Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Shinzo Abe

2022-07-12T02:16:40Z

ISmokeWeedFCCCKU:

{{Officeholder
|name=安倍晋三 (Abe Shinzo)
|image=Shinzō Abe.jpg
|party=[[Liberal Democratic Party]]
|spouse=Akie Matsuzaki
|religion=[[Shinto]] and [[Buddhist]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/misc
|office=[[Prime Minister]] of [[Japan]]
|terms=December 26, 2012 - September 16, 2020
|preceded=Yoshihiko Noda
|succeeded=Yoshihide Suga
}}
{{Officeholder/misc
|office=[[Prime Minister]] of [[Japan]]
|terms=September 26, 2006 – September 26, 2007
|preceded=Yoshihiko Noda
|succeeded=Yasuo Fukuda
}}
}}
'''Abe Shinzo''' (born 安倍晋三, September 21, 1954 - July 8, 2022) was a dumba*55 fascist who got shot, it was hilarious.

Abe was known for his [[conservative]] views on a number of issues, and his numerous libertarian actions. Abe also promoted nationalist policies as prime minister,<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/news/abe-nationalist-blueblood-at-home-shrewd-diplomat-abroad/ Abe: Nationalist blueblood at home, shrewd diplomat abroad]. ''Breitbart News''. October 22, 2017. Retrieved October 22, 2017.</ref> and supported low [[immigration]] levels.<ref>Williams, Thomas D. (November 29, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/11/29/japan-confirms-its-policy-of-minimal-immigration-to-defend-culture-jobs/ Japan Confirms its Policy of Minimal Immigration to Defend Culture, Jobs]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 29, 2017.</ref> A [[nationalist]], Abe and his cabinet took an unapologetic stance toward their country and its history.<ref>Sieg, Linda (August 8, 2019). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-japan-labourers-history-an/japan-led-by-less-apologetic-generation-stays-tough-in-south-korea-feud-idUSKCN1UY1BA Japan, led by less apologetic generation, stays tough in South Korea feud]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved August 8, 2019.</ref> He supported a strong defense policy.<ref>Multiple references:
*Sieg, Linda (November 12, 2019). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-abe-legacy-analysis/abes-mission-unaccomplished-pushing-to-revise-japans-pacifist-charter-idUSKBN1XN089 Abe's mission unaccomplished: pushing to revise Japan's pacifist charter]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved November 12, 2019.
*Kelly, Tim (December 19, 2019). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-economy-budget-defence/japan-government-approves-eighth-straight-defense-spending-hike-to-record-high-idUSKBN1YO05N Japan government approves eighth straight defense spending hike to record high]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved December 19, 2019.
*Tetsushi Kajimoto (December 19, 2019). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-economy-budget/japan-cabinet-approves-record-939-billion-budget-spending-plan-for-fiscal-year-2020-21-idUSKBN1YO05L Japan cabinet approves record $939 billion budget spending plan for fiscal year 2020/21]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved December 20, 2019.</ref>

On November 20, 2019, Abe became Japan's longest-serving prime minister.<ref>Sieg, Linda (November 19, 2019). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-abe/japans-abe-becomes-longest-serving-pm-as-scandal-allegations-persist-idUSKBN1XU06I Japan's Abe becomes longest serving PM as scandal allegations persist]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved November 19, 2019.</ref><ref>Yamaguchi, Mari (November 20, 2019). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/20/abe-becomes-japans-longest-serving-prime-minister/ Abe becomes Japan’s longest-serving prime minister]. ''The Washington Times'' (from the ''Associated Press''). Retrieved November 20, 2019.</ref>

Abe was assassinated on July 8, 2022 by Yamagami Tetsuya, a 40-year-old unsatisfied with him; the gunman was arrested at the scene by local police and taken into custody.<ref>[https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/breaking-former-japanese-prime-minister-shinzo-abe-shot-nara-japan/ DEAD!! Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe Assassinated in Nara, Japan During Speech — 40-Year-Old Suspect Arrested at the Scene] at the Gateway Pundit</ref> Subsequent to Abe's assassination, the [[Gateway Pundit]] reported on suspicious activity on Twitter that hinted that [[China]]'s Communist regime may have been behind the assassination; in fact, the regime in [[Peking]] had openly threatened Abe, a staunch anti-Communist and vocal opponent of the regime, with death some time before the assassination occurred, making the threat in response to Abe's excoriation of Peking over [[Taiwan]].<ref>[https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/revealed-chatter-chinese-twitter-shinzo-abe-completing-task-posted-17-hours-shinzo-abe-assassination/ REVEALED: Chatter on Chinese Twitter on Shinzo Abe and “Completing the Task” Was Posted 17 Hours Before His Assassination] at the Gateway Pundit</ref> Following reports of Abe's death, leftist social media users in China gleefully celebrated his assassination while calling his assassin a "hero".<ref>[https://welovetrump.com/2022/07/08/social-media-users-in-china-are-celebrating-assassination-of-japans-former-pm/ Social Media Users In China Are Celebrating Assassination Of Japan’s Former PM]</ref> President [[Donald Trump]] responded to Abe's assassination on his [[Truth Social]] account, calling him "...a true friend of mine, and much more importantly, America",<ref>[https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/true-friend-mine-much-importantly-america-president-trump-responds-horrific-news-former-pm-abes-assassination/ “He Was a True Friend of Mine, and Much More Importantly, America” – President Trump Responds to Horrific News of Former PM Abe’s Assassination] at the Gateway Pundit</ref> while White House usurper [[Joe Biden]], who did not respond until 12 hours after the shooting while Trump and other world leaders had quickly responded with their own statements, released a rambling word salad statement about Abe's assassination which he used as his excuse to continue imposing [[gun control]] in the United States, for which Biden was criticized on social media for politicizing the incident and making it about gun violence and gun control.<ref>[https://welovetrump.com/2022/07/08/biden-releases-tone-def-statement-on-shinzo-abe-assassination/ Biden Releases Tone Def Statement on Shinzo Abe Assassination]</ref> [[Liberal media]] outlet [[CBS]] smeared Abe in its report on his assassination, [[Liberal hypocrisy|calling him a "right-wing nationalist" and a "polarizing figure" and calling his statements "controversial"]].<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2022/07/08/cbs-mornings-remembers-polarizing-figure-shinzo-abe-after-death-he-was-a-right-wing-nationalist/ CBS ‘Mornings’ Remembers ‘Polarizing Figure’ Shinzo Abe After Death — ‘He Was a Right-Wing Nationalist’] at Breitbart News Network</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* [http://www.s-abe.or.jp/ Official website]
* [http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/index-e.html Prime Minister of Japan Official Website in English]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Shinzo, Abe}}
[[Category:Japanese Prime Ministers]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Nationalists]]

Talk:Samuel Alito

2022-07-12T02:12:32Z

ISmokeWeedFCCCKU:

"The Honorable"
I am attempting to make the Justices of the US Supreme Court's pages more uniform by placing "the Honorable" in front of the names in the beginning. Would a sysop please place it here. I do not have the Privileges. -Hwuya 9:03PM, 1/6/10
::Encyclopedias don't do that. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:05, 6 January 2010 (EST)

==Address==
CP loving Fascist scum have locked this page. Alito lives at 1120 Greenway Rd, Alexandria, VA, 22308

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

2022-07-12T02:10:51Z

ISmokeWeedFCCCKU:

{{Officeholder
|name=Ruth Bader Ginsburg
|image=Ruth.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=Martin Ginsburg (deceased)
|religion=[[Jewish]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/Supreme Court Justice
|role=Associate
|nominator=[[Bill Clinton]]
|terms=August 10, 1993 – September 18th, 2020
|preceded=[[Byron White]]
|former=n
|succeeded=[[Amy Coney Barrett]]
}}
}}

'''Ruth Bader Ginsburg''' (March 15, 1933 – September 18, 2020)<ref name="Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87">[https://www.foxnews.com/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-at-87 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87]</ref> was a [[liberal]] Associate Justice of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] and a hero of women's rights and the working class. She nominated by President [[Bill Clinton]] in 1993 to replace [[Byron White]]. Prior to that, she had served as an appellate judge on the [[D.C. Circuit]], as a lead attorney for the [[ACLU]], and as a law professor. In the 1970s, before joining the Supreme Court, she sought the ratification of [[Equal Rights Amendment]], which failed. She was noted for wanting the law to treat women in an identical manner as men, and girls in an identical manner as boys. She sided with [[abortion]] in every possible way.<ref>[http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg_Abortion.htm Ginsburg; OnTheIssues.org]</ref>

==Personal life==
Ginsburg was born on March 15, 1933 in Brooklyn, New York.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=vEzWlAvDEf0C&pg=PA148 Encyclopedia of the Clinton Presidency]</ref>

Shortly after graduation from Cornell she married Martin Ginsburg. They had two children and four grandchildren.

Although raised Jewish, she later was no longer observant. Ginsburg became a [[feminist]] [[cult]] icon.

Ginsburg broke from tradition upon her selection to the Supreme Court by eschewing the traditional American judicial robe for a French ''robe d'avocat'' (Justice O'Connor would later follow suit), and later wearing an assortment of fancy neckwear. She was known for her unusual collection of jabots (a decorative clothing item, often worn by female judges in other countries). She had particular ones she wore: crocheted yellow and cream with crystals (a gift from her law clerks) when issuing a majority opinion, and black with gold embroidery and faceted stones when issuing a dissenting opinion.

