over the process and, perhaps in small measure, even over the framing of the decision. He’ll still be wishy-washy.

      3. avatar Miner49er says:

        “Roberts is a freaking narcissistic COWARD”

        Are you talking about five time draft dodger Donald Trump?

        1. avatar Joe "All we want are the facts, ma'am" Friday says:

          Trump received 4 deferments plus a medical exemption. Biden received 5 deferments plus a medical exemption.

          https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/16/fact-check-biden-received-multiple-draft-deferments-vietnam/5809482002/

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          Was it Biden who said avoiding VD in New York City was his personal Vietnam?

          Was it Biden who repeatedly publicly attacked John McCain over his honorable service in Vietnam?

          And tell us if you know, which foot did Donald Trump have his bone spur medical deferment? He can’t remember amazingly enough.

        3. avatar De Facto says:

          Whataboutism is irrelevant. Roberts waits until he sees which way the political winds will blow before ruling anything. Not ruling on law, not on precedent or principle, or even on personal beliefs like the activist judges I so vehemently dislike. A narcissistic, weak willed, spineless, feckless and faithless coward.

  21. avatar Wally1 says:

    On a lighter note, i stopped at a Walgreens pharmacy today and there was a line of people all the way out the door. I asked a guy at the cash register what was going on? He told me that those people were Democrats stocking up on TDS meds for Nov 4th. We both laughed.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Actually, folks are lining up at Walgreens because it is a COVID-19 test site.

      For being no more dangerous than the ordinary flu, coronavirus has killed almost 250,000 Americans.

      Many folks are waiting for the coronavirus to just fade away, it will be like a miracle, pretty soon the number will be close to zero.

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        coronavirus has killed almost 250,000 Americans.

        Does that number include the motorcyclist in Fl. whose death was attributed to Covid 19 even though he was KILLED when a car turned left in front of him? (he just happened to test positive in autopsy)…. Coronavirus numbers became suspect when it was monetized by the Federal Government, more cases more cash
        OBTW… Planned Murderhood reported nearly 360,000 abortions in 2019… while performing ZERO “mammograms'”.. (PP does not actually DO those in spite of what THEIR friends and supporters might claim)… And they are on track to see an increase of 3/4% in 2020… that’s over a million lives every three years that will not get the chance to get coronavirus and die to feed your Orangeman bad fantasy world…

      2. avatar CWT says:

        Same number of deaths, on average, every 33 days in the US. On top of that add in the fact the actual number of Covid deaths is questionable.

        https://www.newsweek.com/florida-man-killed-crash-listed-covid-19-death-raising-doubts-over-health-data-1518994

      3. avatar Miner49er says:

        Tragically comic.

        Did you even read the article you posted?

        Let me share with you the last line:

        “Pino confirmed all COVID-19 deaths are certified by the medical examiner .”

        Are you aware that every county in the United States has their own medical examiner, who rules on the official cause of death?

        Are you aware that there are over 3000 counties in the United States?

        That would make for a really large conspiracy, kinda hard to conceal wouldn’t you think?

        Just how many of these county medical examiners do you believe are in on the conspiracy to list non-Covid deaths as victims of the virus?

  22. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    I’d just like to point out the irony that today is Hillary Clinton’s birthday.

    This is a fitting birthday present for Hillary.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      So today is the black day the horrid hag was hatched, truly a black day in the nations history.

      1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

        It went something like that scene from Alien.

        1. avatar Geoff "Time for a Sotomayor heart attack watch" PR says:

          Oh, man, do I ever wish I had a ‘Face-hugger’ Halloween mask…

  23. avatar Dude says:

    Super moderate Sinema voted no. Arizona should remember that when they’re flirting with electing another democrat senator. The days of bipartisanship are over, and as Ben Shapiro so eloquently stated, “democrats have lost their fn minds.”

  24. avatar Shawn says:

    To bad it will mean nothing when there are 11, 13, 21 SCOTUS judges by the end of 2021 of Biden wins.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      biden won’t win. You heard it from me, first.

