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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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 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!
@@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.
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.
@@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
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
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-B0C620T8knU.html
@@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....
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.
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
"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.
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?
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.
It was more about Lindsey Graham and many others saying 'we have a long tradition of not filling a seat during an election year and I promise we won't do this if it's the other way around' 11 months before the election, then them rushing to fill a seat during an election year with mere weeks left. RBG's wish is not a demand nor an expectation, it's just a wish.
@@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.
@@Jurssicparkfan 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.
The US Senate records note that it is a documented fact that Hunter Biden has sent funds to non-resident Alien women in the United States who are citizens of Russia and Ukraine and who have subsequently wire funds they received from Hunter Biden to individuals located in Russia and Ukraine. The records also note that some of these transactions are linked to what” appears to be an East European Prostitution or human trafficking ring” The report also said there was “extensive Public reporting concerning Hunter Biden’s alleged involvement with prostitution services” The Records on file with the committee do not directly confirm or refute these individual reports. However, they do confirm that Hunter Biden sent thousands of Dollars to individuals who have either; 1) been involved in transactions consistent with possible human trafficking; 2) an association with the adult entertainment industry, or 3) potential association with prostitution,
@Out Side She's no Roberts. Not even close. I may disagree with her on this, but she is a solid Conservative Originalist. She's not "hiding" behind any legal decision.
@Out Side That mama bear protecting her cubs frightens me even more than Biden. She'll rip the constitution to shreds to protect people from themselves.
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?
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 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 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 don't like the fact that she doesn't think Roe would be overturned with a Conservative court. It was bad law but she seems to believe that abortion is a right. Apparently, even bad laws are safe. If it wasn't for Lincoln, we'd still have slavery because no judge would overturn Dredd Scott! Scary actually.
So interesting to understand how important the constitution is with regards to its original foundations and how much load the United States justice can uphold.
Truly a gifted speaker with such clarity. So convinced that this intellectual Giant would be a tremendous blessing on our Supreme court. She would do what is correct and not surprise us with what would feel Good!!!!!!!!!!!1
This is a very educational talk. Real world problems are very complicated and don't necessarily fall into a human design system. However, we have know where the system is designed for and what problem the system is intended to solve. The worse thing is trying to achieve a goal use whatever methods, legal or not, ethical or not. We needs a self correcting and balanced system. The more I look at these discussions, more I am amazed the foresights the forefathers of the nation had.
So impressed after watching her nomination to the court, studying and listening to her. So frustrated with the politic spin. Look forward for years of from Justice Barrett
Churchill said, "If you're 20 and you're not a liberal, you don't have a heart. If you're 40 and you're not a conservative, you don't have a brain." Jesus said, "Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."
She is a loving mother of 7 children (2 adopted from Haiti) . I can tell that you are not a mother nor have you adopted a child that is not your own especially when you already have 5, but these are by far the most loving people in the world, despite your hateful characterization.