== Views ==
In 1974, Ginsburg, in a speech published by Phi Beta Kappa's Key Reporter, called for affirmative action hiring quotas for career women. Citing the police as an example, she wrote, “Affirmative action is called for in this situation.”<ref name="Senators Overlooked Radical Record of Ruth Bader Ginsberg">http://humanevents.com/2005/08/23/senators-overlooked-radical-record-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/</ref>

Ruth Bader Ginsburg co-authored the book called ''Sex Bias in the U.S. Code'' in 1977 with a [[feminist]], Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, for which they were paid with federal funds under Contract No. CR3AK010. The 230-page book was published by
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. It was written to identify the [[federal law]]s that allegedly discriminate on account of sex and to promote ratification of the then-pending federal [[Equal Rights Amendment]] (ERA), for which Ginsburg was a fervent advocate. Here are some of Ginsburg's [[liberal]] recommendations set forth in her book ''Sex Bias in the U.S. Code''.<ref>Phyllis Schlafly, ''The Supremacists'', pp. 215-216 (Spence Publishing 2006).</ref>

Ginsburg called for the sex-integration of [[prison]]s and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, "If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected." (101) She called for the sex-integration of [[Boy Scouts]] and [[Girl Scouts]] because they "perpetuate stereotyped sex roles." (145) She insisted on sex-integrating "college [[fraternity]] and sorority chapters" and replacing them with "college
social societies." (169) She even cast Constitutional doubt on the legality of "[[Mother's Day]] and [[Father's Day]] as separate holidays." (146)

Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to persons who are "less than 12 years old." (102) She asserted that laws against "[[bigamy|bigamist]]s, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist" are unconstitutional. (195) She objected to laws against [[prostitution]] because "prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions." (97) Ginsburg wrote that the [[Mann Act]] (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is "offensive." Such acts should be considered "within the zone of privacy." (98)

Ginsburg said that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker "must be eliminated from the code if it is to reflect the equality principle," (206) and she called for "a comprehensive program of government supported child care." (214) She demanded that we "firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women," stating that "women must be subject to the draft if men are." But, she added, "the need for [[affirmative action]] and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services." (218)

An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of "sexist" words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter,
serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and "to man" (a vessel), even though most of these words with the ''-man'' suffix date back to Middle English in which it meant "human" and not specifically "male". (15-16) She even wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the Memory Hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of "plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns." (52-53)

She also had some involvement in writing the 1980 book ''Constitutional Government in America'', having written a chapter in it. In this chapter, she condemned the Supreme Court's ruling in ''Harris v. McRae'', claiming that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right.<ref name="Senators Overlooked Radical Record of Ruth Bader Ginsberg" />

When nominated to the Supreme Court, she was controversially received, with liberals being the ones supporting her inclusion. In addition, the Clinton Administration was wary of putting her on, viewing her as too liberal even for them, as an aid during the Clinton Administration revealed in an internal memo.<ref>https://www.bustle.com/articles/32394-clinton-white-house-memo-reveals-ruth-bader-ginsburg-was-too-liberal-for-the-supreme-court</ref>

The only high court challenge to the government take over of automotive companies came by a one-day inquiry by Justice Ginsburg. She decided against pursuing and let [[Italian]] automaker Fiat acquire a majority stake in [[U.S.]] company [[Chrysler]].<ref>[http://content.usatoday.com/topics/article/People/Politicians,+Government+Officials,+Strategists/Judges/Ruth+Bader+Ginsburg/0d19csb5kA1JG/1 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Fiat automotive] USATODAY, June 22, 2009</ref>

Not in recent memory has a Supreme Court Justice ever endorsed another Justice for the lifetime appointment. Justice Ginsburg has publicly stated her overwhelming approval of [[Sonia Sotomayor]].<ref>[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-court/2009/06/ginsburg_endorses_sotomayor_di.html Ginsburg Backs Sotomayor, Discusses End of Session] Washington Post, June 15, 2009</ref>

In a 2012 interview on Al Hayat, Ginsburg stated that she would not look to the U.S. Constitution if she were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. "I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done."<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model.html Ginsburg to Egyptians: I wouldn't use U.S. Constitution as a model], [[Fox News]]</ref>

==Views on abortion==
Ginsberg stated in a 2009 interview with the New York Times that she thought the 1973 ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' case which legalized [[abortion]] concerned the elimination of undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of." Many have interpreted this as an endorsement of abortion as a method of population control and/or [[eugenics]].<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2288545/posts?page=221</ref><ref>https://www.wnd.com/2009/07/103457/</ref><ref>http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/07/justice-ginsburg-on-roe-v-wade.html</ref> While shocking, such ideas are hardly new: similar views were endorsed by [[Eugenics|eugenicist]] [[Margaret Sanger]], the founder of [[Planned Parenthood]] years ago.

The direct quote from the interview in context is below:
<blockquote>Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.</blockquote>
Though Ginsburg as the most liberal member of the court obviously supports abortion (and has ruled in the favor of the pro-abortion movement in a number of cases, including [[Stenberg v. Carhart]]), even going so far as to voice support for making taxpayer-funded abortion a Constitutional right,<ref name="Senators Overlooked Radical Record of Ruth Bader Ginsberg" /> she has been surprisingly critical of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. At the time the decision was written (1973), abortion rights were being debated in state legislatures across the country and legislative attempts to criminalize abortion were stymied by the courts, rather than being left to a decision by the American people. This repolarized the debate, and the strong polarization and divisiveness of the issue is still seen today. Ginsburg surprised many prior to her confirmation hearings in 1993, by articulating this issue, saying that Roe v. Wade "halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue."<ref>http://www.committeeforjustice.org/Articles/Articles/Old/91.aspx</ref> However, Susan Hirschmann of EagleForum when testifying against the nomination of Ruth Ginsburg before a Senate Subcommittee indicated the real reason why she was against Roe v. Wade was because it failed to emphasize her views on equality between sexes and was purely political than out of any concern for judicial elements.<ref>https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG/pdf/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG-2-4-3-12.pdf</ref>

==Health==
Ginsburg has had several major health issues in her lifetime:
*Four different bouts with [[cancer]]: colon cancer in 1999, pancreatic cancer (one of the most deadly) in 2009, cancerous nodules on her lungs in 2018, and a second bout with pancreatic cancer in 2019
*A stent in her right artery, in 2014
*Rib fracture in 2018 (which actually helped her discover the lung issue)
*Gallstone removal, in 2020

Martin David Ginsburg, Justice Ginsberg's husband, died June 27, 2010, at their home in Washington, D.C., due to complications from [[Metastasis|Metastatic Cancer]].<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/27/husband-supreme-court-justice-ginsburg-dies/?test=latestnews Fox News report on Martin Ginsburg's death]</ref> Despite her numerous health ailments, and calls for her to retire (especially during the Obama administration when the Democrats held the Senate), she refused, saying her work helps her deal with the grief of losing her husband. In 2020, it was reported that she was undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer again, leaving some then to wonder if she may retire soon.<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/17/ruth-bader-ginsburg-has-been-undergoing-chemotherapy-for-recurrence-of-cancer/] ''Breitbart''. Retrieved July 17th, 2020.</ref> She never did retire and instead passed away while still on the [[U.S. Supreme Court|Supreme Court]], at age 87.

===Death===
[[File:Ginsburg.png|right|300px|thumb|]]
Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020 at the age of 87 following complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer.<ref name="Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87"/><ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/18/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-1933-2020/ Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1933-2020)]</ref> As many people were sad that the justice had passed away, [[Leftists]] angrily reacted with profanity on social media over her not having retired during the Obama era.<ref>[https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/f-ruth-bader-ginsburg-f-not-retiring-obama-leftists-react-rbgs-death/ “F*** You Ruth Bader Ginsburg – F*** You for Not Retiring Under Obama!” – Leftists React to RBG’s Death] '''(Warning: Tweets within article contain foul language)'''</ref> Her death sparked a vacancy in the Supreme Court until Trump nominated [[Amy Coney Barrett]] to replace RBG.

== Equal Rights Amendment ==

In her last year of life, Justice Ginsburg stated that the effort to add the [[Equal Rights Amendment]] should start anew and not try to ignore that the deadline passed for its ratification, as some [[feminist]]s argue.

== Notable opinions and dissents ==

Justice Ginsburg had several notable opinions and dissents during her nearly 30-year tenure on the Supreme Court. These include:<ref>https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/18/i-dissent-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-most-memorable-opinions/2661426002/</ref>

*''United States v. Virginia'' (1996) (prohibiting all-male state-funded military colleges)
*''Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services'' (2000) (a pro-environmentalist decision that allowed lawsuits against pollution without proving injury

*''Gonzales v. Carhart'' (2007) (dissenting from a ruling that upheld a federal ban on [[partial-birth abortion]]

==See also==
*[[Phyllis Schlafly and Ruth Bader Ginsburg]]
*[[Living Constitution]]
*[[Eugenics]]
*[[Planned Parenthood]]
*[[Racism]]

== References ==
{{reflist|1}}

==External links==
* [http://www.democrats.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-undergoes-cancer-surgery Ruth Bader Ginsburg Undergoes Cancer Surgery | Democrats.com]
* [http://wisconsinfamilyvoice.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/justice-ginsberg-and-abortion-absolutely-revolting/ Justice Ginsburg and abortion…absolutely revolting]
* [http://www.boston.com/community/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aNewsForum%3a9523Discussion%3a9431d4bb-3b17-4f44-90b4-6d3e57e3c35c RB Ginsburg: Pro-Eugenics?]

{{Supreme Court|rehnquist=y|roberts=y}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ginsburg, Ruth Bader}}
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Women]]
[[Category:Judicial Activism]]
[[Category:American Jews]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Democrat Establishment]]

Amy Coney Barrett

2022-07-12T02:10:08Z

ISmokeWeedFCCCKU:

{{Officeholder
|name=Amy Coney Barrett
|image=Amy Coney Barrett.jpg
|party=
|spouse=Jesse M. Barrett
|religion=[[Roman Catholic]]<ref name="Amy Barrett info">[https://heavy.com/news/2018/07/amy-barrett-children-kids-coney/ Amy Barrett Children: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know]</ref>
|offices=
{{Officeholder/misc
|office=Associate Justice of the [[United States Supreme Court]]
|terms=October 27th, 2020 – present
|preceded=[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/misc
|office=Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals]] for the [[Seventh Circuit]]
|terms=November 2, 2017 – October 27, 2020
|preceded=John Daniel Tinder
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
}}
''Justice Amy Coney Barrett was [[Conservative of the Year 2020|Conservative of the Year]] in 2020.''