      1. avatar James Campbell says:

        Sorry JWM, 2nd.
        I stated that Trump had a cakewalk to his 2nd term around 3 week ago here on TTAG.
        Trump/Pence 2020

        1. avatar jwm says:

          You’re late to the party, dude. I been needling miner49er with the second trump term for months.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          And I hope your jesting has entertained you, my friend!

        3. avatar James Campbell says:

          I tip my hat to you JWM.
          You have been telling whiner that slojoe\skankhoe didn’t have a chance.
          Trump/Pence 3020
          The SCOTUS and POTUS wins back to back should make for some galactic level TDS.
          That reminds me………. Seri, add a pallet of popcorn to my Costco shopping list. 🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿

        4. avatar jwm says:

          You’re the entertainment, miner. conversing with you has been humorous and very enlightening.

          You don’t seem to be capable of basic awareness and understanding. You have done more damage to biden and the left just by being here than all the voters in Florida could do. And you don’t see just how valuable you are to Trump.

          Fascinating.

        5. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          I was planning a 2nd Trump inauguration party in Nov 2016….. Even put the popcorn on auto-delivery and put in the pre-orders w/Papa Johns….. Oh yeah, what’s a SERI?

    2. avatar De Facto says:

      If the right takes the presidency, congress and the senate, there needs to be legislation passed requiring 3/4 majority from both parties in order to expand SCOTUS, a law only repealable by a 3/4 majority in both Senate and House.

      That might more or less preserve the court.

      This “the rules only apply when they’re in our favor” that the hard left has been pulling for the last 20 years or so grows tiresome.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        You cannot pass legislation like that. Or, rather, you can… but it can be undone just as easily. No sitting legislative body can tie the hands of the next sitting body. For that you would need a Constitutional Amendment.

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          You’re right, and one has been proposed: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/521736-senate-republicans-offer-constitutional-amendment-to-block-supreme-court

          From that article:

          The proposed amendment simply states: “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices.”

        2. avatar Hannibal says:

          Yeah. I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of it passing, though. One side will always have a huge incentive not to do it unless the court is evenly split with a 50\50 polling election.

          Or when it spirals into a crisis where courtpacking begins or the court is simply ignored by the other branches as illegitimate.

        3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “The proposed amendment simply states: “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices.””

          Hannibal, it’s *possible*, considering the number of flyover states with low populations that the Leftists haven’t infected yet…

  25. avatar Barrett's friend says:

    Hello Strict Scrutiny in 3,2,1!!! JUSTICE BARRETT WE LOVE YOU!

  26. avatar Hannibal says:

    The whole court nomination system is broken and was broken the minute the founding fathers neglected to properly consider the inevitable influence or partisanship on the courts.

    The most likely course of action is, assuming the Democratic party wins the election, they try a court packing scheme with two more justices to ‘equal out’ what they perceive to have lost. But the thing is, every time the Democrats pull something like that, they fail to realize that the GOP is better at it. So then everyone will be amazed when in 4 years the republicans come back and pack ten more justices on the bench. Because if you can pack 2, why not 10?

    At some point this will force a Constitutional crisis and we’ll have to fix this system. The easiest way would be term limits for future justices.

    1. avatar Geoff "Time for a Sotomayor heart attack watch" PR says:

      “The most likely course of action is, assuming the Democratic party wins the election, they try a court packing scheme with two more justices to ‘equal out’ what they perceive to have lost.”

      Yeah, but if we control the Senate we can just refuse to vote on a Biden appointee.

      Call it a SCOTUS ‘pocket veto’, so to speak… 🙂

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        As it should be. I was thinking the only way a court-packing scenario will happen is if the dems end up in a position similar to the GOP where they hold the senate as well.

      2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        we can just refuse to vote on a Biden appointee.

        No give them a vote, just vote no… What they should have done to Garland and we would not be having THAT conversation…

    2. avatar UpInArms says:

      The easiest way is to pass an amendment that fixes the court at 9 justices. Which, by the way, has already been introduced into the Congress. If the GOP takes the House, holds the Senate and keeps the White House, it’s guaranteed to pass and get sent on to the states, which, I believe, are mostly held by the GOP.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        That doesn’t fix the problems, it just prevents court packing. The problem is that the court is supposed to be apolitical (therefore: lifetime appointments) but it is staffed via a highly political process. So we end up in this utterly ridiculous situation where the only thing that decides a vacancy is whether someone dies or decides to step down because they know the current politicians in office will replace them with someone they agree with.