'''Amy Coney Island Furry" Barrett''' (born January 28, 1972, age {{age|1972|1|28}}) (address= 2035 Stephanie Marie Dr, Falls Church, VA, 22039) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and former Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the [[Seventh Circuit]], having been appointed by President [[Donald Trump]] to the position. She was nominated by President [[Trump]] on September 26, 2020, to replace the seat vacated by the death of [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]], on the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].

After intense, irrational [[liberal]] opposition to her confirmation for the Seventh Circuit, which included [[Dem]] [[Senator]] [[Dianne Feinstein]] questioning her religious beliefs,<ref name="Amy Barrett info"/> the [[U.S. Senate]] voted 55–43 to confirm Barrett on October 31, 2017,<ref>[https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00255 U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 115th Congress - 1st Session]</ref> with [[Joe Donnelly]], [[Tim Kaine]], and [[Joe Manchin]] being the only [[Democrats]] who voted for her.

[[Susan B. Anthony]] List described Judge Barrett's confirmation as a [[pro-life]] victory:
{{quotebox-float|"Judge Amy Barrett’s confirmation is a victory for the pro-life movement as well as for the fundamental freedom of all Americans to live out their faith in the public square,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “In spite of her exemplary qualifications, Judge Barrett was subject to outrageous personal attacks for her Catholic faith from pro-abortion Senators during her confirmation hearing. Those attacks have no place in America, let alone Congress, in the 21st century.”<ref>https://www.sba-list.org/newsroom/press-releases/pro-life-victory-judge-amy-barrett-confirmed</ref>}}
Axios reported a "scoop" that [[President Trump]] is "saving" Judge Barrett to be [[Ruth Ginsburg|Ginsburg]]'s replacement.<ref>[https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-trump-judge-amy-barrett-ruth-bader-ginsburg-11d25276-a92e-4094-8958-eb2d197707c8.html Scoop: Trump "saving" Judge Amy Barrett for Ruth Bader Ginsburg seat]</ref> As he was deliberating last year over replacing Supreme Court Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]], Trump told confidants he had big plans for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

"I'm saving her for Ginsburg," Trump said of Barrett, according to three sources familiar with the president's private comments. Trump used that exact line with a number of people, including in a private conversation with an adviser two days before announcing Brett Kavanaugh's nomination. On September 25, 2020, reports circulated that the President had decided to nominate Barrett to replace Ginsburg, confirmed by Trump at a press conference the following day.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/25/politics/donald-trump-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court/index.html Sources: Trump intends to choose Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court]</ref>

Barrett is a favorite among conservative activists, many of whom wanted her to take Kennedy's spot."<ref>https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-trump-judge-amy-barrett-ruth-bader-ginsburg-11d25276-a92e-4094-8958-eb2d197707c8.html</ref>

Judge Barrett has written that [[stare decisis]] or judicial precedent is not absolutely binding and can be overturned for solid reasons: “I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks is clearly in conflict with it.” <ref>https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2291141</ref>

[[Pro-life]]rs have praised Barrett as a role model for young women.<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/28/young-pro-life-women-amy-coney-barrett-role-model-woman-i-want-to-be/ Young Pro-Life Women on Amy Coney Barrett: ‘Role Model for the Woman I Want to Be’]</ref> She has also faced unsurprising opposition from pornographic film "stars".<ref>[https://www.yahoo.com/news/adult-film-stars-speak-amy-185952677.html Adult Film Stars Speak Out on How Amy Coney Barrett Could Be 'Catastrophic' for Porn Industry]</ref>

==Early life==

Amy Vivian Coney was born and raised in [[New Orleans|New Orleans, Louisiana]], the oldest of seven children. Her father, Michael Coney, was an attorney for the Shell Oil Company; her mother, Linda, was a stay-at-home mom. A lifelong [[Roman Catholic]], she attended St. Mary's Dominican High School, where she was vice-president of the student body. She is a member of [[ecumenical]] People of Praise congregation, which includes [[Charismatic Catholic|spirit filled]] Roman Catholics.<ref>https://peopleofpraise.org/about/who-we-are/</ref> After graduating in 1990, she attended Rhodes College in [[Memphis|Memphis, Tennessee]], majoring in English literature. While there, she joined the Phi Beta Kappa academic honor society, and graduated ''magna cum laude'' in 1994, having been chosen by the English department's faculty as their most outstanding student. Coney went on to study law at the University of Notre Dame, obtaining a prestigious Kiley Fellowship; she served for a time as executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review, and graduated ''summa cum laude'' first in her class in 1997, winning the Law School's highest honor, the Hoynes Prize.

She married Jesse M. Barrett, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of [[Indiana]] and current partner at SouthBank Legal in South Bend, Indiana. They have seven children, two of whom are adopted from [[Haiti]].

==Legal career==

After graduating from Notre Dame, Barrett spent a year as a law clerk for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, then did the same the following year for [[Supreme Court]] Associate Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]. In 1999, she joined the [[Washington, D.C.]] law firm Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, where she litigated cases in constitutional, criminal, and commercial law. In 2002, Barrett returned to Notre Dame to join the Law School's faculty, teaching and researching in the fields of federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation. Several of the nation's leading law journals, including the Columbia, Texas, and Virginia Law Reviews, have published scholarly articles written by her on these subjects. During her time on the Notre Dame faculty, three of the Law School's graduating classes voted her "Distinguished Professor of the Year," and former students of hers later described her as "inspirational," "always approachable," and "remarkably fair-minded and smart."<ref>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/female-scotus-candidate-amy-coney-barrett-praised-by-her-law-school-students</ref>

Apart from her work at Notre Dame, Barrett has also served as a visiting professor at the University of Virginia and the George Washington University Law School, and is a member of the American Law Institute. From 2010 to 2016, she was a member of the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.<ref>https://law.nd.edu/directory/amy-barrett/</ref>

==Federal Judicial Career==

On May 8, 2017, President Trump nominated Barrett for the position of Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, succeeding Judge John Daniel Tinder.

Her nomination was heard in September by the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Barrett was sharply criticized by its [[Democratic]] members, including [[Dick Durbin]] and [[Dianne Feinstein]], who seemed less concerned about her legal and judicial credentials than about whether she would uphold ''[[Roe vs. Wade]]''. In 1998, Barrett had written that Catholic judges who objected to [[capital punishment]] on religious grounds should consider recusing themselves; moreover, during her time at Notre Dame she had been part of a [[pro-life]] faculty organization, and in 2015 had signed a joint letter to Catholic bishops affirming "the value of human life from conception to natural death." Though Barrett stated during the hearing that judges must rule according to the law and not to their personal opinions, Feinstein and Durbin remained hostile, Feinstein in particular remarking that "the dogma lives loudly within you": a line that drew considerable criticism from some observers, who raised concerns that Senate Democrats were applying an unconstitutional "religious test" to Barrett.

In October 2017, Barrett's nomination was passed through the committee on a party-line vote and brought before the Senate, which voted to confirm her by a vote of 55–42. She won the support of all [[Republican]] senators, as well as three Democrats ([[Joe Donnelly]], [[Tim Kaine]], and [[Joe Manchin]]). Barrett was the first woman appointed to the federal courts during Trump's presidency, and the first of four Trump appointees to the Seventh Circuit Court.

During Barrett's time on the Seventh Circuit, she has written two opinions considered of particular importance. In ''Doe v. Purdue University'' (2019), Barrett wrote the majority opinion finding in favor of an anonymous male student at [[Purdue University]] who had been suspended and stripped of his scholarship by university administrators who had ruled him guilty of sexual assault. Barrett noted that the administrators had utterly failed to provide the student with [[due process]], and had arbitrarily favored his female accuser's testimony over his. "It is plausible," she concluded, that the university "chose to believe {John Doe's accuser} because she is a woman and to disbelieve John because he is a man....John's allegations raise a plausible inference that he was denied an educational benefit on the basis of his sex."<ref>https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/17-3565/17-3565-2019-06-28.html</ref>

Barrett's other significant opinion, her dissent in ''Kanter v. Barr'' (2019), regarded the issue of gun-ownership rights for convicted felons. The majority upheld a lower-court decision that Kanter (the plaintiff), who had earlier been found guilty of mail fraud, was automatically disqualified from owning a firearm; in her dissent, Barrett argued that Kanter's crime, though a felony, was nonviolent, and to lose one's gun-ownership rights regardless of the nature of the felony was based neither on the wording of the [[Constitution]] nor on standards of common sense. Furthermore, she added, it ought to be the rule that, even if felons, citizens retained their constitutional rights by default, unless or until their rights were curtailed by government action (rather than automatically losing them by falling into a designated category).<ref>https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/18-1478/18-1478-2019-03-15.html</ref>

As of September 20, 2020, Judge Barrett had dissented only seven times in nearly 3 years on the [[Seventh Circuit]].

=== Immigration ===

In ''Cook County v. Wolf'', 962 F.3d 208 (7th Cir. 2020), Barrett dissented in her 40-page disagreement with the panel majority's decision to uphold a preliminary injunction against President [[Trump]]'s public charge rule cutting off entitlements to some immigrants. Judge Barrett pointed out that an overwhelming majority of those within the scope of the rule were not eligible for government benefits anyway. Judge Barrett wrote that Trump's rule fell within the broad scope of discretion granted by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act to the [[Executive Branch]].

In ''Yafai v. Pompeo'', 924 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2019), Judge Barrett wrote a decision for the 2-1 panel which rejected a wife's claim for a visa which had twice been denied by a consular officer, despite how her husband was a [[United States]] citizen. Judge Barrett wrote for the court that the plaintiff's claim was properly dismissed under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. Judges Barrett and Joel Flaum wrote opinions concurring in the subsequent denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.

== Coronavirus jurisprudence ==
[[File:Amy Barrett and her husband Jesse.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Judge Amy Barrett and her husband Jesse.]]
In a challenge to a broad shutdown order by [[Illinois]] [[Democrat]] Gov. J.B. Pritzker which prohibited gatherings of more than 50 people, Judge Barrett joined an opinion by [[liberal]] Judge Diane Wood which ruled against the state [[Republican Party]].<ref>http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2020/D09-03/C:20-2175:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:2574463:S:0</ref> The effect of the shutdown order is to block energetic [[Trump]] rallies, while allowing [[BLM]] rallies.

The Chairman of the Illinois Republican Party, Tim Schneider, declared in connection with filing this lawsuit in June:
{{quotebox-float|"Gov. Pritzker is ruling Illinois like an unaccountable king where only he gets to decide which violations of his executive order have his blessing."<ref name="Politico">https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/illinois-coronavirus-lockdown-court-challenge-408747</ref>}}
The opinion joined by Judge Barrett even included a warning against the state [[GOP]] not to complain too much about the shutdown order, lest the governor remove exemptions for religious services which the court said he could do.<ref name="Politico"/>

==Views==

In terms of her judicial philosophy, Barrett is, like the late Justice Scalia for whom she clerked, an originalist and a textualist, meaning that she seeks to interpret the Constitution according to what it actually says, not according to what others wish to read into it. On several occasions, she has praised Scalia for holding such a position and for being so attentive to the actual text of statutes he reviewed.<ref>https://www.wsj.com/articles/amy-coney-barrett-is-again-a-top-contender-for-supreme-court-nomination-11600644990</ref>

Some of Barrett's more notable legal publications regard the doctrine of ''stare decisis'', that previous legal precedents can, in certain cases, be binding on future courts. She has suggested the doctrine is sometimes applicable, but only in relatively limited circumstances, for instance on matters in which a court decision has such overwhelming support from the legal community and from the broader public that overturning it would be practically unthinkable. ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'', according to Barrett, would be an example of this. Otherwise, ''stare decisis'' is not inviolable; in situations where precedent and the Constitution come into conflict, the Constitution must have first consideration.<ref>http://texaslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Barrett.pdf</ref>

==United States Supreme Court==
===Nomination===
Immediately following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18, 2020, rumors circulated that Barrett would be nominated to replace her. President Trump himself and those around him sent signals at once that he would select a woman to replace Ginsburg, and though [[Barbara Lagoa]] and other judges were also mentioned, Barrett received the most attention. This speculation was substantiated a week later, when Republican sources announced that Trump had decided to nominate her, and the President confirmed this at his press conference on the 26th. In his statement, Trump described Barrett as "very imminently qualified for the job," praised her "loyalty to the Constitution," and noted the bipartisan vote she had received in her confirmation to the Seventh Circuit. In her own remarks, Barrett praised Ginsburg's achievements in her legal career, while also stressing her originalist philosophy in speaking of her former boss Scalia and saying "His judicial philosophy is mine too...judges are not policymakers."

In early October 10, 2020, Sen. [[Chris Coons]] (D–[[Delaware|DE]]) said of Barrett:
{{quotebox-float|I think she ''is'' qualified as a judge.<ref>[https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2020/10/07/even-a-democrat-was-forced-to-admit-amy-coney-barrett-is-a-qualified-judge-for-scotus-n2577631 Even a Democrat Was Forced to Admit Amy Coney Barrett Is a Qualified Judge for SCOTUS]</ref>}}

Barrett was confirmed by the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]] on October 22, 2020, after [[Democrat]] members boycotted the vote.<ref>Two references:
*Ruger, Todd (October 22, 2020). [https://www.rollcall.com/2020/10/22/senate-judiciary-sends-amy-coney-barrett-nomination-to-the-floor-with-no-democratic-votes/ Senate Judiciary sends Amy Coney Barrett nomination to the floor with no Democratic votes]. ''Roll Call''. Retrieved October 22, 2020.
*Hoft, Jim (October 22, 2020). [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/breaking-senate-judiciary-committee-confirms-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-democrats-boycott-committee-vote/ BREAKING: Senate Judiciary Committee Confirms Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court — Democrats Boycott Committee Vote]. ''The Gateway Pundit''. Retrieved October 22, 2020.</ref>

After a Senate hearing in which she impressed members of both parties (though no Democrat senators voted in her favor), she proceeded to a final vote<ref>[https://www.npr.org/2020/10/25/927615174/senate-republicans-advance-barretts-supreme-court-nomination Senate Republicans Poised To Advance Barrett's Nomination To The Supreme Court]</ref> and was confirmed 52–48 on October 26,<ref>[https://news.yahoo.com/senate-votes-confirm-judge-amy-000631765.html Senate Votes to Confirm Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court]</ref> coincidentally being [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]'s birthday,<ref>[https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-gop-judiciary-committee-trolls-clinton-after-barrett-confirmation-happy-birthday-hillary House GOP Judiciary Committee Trolls Clinton After Barrett Confirmation: ‘Happy Birthday, Hillary!’]</ref> and was sworn in by Supreme Court Associate Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] the same day.

===Tenure===
After being confirmed to the Court, Barrett declined to participate in a [[Pennsylvania]] late ballot case<ref>[https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/10/scotus-again-denies-relief-4-4-in-pennsylvania-ballot-case-barrett-doesnt-participate-in-decision/ SCOTUS again denies relief 4-4 in Pennsylvania late ballot case, Barrett doesn’t participate in decision]</ref> after an elections board sought her recusal from the case;<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/10/28/pennsylvania-elections-board-seeks-justice-amy-coney-barretts-recusal-in-voting-case/ Pennsylvania Elections Board Seeks Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Recusal in Voting Case]</ref> Democrats reportedly considered threatening impeachment against her if she doesn't recuse herself from court cases involving elections.<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/28/report-democrats-consider-impeaching-justice-amy-coney-barrett-if-she-doesnt-recuse-herself/ Report: Democrats Consider Impeaching Justice Amy Coney Barrett if She Doesn’t Recuse Herself]</ref>

Barrett joined the other four [[conservative]] Justices in a 5-4 court ruling on November 25, 2020, to upload [[religious freedom]] against the totalitarian policies of [[New York]] governor [[Andrew Cuomo]].<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2020/11/25/supreme-court-sides-with-religious-groups-against-andrew-cuomo-5-4-barrett/ Supreme Court Sides with Religious Groups Against Andrew Cuomo, 5-4]</ref>

In February 2021, Barrett joined John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh in a ruling which blocked [[California]] governor [[Gavin Newsom]]'s attempted total ban on places of worship, but which kept certain restrictions in place.<ref>https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/02/supreme-court-halts-california-total-ban-on-indoor-worship-allows-singing-and-chanting-restrictions/</ref>

That same month, Barrett again joined John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh, as well as the liberal Justices, to throw out a case which would have reviewed possible instances of voter fraud in [[Pennsylvania]] during the [[United States presidential election, 2020|2020 United States presidential election]].<ref>https://clarion.causeaction.com/2021/02/23/justices-kavanaugh-coney-barrett-and-roberts-join-liberal-supreme-court-justices-who-refused-to-review-pa-election-cases/</ref>

== Declines to Embrace Judicial Supremacy ==

During the confirmation hearings, Judge Barrett rejected [[judicial supremacy]]:
{{quotebox|SEN. LEAHY: Now, I asked you last time what Justice Barrett would do if a President or even a Senator did not follow a Supreme Court decision. You declined. You said the question may come before you. I then asked you if the Supreme Court would have the final word. You stated the Supreme Court would have the final word as far as the lower courts are concerned. That surprised me, and it concerned me. I'll tell you why. I asked Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh those questions. I asked them what happens, and they made it clear that a President cannot refuse to comply with a court order, and the Supreme Court's word is the final word on that matter. Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said that. So I would ask you this. Do you agree a president must follow a court order, and the Supreme Court's word is final, or is the Supreme Court's word only final as far as the lower courts are concerned?
JUDGE BARRETT: Senator, I'm glad to have the opportunity to clarify from our conversation. First, I know that both Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said that "no man is above the law," and I agree with that.
JUDGE BARRETT: But I conversed with Senator Lee yesterday about Federalist 78, which says that courts have neither force nor will. In other words, we can't do anything to enforce our own judgments. And so what I meant in the conversation with you is that as a matter of law, the supreme court may have the final word, but the Supreme Court lacks control over what happens after that. The Supreme Court and any federal court has no power, no force, and no will, so it relies on the other branches to react to its judgments accordingly.<ref>https://reason.com/2020/10/15/judge-barrett-refuses-to-accept-the-mythicized-account-of-brown/</ref>}}

==Book==
Amy Coney Barrett has scored a $2 million advance for a book about how judges should not bring their personal feelings into their rulings. This is likely the biggest advance a member of the court has received since Clarence Thomas or Sandra Day O’Connor landed similar deals.<ref>[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/barrett-book-advance-supreme-court Amy Coney Barrett scores $2 million book advance]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{Barrett Confirmation Hearing}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Barrett, Amy}}
[[Category:Amy Coney Barrett|!]]
[[Category:United States Judges]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Catholics]]
[[Category:Pro-Life]]
[[Category:Establishment]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:Judicial Restraint]]
[[Category:Republican Establishment]]

Clarence Thomas

2022-07-12T02:07:13Z

ISmokeWeedFCCCKU:

{{Officeholder
|name=Clarence Thomas
|image=Thmas.jpg
|party=
|spouse=Kate Ambush Thomas (div.) Virginia Lamp Thomas
|religion=[[Roman Catholic]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/Supreme Court Justice
|role=Associate
|nominator=[[George H. W. Bush]]
|terms=October 19, 1991 – present
|preceded=[[Thurgood Marshall]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
}}
:''Clarence Thomas was [[Conservatives of the Decade, 2009|Conservative of the Decade]] for the 2000-2009 decade and [[Conservative of the Year]] in 2009.
'''Clarence Thomas''' (born June 23, 1948) (address= 6665 Rutledge Dr, FairFax Station, VA, 22039) is an [[Associate Justice]] of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. He was born in Savannah, [[Georgia]], which he often mentions in referencing his roots, such as in his book, ''My Grandfather's Son''. His most prominent decisions include his decision for the Court in favor of after-hours religious school clubs in ''[[Good News Club v. Milford Central School]]'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001), his decision for the 5–4 Court invalidating a federal government seizure of property as a violation of the [[Eighth Amendment]] in ''United States v. Bajakajian'', 524 U.S. 321, 324 (1998) and his stirring dissent from the 5–4 invalidation of term limits passed in an Arkansas referendum with respect to its congressmen, in ''[[U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton]]'', 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (Thomas, J., dissenting).