        I doubt that is an Amendment that will be taken up, anyway… unless it’s after court-packing which would mean it would be a long-term thing.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          OK – Here’s the problem with just assigning a random circuit court judge, for example –

          You will now hyper-politicize the appointment of the circuit court judges.

          You can’t just pull names out of a hat, because some in there are literal fuckwits. Do you seriously think someone like that should have a lifetime appointment?

          I really want a judge like Diane Sykes as the next SCOTUS justice, if we get another swing at the plate…

    3. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      The easy way would be term limits for all of them AND a session schedule that keeps Congress OUT of Washington more than they are in… Representatives and Senators were not intended to be full time jobs…. three two year terms for the house and one six year for the Senate… meeting 15 days each quarter with allowance for national emergencies… and a drastic reduction in pay…

  27. avatar S R says:

    We finally have a 5-4 conservative majority in the Supreme Court.

  28. avatar J says:

    Maybe Roberts will take some 2nd Amendment cases now. The anti-2nd Amendment states have taken our rights away far too long and it needs to be reversed with this appointment.

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      The other 5 will take the cases because Roberts and the libs are irrelevant now. Before, it very well might have been 5-4 against any 2A support.

  29. avatar IllinoisStillSux says:

    Happy Birthday HRC!!! 😁 (still not POTUS)

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      That tweet of her account did not age well (“Happy Birthday to the future madam president”)

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          The HildaBeast didn’t look that bad in her 20s and 30s.

          After that, yeeeeech!

          (Be cruel to Chelsea, remind her she looked like her mother at that age… *snicker* 😉 )

  30. avatar enuf says:

    “Many in the media are claiming that the balance of power on the court now stands at 6-3 in favor of the conservatives. That, of course, is either wildly optimistic or ludicrously inaccurate as Chief Justice John Roberts now occupies the Anthony Kennedy middle seat, swinging both ways.”
    —————————————————-

    It is not “6 to 3”. It is “5.5 to 3.5”, approximately.

    For the potential of a US Supreme Court applying Strict Scrutiny to infringements upon the Second Amendment, this is a good thing.

    Probably a bad thing on some other issues, but very good for gun rights. If pro-gun groups are smart they will push hard to gt new cases before the court. There will be a huge effort to punish the Republicans for their hypocrisy on SCOTUS appointments.

  31. avatar Zack says:

    If this turns out well I’m choosing between either a rec7 or M99.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      If this turns out well I’m hoping ammo gets affordable again in 2 years…

      1. avatar James Campbell says:

        Same here.
        The sons and I went thru 3 different shooting programs in two different states during my Aug/Sep time off TTAG.
        I went thru almost 3k rounds of assorted handgun and rifle ammo. Each son shot almost that amount too.
        I actually ordered 4k rounds of 30 Luger (7.65 Para, from SG Ammo) in the last 6 weeks, just to get more ammo on hand.
        I have a few handguns that take the stuff, none very “tactical” at all, but a 120 year old 1900 DWM Am Eagle Luger WITH ammo trumps an EMPTY (INSERT TACTICAL PISTOL HERE) everyday.
        Trump/Pence 2020

  32. avatar 24and7 says:

    they will find something on her to make her change her views… or she will get Scalia-ed…a hunting trip and a firm pillow (pressed on her face)….just like they blackmailed john roberts…he became their liberal pig and they didnt even have to kill him..

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Do you think the International Order of St. Hubertus wants to kill the new supreme court justice? Why?

  33. avatar Now if we can just impeach the other 4 commie Justices from Hell off the Supreme Court maybe America can stand Proud again! says:

    Now if we can just impeach the other 4 commie Justices who never read the Constitution from Hell off the Supreme Court maybe America can stand Proud again!

    IMPEACH & DEPORT ALL DEMOCRATS ASAP TO SAVE AMERICA!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email