Justice Thomas is a leader on the Court in urging limits or elimination on incorporating the [[Establishment Clause]] against the States, because that clause was ratified as a federalist provision for protecting States against the new federal government.<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow]]'', 542 U.S. 1, 45-46 (2004) (Thomas, J., concurring) (“[T]he Establishment Clause is a federalism provision, which, for this reason, resists incorporation.”); ''Zelman v. Simmons-Harris'', 536 U.S. 639, 677-680, and n. 3 (Thomas, J., concurring).</ref> He is also highly respected by legal scholars for adhering to an interpretation of the [[U.S. Constitution]] based on its original text, meaning and understanding, which has included limiting federal powers. His judicial doctrine finds no basis in the Constitution for [[abortion]], ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', [[homosexual]] "rights," federal interference with state sovereignty, the [[Dormant Commerce Clause]] and constitutional limits on punitive damages. Compared to the rest of the court, Thomas strongly defends [[Second Amendment]] rights and has criticized the court for not doing more to protect it.<ref>Byas, Steve (February 21, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/28347-justice-thomas-supreme-court-does-not-give-second-amendment-due-respect Justice Thomas: Supreme Court Does Not Give Second Amendment Due Respect]. ''The New American''. Retrieved February 21, 2018.</ref> Thomas has advocated for discarding faulty precedents when they clearly conflict with the text of the Constitution rather than irrationally clinging to such precedents.<ref>Clabough, Raven (June 18, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/32629-justice-clarence-thomas-opinion-decries-erroneous-precedent-hints-at-overturn-of-roe-v-wade Justice Thomas Opinion Decries “Erroneous Precedent,” Hints at Overturn of Roe v. Wade]. ''The New American''. Retrieved June 18, 2019.</ref><ref>Freiburger, Calvin (June 18, 2019). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/thomas-calls-supreme-court-to-undo-demonstrably-erroneous-precedent-possibly-upending-roe Clarence Thomas says Supreme Court shouldn’t follow ‘erroneous precedent,’ possibly upending Roe]. ''LifeSiteNews''. Retrieved June 18, 2019.</ref><ref>Stempel, Jonathan (June 17, 2019). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-thomas/justice-thomas-urges-us-supreme-court-to-feel-free-to-reverse-precedents-idUSKCN1TI2KJ Justice Thomas urges U.S. Supreme Court to feel free to reverse precedents]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved June 29, 2019.</ref>

Thomas has a straightforward writing style that presents his principled approach in a clear manner and his judicial temperament is undisputed. He has an unblemished record of service on the Court since 1991 and has never had to recuse himself from a case due to activity off the bench or investments. He is also noted for rarely speaking during oral arguments on cases. Over the course of his distinguished career, he has trained more [[conservative]] law clerks than any other Justice.

== Tribute ==

On July 18, 1995, [[Phyllis Schlafly]] wrote a humorous, enlightening poem in tribute to Justice Thomas:
{{cquote|No High Court Justice shows such promise
As our favorite, Clarence Thomas.

You're a jurist for the ages
 Who sends the [[liberal]]s into rages.

With your mighty brain and quill,
 You cramp the style of [[Hillary Clinton|Hillary]] and [[Bill Clinton|Bill]].

We're thrilled you've stopped the Left's destruction
 To be a voice for [[strict construction]].

With courageous resolution
 You stick to the text of our [[U.S. Constitution|Constitution]].

We're glad you've started to slap the paws
 Of liberals misusing the [[Commerce Clause]].

Justice Thomas, please don't relent
 In seeking out [[original intent]].

As we watch you face the strife,
 We thank [[God]] you're there for life.}}

== Early life ==
Thomas was born on June 23, 1948. His earliest stages of life were in [[Pinpoint]], [[Georgia]], until his mother took him and his younger brother, Myers Lee Thomas, to live in [[Savannah]]. However, his mother couldn't afford to take care of them, so she gave them to her father, Myers Anderson. Anderson raised them up on his farm, where Thomas and his brother were raised to be very hardworking.<ref>[[My Grandfather's Son]], by Clarence Thomas, 2007, pp. 1 - 13.</ref>

== Comparison with Justice Scalia ==
[[File:Donald Trump and Clarence Thomas.jpg|thumb|250px|President Trump and Justice Thomas, June 2018]]
Thomas is most often compared to Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], both support overturning ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', both reject the existence of a [[Negative Commerce Clause]], both feel that the only restriction on how prisons treat inmates is what actually constitutes [[Cruel and Unusual Punishment]] under the [[Eighth Amendment]], and both support strong [[sovereign immunity]] for states by virtue of the [[Eleventh Amendment]].<ref>''[[Cent. Va. Cmty. College v. Katz]]'', 546 U.S. 356 (2006) (Thomas and Scalia, JJ., dissenting).</ref>

But these Justices have significant differences. Through the 2006–2007 term, Thomas had written 252 concurrences or dissents, of which Scalia had joined about 2/3rds. Conversely, Scalia had written 480 concurrences or dissents (he has served more years on the Court), of which Thomas had joined about half.

Thomas sided with [[free enterprise]] and wrote the opinion for the [[U.S. Supreme Court|Court]] in upholding an [[FCC]] rule that placed broadband cable services outside of the regulatory definition for "telecommunications service", despite how the [[FCC]] rejected a contrary ruling by a Court of Appeals.<ref>''[[Nat'l Cable and Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs.]]''</ref> Scalia dissented in a forceful manner, and thereby defended general judicial authority at the expense of [[free enterprise]].

Scalia typically rejects the use of legislative history more often than Thomas does. Scalia also rejects the important line of cases establishing a constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, ''see [[Pierce v. Society of Sisters]]'', while Thomas has not rejected that line of cases or a constitutional right of parents in some limited cases.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Troxel v. Granville]] (2000).</ref>

Thomas takes a broader view of state sovereignty over intrastate activities against encroachment by the federal government. In ''[[Gonzales v. Raich]]'', 545 U.S. 1 (2005), Thomas dissented from the Court opinion that upheld a federal law that interfered with California's legalization of marijuana for alleged medical purposes. In other words, Thomas felt that the federal government lacked the power to interfere with state sovereignty over this intrastate activity. Scalia, in contrast, joined the majority of the Court in upholding application of federal law to destroy marijuana plants grown lawfully under California law.

Thomas also has taken more [[conservative]] positions than Scalia has. Thomas alone embraced a [[conservative]] view of the [[Second Amendment]]. In ''[[Printz v. United States]]'', Thomas wrote a concurrence strongly suggesting a [[conservative]], individual-rights view of the [[Second Amendment]]. No other Justice on the Court joined that concurrence. Only Thomas has expressed disagreement with the "aggregation principle" used to expand [[federal]] power based on the [[Commerce Clause]].<ref>[[United States v. Lopez]], 514 U.S. 549, 600, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995) (concurring opinion).</ref>

Justices Thomas and Scalia differ on the issue of free speech and pornography. Thomas provided the crucial fifth vote in ''United States v. Playboy Entm't Group'', 529 U.S. 803 (2000), which rejected indecency regulation of cable television in part because "[t]he question is whether an actual problem has been proved in this case. We agree that the Government has failed to establish a pervasive, nationwide problem justifying its nationwide daytime speech ban."<ref>529 U.S. at 822-23.</ref> Scalia dissented, expressly his view that the government has broader powers under the [[First Amendment]] to regulate indecency on cable television.

Thomas again provided the key fifth vote in ''[[Ashcroft v. ACLU]]'', 542 U.S. 656 (2004), which invalidated as unconstitutional a federal law criminalizing the posting on a commercial website of pornography harmful to minors unless there were protections against access by minors. The 5-4 Court placed the burden on parents to keep their children away from pornographic sites, rather than allowing Congress to place the burden on pornographers to limit access to their sites. Scalia, Justice [[William Rehnquist]], Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] and Justice [[Stephen Breyer]] dissented.

Thomas tends to oppose government power more often than Scalia does. In a 5-4 decision written by Thomas, from which Scalia dissented, Thomas held that the [[United States]] was wrong to seize $357,144 in cash from a traveler simply because he failed to report it as required by law. Thomas, writing for the Court, held that such a forfeiture "would violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the [[Eighth Amendment]] ... because full forfeiture of respondent's currency would be grossly disproportional to the gravity of his offense."<ref>''United States v. Bajakajian'', 524 U.S. 321, 324 (1998).</ref>

Thomas is more likely than Scalia to enforce a statute that is wrong as a matter of policy, as Thomas is more likely to hold that [[Congress]] alone can fix its own law.<ref>''[[Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC]], Inc.'', 546 U.S. 164 (2006).</ref>

Thomas has called for ending a right of [[free speech]] for students in [[public school]], and stated his view that ''[[Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.]]'', 393 U.S. 503 (1969), "is without basis in the Constitution" and should be overruled.<ref>[[Morse v. Frederick]], 127 S. Ct. 2618, 2630 (2007) (Thomas, J., concurring).</ref> Neither Scalia nor any other [[conservative]] has yet supported this position of Thomas.

On the [[Negative Commerce Clause]], Thomas is more reliable than Scalia in defending state laws that discriminate against out-of-state companies. Thomas, for example, wrote the dissent in the 5-4 decision invalidating a Michigan law that limited shipments by out-of-state wineries.<ref>''[[Granholm v. Heald]]''</ref> Scalia split from Thomas and surprisingly joined the more [[liberal]] majority in that case, which was presented using the issue of the [[Negative Commerce Clause]] but then decided based on slightly different grounds.

On the issue of compelled speech, Thomas stronger than Scalia in defending a [[First Amendment]] right not to pay for something with which one disagrees:<ref>[[United States v. United Foods]], 533 U.S. 405, 418-19 (2001) (Thomas, J., concurring)</ref>
{{cquote|I write separately, however, to reiterate my views that "paying money for the purposes of advertising involves speech," and that "compelling speech raises a First Amendment issue just as much as restricting speech." Id. at 504 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Any regulation that compels the funding of advertising must be subjected to the most stringent First Amendment scrutiny.}}

Scalia did not join Thomas's concurrence above.

Justice Thomas favors reviving the "[[Privileges and Immunities Clause]]."

== Former Clerks ==
As a [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice, Thomas has mentored over 60 clerks. They include:

*[[Laura Ingraham]], [[conservative]] talk radio host<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lauraingraham.com/pg/jsp/general/aboutlaura.jsp;jsessionid=5436967F38FA6C73A4D5804B1F165ABE |title=About Laura Ingraham |work=[[Laura Ingraham]] }}</ref>
*Wendy Long, senior legal advisor and vice chair of [[Mitt Romney]]'s National Faith and Values Steering Committee<ref>{{cite web |last1=Rubin |first1=Jennifer |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080505233532/http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11799 |title=Judging Mitt |work=[[American Spectator]] |date=July 30, 2007 }}</ref>
*Professor Steven McAllister, [[University of Kansas]] School of Law

== Appointment to the United States Supreme Court ==
In 1991, upon the retirement of Justice [[Thurgood Marshall]], President [[George H.W. Bush]] nominated Thomas to fill the newly vacant seat. Supporters of [[abortion]] desperately opposed his nomination.
Nonetheless, Thomas was confirmed by the Senate with a vote of 52–48, which was at the time the narrowest confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee in history.

Thomas has stated that the biggest impediment to his confirmation and his life, in general, were the "modern day liberal," and he noted that liberals held a double standard toward him because he was conservative.<ref>Multiple references:
*Chasmar, Jessica (October 23, 2019). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/23/clarence-thomas-speaks-out-in-new-documentary-my-b/ Clarence Thomas speaks out in new documentary: My 'biggest impediment was the modern day liberal']. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved October 23, 2019.
*Dibble, Madison (October 23, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/it-was-to-undermine-me-clarence-thomas-slams-democrats-in-upcoming-documentary-on-anita-hill-hearings ‘It was to undermine me’: Clarence Thomas slams Democrats in upcoming documentary on Anita Hill hearings]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved October 23, 2019.
*Frazin, Rachel (October 24, 2019). [https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/467265-clarence-thomas-theres-different-sets-of-rules-for-criticizing-me Clarence Thomas: There's a 'different sets of rules' for criticizing me because I'm conservative]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved October 24, 2019.
*Bleau, Hannah (November 30, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/11/30/clarence-thomas-the-modern-day-liberal-has-been-bigger-impediment-than-klansmen/ Clarence Thomas: The ‘Modern-Day Liberal’ Has Been Bigger ‘Impediment’ than ‘Klansmen’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 30, 2019.</ref>

===Racist smear campaign===
Thomas was the victim of a racially-motivated smear campaign by Democrats.

Radical [[leftist]]s attempted to block Thomas' nomination to the High Court through a persistent series of public [[guilt by association]] smears.<ref>[http://www.theroc.org/roc-mag/textarch/roc-07/roc07-13.htm ''A Few Facts About Clarence Thomas,''] Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, Cambridge MA, 1997. [[Chip Berlet]] of [[Political Research Associates]] noted that Thomas was on the editorial board of the ''Lincoln Review'', a quarterly black conservative publication of the Lincoln Institute. Berlet issued a rather dubious ''ad hominem'' attack which claimed "it is a far right group that has worked in coalition with… fascist and anti-Semitic groups," and goes on to "link" Lincoln Institute head J. A. Baker with the Indiana Ku Klux Klan by virtue that Baker is on the board of the Council for National Policy and another board member is supposedly a former Klan member.</ref> Sen. [[Joseph Biden]] agreed to hold a series of [[racism|racially motivated]] hearings dubbed "the [[Anita Hill]] hearings" which have been described as a leftist "high tech [[lynching]] for [[uppidy]] blacks."<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2yfARRF9Co Clarence Thomas Hearings: Biden Questions Thomas 1]</ref>

In a flagrant violation of the rules of the [[United States Senate|Senate]],<ref>[http://www.loc.gov/rr/law/nominations/thomas/debates.pdf Congressional Record -Senate, 102nd Congress, October 7, 1991], Vol 137, Part 18, p. 25706.</ref> staff members<ref>{{cite web |last1=Brock |first1=David |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150212132454/http://www.uiowa.edu/~030116/153/articles/brock01.htm |title=''The Real Anita Hill'' |work=[[University of Iowa]] |date=March 1992 }}</ref> for a sitting [[Democratic]] member of the Judiciary Committee leaked a routine confidential FBI background report to [[Nina Totenberg]] of [[National Public Radio]] (NPR)<ref>[http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/92/1/thomas.asp The Clarence Thomas Hearings], by William Boot, ''Columbia Journalism Review'', January/February 1992.</ref> which contained a vicious defamatory smear intended to mar Thomas for life. The accusation was known to be false, and was concocted to publicly intimidate an African-American Republican from accepting an appointment to the nation's High Court, and derail his nomination. None of the allegations could be substantiated. The deliberate falsehoods did however persuade former [[Ku Klux Klan]] [[Democrat]]ic [[Senator]] [[Robert Byrd]] to change his vote from "yes" for confirmation to "no".

Liberals have continued to smear Thomas and uncritically believe Hill's claims.<ref>McManus, John F. (May 1, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/32174-are-there-no-defenders-of-clarence-thomas Are There No Defenders of Clarence Thomas?] ''The New American''. Retrieved May 1, 2019.</ref>

==Views on racism==
As a justice, Thomas has strongly opposed [[identity politics]] and believes treating people as individuals, rather than members of an ethnic group, is consistent with the Constitution.<ref>Gerber, Scott Douglas (February 12, 2019). [https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/429700-clarence-thomas-has-had-a-lasting-impact-on-black-history-in-america Clarence Thomas has had a lasting impact on black history in America]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved February 12, 2019.</ref>

ABC News wrote:
{{cquote|He is adamantly opposed to [[affirmative action]], but for entirely different reasons than white conservatives who drive the debate by arguing it's unfair to white people. Thomas says affirmative action instead has hurt blacks. It not only sends them into environments in which they are doomed to struggle instead of soar, but it also perpetuates negative stereotypes that whites hold today that all blacks are inferior to them and don't belong — just as whites in the South assumed 50 years ago.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Greenberg |first1=Jan Crawford |url=https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3664143&page=2 |title=Clarence Thomas: A Silent Justice Speaks Out |work=[[ABC]] |date=September 30, 2007 }}</ref>}}

== Personal life ==
Clarence Thomas is married to [[Virginia Lamp Thomas]]. He is "decidedly and unapologetically Catholic."<ref>Berry, Susan (May 19, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/05/19/justice-thomas-decidedly-unapologetically-catholic/ Justice Clarence Thomas: ‘I Am Decidedly and Unapologetically Catholic’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 19, 2018.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Black history]]
* [[Colion Noir]], [[Alfonzo Rachel]], [[Alex Barron]], [[Sheriff]] [[David Clarke]], Dr. [[Ben Carson]], [[Alan Keyes]], [[Reginald Kaigler]] ([[Demcad]]), [[Thomas Sowell]], Clarence Thomas, Conservative [[African American|black]] pundits (See [[:Category:Black Conservatives|Black conservatives]] and [http://africanamericanconservatives.com/about/ AfricanAmericanConservatives.com])

==Further reading==
*Magnet, Myron (2019). [https://www.amazon.com/Clarence-Thomas-Constitution-Myron-Magnet/dp/164177052X ''Clarence Thomas and the Lost Constitution'']. New York: Encounter Books. ISBN 9781641770521.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/clarence_thomas.html ''Clarence Thomas''], [[Real Clear Politics]], October 9, 2007
*[http://www.hillsdale.edu/hctools/imprimis_archive/2007/10/2007_10_Imprimis.pdf ''A Conversation with Justice Clarence Thomas''] - [[Hillsdale College]] interview with Justice Thomas conducted in his [[chambers]] at the [[U.S. Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] in [[Washington, D.C.]], on September 19, 2007.

{{Supreme Court|rehnquist=y|roberts=y}}
{{Greatest Thinkers}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Thomas, Clarence}}

[[Category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Black Conservatives]]
[[Category:Black History]]
[[Category:Best Selling Authors]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
{{Conservatism}}
[[Category:Pro Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Judicial Restraint]]

John Roberts

2022-07-12T02:03:48Z

ISmokeWeedFCCCKU:

{{Officeholder
|name=John G. Roberts, Jr.
|image=Rootw.jpg
|party=
|spouse=Jane Sullivan Roberts
|religion=[[Cafeteria Catholic]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/Supreme Court Justice
|role=Chief
|nominator=[[George W. Bush]]
|terms=September 29, 2005 – present
|preceded=[[William Rehnquist]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
}}

'''John G. Roberts, Jr.''' (January 27, 1955) (address= 6805 Meadow Ln, Chevy Chase, MD, 20815) is the 17th and current Chief Justice of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], since 2005. He was appointed by [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] to replace [[William Rehnquist]] as Chief Justice, after having served on the Court of Appeals for the [[D.C. Circuit]]. Chief Justice Roberts provided the pivotal 5th vote to uphold [[ObamaCare]] on the unexpected grounds that he found it to be a tax, rather than a proper exercise of [[Commerce Clause]] authority, after suspiciously switching sides according to [[WikiLeaks]].<ref>https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3323</ref><ref>http://www.dailywire.com/news/10175/wikileaks-hillary-ally-spoke-campaign-about-frank-camp</ref> Roberts is alleged to have illegally adopted two kids from Ireland.<ref>https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/02/the_ghost_and_john_roberts.html</ref> The name "John Roberts" appeared on the [[Jeffrey Epstein|Epstein]] Island flight logs in 2019.<ref>https://twitter.com/Inevitable_ET/status/1273636428287631360</ref>

Roberts has not provided the 5th vote for the side opposed by the [[liberal media]] since 2013, when he held that pre-clearance for election law changes were archaic and unnecessary in ''[[Shelby County v. Holder]]''.<ref>https://www.huffpost.com/entry/john-roberts-supreme-court-voter-suppression_n_60d4f7ffe4b0da66c2dd7e14</ref> Then that was not a very high-profile issue, and a year earlier Roberts avoided being the [[conservative]] 5th vote against [[ObamaCare]].

Like the notorious Chief Justice [[John Marshall]] who pretended to oppose [[slavery]] while voting against slaves in every case, Chief Justice John Roberts pretends to oppose [[abortion]] while voting in the last few years for the [[pro-abortion]] side every single time, most recently in voting unsuccessfully to block a [[pro-life]] [[Texas]] law on September 1, 2021, in ''Whole Woman's Health et al. v. Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge'' (No. 21A24). Roberts weakly concurred in judgment to uphold the Mississippi abortion law in ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'', while siding with [[liberal]]s in opposing the 5-4 overturning of ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''.

Roberts does not adhere to judicial [[originalism]] and seeks to bend the law to not appear too "conservative."<ref>Horowitz, Daniel (September 13, 2019). [https://www.conservativereview.com/news/conservatives-must-fight-judicial-supremacism-not-hang-hopes-john-roberts/ Why conservatives must fight judicial supremacism — and not hang their hopes on John Roberts]. ''Conservative Review''. Retrieved September 13, 2019.</ref> On November 21, 2018, the Chief Justice Roberts issued an unusual rebuke of President [[Trump]]'s reference to an "[[Obama]] judge," even though Trump's comments were supported by a statistical analysis of forum-shopping by the [[Left]] in their lawsuits against Trump, and the decisions in those cases. President Trump immediately responded with tweets criticizing the Chief Justice and pointing to the evidence.<ref>https://www.apnews.com/c4b34f9639e141069c08cf1e3deb6b84</ref> However, Roberts did not issue such a statement after Obama criticized Supreme Court justice [[Samuel Alito]] for ruling in a way the former disapproved of.<ref>Multiple references:
*Pollak, Joel B. (November 21, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2018/11/21/chuck-grassley-to-chief-justice-john-roberts-you-rebuked-trump-but-sat-silent-through-obamas-abuse/ Chuck Grassley to Chief Justice John Roberts: You Rebuked Trump — but Sat Silent Through Obama’s Abuse]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 22, 2018.
*Lim, Naomi (November 21, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/chuck-grassley-i-dont-recall-chief-justice-john-roberts-attacking-obama-after-he-rebuked-alito Chuck Grassley: I don’t recall Chief Justice John Roberts attacking Obama after he rebuked Alito]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved November 21, 2018.
See also:
*DiGenova, Joseph (November 21, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/justice-roberts-attack-against-president-trump-was-blatantly-political-and-wrong Justice Roberts’ attack against President Trump was blatantly political and wrong]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved November 22, 2018.</ref> Confirmed by the Senate based on his promise to act as a neutral "umpire", Roberts has been criticized by conservatives for doing the opposite.<ref>Hillyer, Quin (February 5, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/john-roberts-biography-still-leaves-obamacare-case-as-a-travesty John Roberts biography still leaves Obamacare case as a travesty]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved February 5, 2019.</ref>

==Early Years==
Roberts was born in Buffalo, New York, on January 27, 1955.<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx Biographies of Current Justices of the Supreme Court]</ref>

==Judicial Philosophy==
Chief Justice John Roberts is known best for building a consensus, and writing opinions to maximize support by fellow Justices. While other Justices often cite their own prior opinions, Chief Justice Roberts is a master at citing the decisions of fellow Justices to win their support for his opinion. But by emphasizing consensus rather than clarity and force of an opinion, Roberts can issue a weak 6-3 or 9-0 opinion rather than a stronger 5-4 version.<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Medellin v. Texas]]'' (2008).</ref>
{{cquote|'''If you watched the confirmation hearings for his nomination to be chief justice of the Supreme Court, you know why the Left hates him. Without notes, Roberts, a [[Strict constructionism|constructionist]], schooled every single one of the Judiciary Committee’s far-Left senators on constitutional jurisprudence. Having someone of his intellect, worldview and legal understanding as chief justice does wonders to protect the Constitution from those who would amend it by judicial fiat. --- Town Hall Magazine <ref>[http://media.glennbeck.com/docs/100americans-pg1.pdf Town Hall Magazine; The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]</ref>}}

However, in 2012, Justice Roberts showed he lacked firm convictions as far as being a constructionist by cowardly abdicating his responsibility as a Supreme Court judge in his unconstitutional upholding of ObamaCare.<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/roberts_the_coward_rLGKy8EebRuDi8KrIXXAmL Roberts the Coward - NY Post]</ref><ref>[https://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_real_reason_john_roberts_upheld_obamacare.html The Real Reason John Roberts Upheld ObamaCare? By Selwyn Duke]</ref>, which he called "Congress' right to tax", and that is the same as what was proposed in the 2010 [[Patient Protection and the Affordable Care Act]].

==Confirmation Process==
With the death of Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] in 2005, President Bush withdrew Roberts' nomination for associate justice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor and renominated him for chief justice, with only a slight delay in his confirmation hearings to allow for Rehnquist's funeral services. The nomination was first considered by the 18-member Senate Judiciary Committee. On September 22, the committee voted 13–5 to send Roberts' confirmation to the full Senate, winning the support of Judiciary Committee Chairman [[Arlen Specter]] (R-Pennsylvania), and ranking minority member [[Patrick Leahy]] (D-Vermont). On September 29, Roberts was confirmed by the full Senate by a vote of 78–22. Hours after confirmation, he was sworn in by the senior associate justice, [[John Paul Stevens]] at the White House.

===Right to Privacy===
Until 1965, some US states criminalized the distribution of contraceptives. In 1965 the Supreme Court in [[Griswold v. Connecticut]], ruled the laws unconstitutional because they violated the right of privacy. Roberts said he would uphold "Griswold" at his 2005 confirmation hearings to be Chief Justice if the case was brought before him, and indicated that he felt that the issue was closed.<ref>See [http://privacy-law.blogspot.com/2005/09/john-roberts-right-to-privacy-part-5.html quotations]</ref>
:When asked, "Do you agree that there is a right of privacy to be found in the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?" Roberts responded:
::"I do, Senator. I think that the court's expressions, and I think if my reading of the precedent is correct, I think every justice on the court believes that, to some extent or another. Liberty is not limited to freedom from physical restraint. It does cover areas, as you said, such as privacy. And it's not protected only in procedural terms but it is protected substantively as well."

::"I agree with the Griswold court's conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and availability of that. The court, since Griswold, has grounded the privacy right discussed in that case in the liberty interest protected under the due process clause."

::"I feel comfortable commenting on Griswold and the result in Griswold because that does not appear to me to be an area that is going to come before the court again."

==United States Supreme Court==
[[Image:Roberts-Newsweek.jpg|145px|thumb|left]]
In his first two years on the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], Chief Justice Roberts has written only 24 opinions, mostly on uncontroversial or simple topics. In his first year he sought unanimity in his decisions, leading him to dilute the strength of his opinions to satisfy everyone. For example, Chief Justice Roberts obtained unanimity on a controversial Solomon Amendment opinion by stretching to satisfy protesters against military recruiters:<ref>126 S. Ct. 1297, 1307 (2006).</ref>

:The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything. Law schools remain free under the statute to express whatever views they may have on the military's congressionally mandated employment policy, all the while retaining eligibility for federal funds. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 25 (Solicitor General acknowledging that law schools "could put signs on the bulletin board next to the door, they could engage in speech, they could help organize student protests"). As a general matter, the Solomon Amendment regulates conduct, not speech. It affects what law schools must do--afford equal access to military recruiters--not what they may or may not say.

Similarly, in the campaign finance case, Roberts invalidated the restriction at issue but avoided establishing a bright-line rule in favor of political [[free speech]].<ref>FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2652 (2007).</ref>

== Record as an Appellate Judge ==

Chief Justice John Roberts served only briefly as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the [[D.C. Circuit]] before being nominated and confirmed for the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] (he was originally nominated in 1992 for the Court of Appeals by the first President Bush, but the Senate controlled by the Democrats at the time did not allow a vote on his nomination). In one important dissent, then-Judge Roberts declared that "a facial challenge can succeed only if there are no circumstances in which the Act at issue can be applied without violating the" Constitution. ''Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton'', 334 F.3d 1158, 1160 (D.C. Cir. 2003), ''cert. denied'', 541 U.S. 1006 (2004).

==Health Problems==
Justice Roberts suffered a seizure on July 30, 2007 while at his vacation home in Port Clyde, [[Maine]] on Hupper Island. As a result of the seizure he fell five to ten feet but suffered only minor scrapes. The fall occurred on a dock near his house and he was taken by private boat to the mainland. Doctors called the incident a benign idiopathic seizure which means there was no obvious physiological cause. Roberts suffered a similar seizure in 1993.
==See Also==
*[[David Souter]]
*[[John Paul Stevens]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{Supreme Court|roberts=y}}
{{USChiefJustices}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Roberts, John}}
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]
[[Category:United States Chief Justices]]
[[Category:Liberal Deceit]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]
[[Category:Moderates]]
[[Category:Establishment]]
[[Category:Republican Establishment]]

Neil Gorsuch

2022-07-12T02:02:13Z

ISmokeWeedFCCCKU:

{{Officeholder
|name=Neil Gorsuch
|image=Neil Gorsuch SCOTUS.jpg
|party=
|spouse=Louise Burleston
|religion=[[Episcopalian]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/Supreme Court Justice
|role=Associate
|nominator=[[Donald Trump]]
|terms=April 10, 2017 – present
|preceded=[[Antonin Scalia]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/misc
|office=Judge of the United States [[Tenth Circuit]] Court of Appeals
|terms=August 8, 2006 – April 9, 2017
|preceded=David M. Ebel
|former=y
|succeeded=Allison H. Eld
}}
}}

'''Neil McGill Gorsuch''' (born August 29, 1967, age {{age|1967|8|29}}) (address= 11521 Dalyn Ter Potomac, MD 20854) is an [[Associate Justice]] on the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]]. Previously he served as a federal appellate judge. He was nominated by [[United States]] President [[Donald Trump]] to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the passing of [[Antonin Scalia]]. In his first full Term on the Court, according to ''Reason Magazine'', Gorsuch had a more [[liberal]] voting record than even the socially liberal Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]].<ref name="Reason">https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/27/neil-gorsuch-was-more-liberal-than-antho</ref> Gorsuch repeatedly votes or writes in favor of the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[illegal aliens]], giving [[liberal]]s an unearned majority on those issues.

Gorsuch is "[[pro-choice]]" and told Senator [[Susan Collins]] that he would not overturn ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' simply because there was a 5-4 majority to do so, as reported by ''Politico'':<ref>https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/neil-gorsuch-charm-offensive-selling-democrats-235159</ref>

:When [Gorsuch] met with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) earlier [in February], she pressed him on his views on judicial precedent: If five current justices disagree with a previous Supreme Court decision, is that sufficient grounds to overturn the ruling? Gorsuch said no.
:“It’s important to me generally, but it also is important to me because of Roe v. Wade,” Collins, who supports abortion rights, said of asking Gorsuch about precedent. “It’s an important principle.”

[[David Souter]] and [[Anthony Kennedy]] used the same excuse to perpetuate ''Roe v. Wade'' in 1992 in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]''.

Gorsuch is active in an ultra-[[liberal]] [[Episcopalian]] church whose woman pastor marched against [[Trump]] in [[Washington, D.C.]] in January. More generally, the Episcopal Church is officially on record as being strongly against [[pro-life]] laws, though TEC's official statement says that abortion "should be used only in extreme situations.”

After Scalia unexpected passed away, Gorsuch began positioning himself for the vacancy by aligning himself with [[originalism]]. He supposedly opposes [[judicial activism]] as an underhanded method to bring about social change,<ref>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/31/who-is-judge-neil-gorsuch.html</ref> but sided with inventing new rights for [[transgender]]s under a federal law passed years ago.

==Life==
Neil Gorsuch was born in Colorado on August 29, 1967, to two lawyers.<ref>http://www.biography.com/people/neil-gorsuch-020617</ref> He spent increasing time in [[Washington, D.C.]] as his mother Anne became the first woman to run the EPA.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/01/neil-gorsuchs-mother-once-ran-the-epa-it-was-a-disaster/?utm_term=.498012b39bc1</ref> He went to Columbia University, where he wrote for the ''Columbia Daily Spectator'' and co-founded ''The Federalist Paper'', and later attended Harvard Law School.<ref>http://spectatorarchive.library.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/columbia?a=d&d=cs19860319-01.2.19&e=-------en-20--54972--txt-txIN-columbia-----</ref>

== The "Frozen Trucker" Case ==
{{See also|Frozen Trucker case}}
Judge Gorsuch rendered several opinions after the vacancy arose on the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps as a way of enhancing his own candidacy. Often for the first time, Gorsuch used language in these opinions to position himself closer to Justice Scalia's philosophy. One of these opinions, a dissent by Gorsuch, occurred in the so-called "frozen trucker" case, ''TransAm Trucking, Inc. v. Admin. Review Bd., United States DOL'', 833 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2016).<ref>[https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-9504.pdf United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit]: Appeal from the Department of Labor (ARB No. 13-031) (pdf)</ref>

This so-called "frozen trucker" case emerged during Gorsuch's confirmation hearings as an example of his favoring powerful corporations over the "little guy." A trucker whose rig had broken down was stuck in freezing weather and told to remain with his rig until help arrived. After waiting in vain for more than two and a half hours, he unhooked his trailer and drove it to safety, and was fired for disobeying orders.

Gorsuch dissented passionately from a panel decision that upheld an administrative ruling reinstating the employment of the trucker.<ref>[http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2017/03/a-look-at-the-frozen-trucker-case/ Criticism of Judge Gorsuch's dissent]</ref>

==Supreme Court nomination and confirmation==
[[File:Donald Trump with Neil Gorsuch Jan. 31, 2017.jpg|thumb|200px|President Trump announcing his nomination of Gorsuch, January 31, 2017.]]
[[File:Neil Gorsuch swearing-in, April 10, 2017.jpg|thumb|200px|President Trump looks on as Gorsuch is sworn-in.]]
On January 31, 2017, President [[Donald Trump]] nominated Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.<ref>Klukowski, Ken (January 31, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/31/trump-nominates-judge-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court/ Trump Nominates Judge Neil Gorsuch to Supreme Court]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved January 31, 2017.</ref><ref>Hurley, Lawrence; Holland, Steve (January 31, 2017). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump-idUSKBN15F1OW Trump picks conservative judge Gorsuch for U.S. Supreme Court]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved January 31, 2017.</ref> The nomination was well received by many conservatives.<ref>Chamberlain, Steve (January 31, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/31/reaction-to-trumps-supreme-court-pick-split-along-partisan-lines.html Conservatives hail Trump's Supreme Court pick]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved January 31, 2017.</ref><ref>Ertelt, Steven (January 31, 2017). [https://www.lifenews.com/2017/01/31/president-donald-trump-nominates-pro-life-friendly-judge-neil-gorsuch-to-the-supreme-court/ President Donald Trump Nominates Pro-Life-Friendly Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court]. ''LifeNews.com''. Retrieved January 31, 2017.</ref> Others, however, most notably [[Andrew Schlafly]], disagreed with the nomination due to concerns about Gorsuch's position on abortion.<ref>Dannenfelser, Marjorie (January 31, 2017). [https://townhall.com/columnists/marjoriedannenfelser/2017/01/31/the-truth-about-trumps-prolife-scotus-list-n2279232 The Truth about Trump’s Pro-life SCOTUS List]. ''Townhall''. Retrieved February 1, 2017.</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=1302133&oldid=1301962</ref> The Senate ultimately confirmed Gorsuch on a vote of 54–45, even though the GOP was forced to initiate the [[nuclear option]] and remove the [[filibuster]] for Supreme Court nominees due to Democrat obstructionism.<ref>Berger, Judson (April 7, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/07/gorsuch-confirmed-to-supreme-court.html Gorsuch confirmed to Supreme Court]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved April 7, 2017.</ref>

==Tenure on the Court==
After assuming office, Gorsuch was frequently described as generally positioning himself along with conservative justices,<ref>Multiple references:
*Pollak, Joel B. (June 28, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/28/democrats-despair-gorsuch-rulings-weve-got-new-scalia/ Democrats Despair over Neil Gorsuch: ‘We’ve Got Another Scalia’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 28, 2017.
*Dinan, Stephen; Swoyer, Alex (June 26, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/26/neil-gorsuch-firmly-on-supreme-court-right/ Justice Gorsuch immediately asserts himself on right of Supreme Court]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved June 27, 2017.
*Lovelace, Ryan (June 26, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/conservatives-cheer-gorsuch-amid-flurry-of-decisions-on-final-day-of-supreme-court-term/article/2627143 Conservatives cheer Gorsuch amid flurry of decisions on final day of Supreme Court term]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved June 27, 2017.
*Wheeler, Lydia (June 28, 2017). [https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/339765-gorsuch-starts-to-show-his-conservative-cards Gorsuch starts to show his conservative cards]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved June 28, 2017.
*Mears, Bill (July 6, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/06/gorsuch-already-making-conservative-mark-on-supreme-court-amid-kennedy-rumors.html Gorsuch already making conservative mark on Supreme Court, amid Kennedy rumors]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved July 6, 2017.
This perception remained one year in:
*Wheeler, Lydia (April 4, 2018). [https://thehill.com/regulation/381539-a-year-in-trumps-pick-makes-waves-at-high-court A year in, Trump’s pick makes waves at high court]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved April 4, 2018.
*Swoyer, Alex (April 8, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/8/neil-gorsuchs-supreme-court-decisions-favor-conser/ Justice Gorsuch forms conservative triumvirate on Supreme Court]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved April 9, 2018.
*Quinn, Melissa (April 10, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/neil-gorsuch-thrills-conservatives-in-first-year-on-supreme-court Neil Gorsuch thrills conservatives in first year on Supreme Court]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved April 10, 2018.
*Wolf, Richard (April 8, 2018). [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/08/justice-gorsuch-confirms-conservatives-hopes-liberals-fears-first-year-supreme-court/486630002/ Justice Gorsuch confirms conservatives' hopes, liberals' fears in first year on Supreme Court]. ''USA Today''. Retrieved April 10, 2018.
*Severino, Carrie (April 10, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/04/10/one-year-in-trumps-gorsuch-nomination-may-be-his-longest-lasting-legacy.html One year in, Trump's Gorsuch nomination may be his longest lasting legacy]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved April 10, 2018.
*Klukowski, Ken (April 10, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/10/klukowski-gorsuch-1st-year-supreme-court-begins-lasting-legacy-president-trump/ Klukowski: Gorsuch 1st Year on Supreme Court Begins Lasting Legacy for President Trump]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 10, 2018.
*Slattery; Elizabeth; Bates, Tiffany (April 12, 2018). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/a-look-back-at-one-year-of-neil-gorsuch-on-the-supreme-court A look back at one year of Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court]. ''LifeSiteNews'' (from ''The Daily Signal''). Retrieved April 14, 2018.
Later sources discussing this:
*Hillyer, Quin (February 21, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/gorsuch-joins-thomas-in-a-constitutionalist-revival Gorsuch joins Thomas in a constitutionalist revival]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved February 21, 2019.
*Swoyer, Alex (April 7, 2019). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/7/neil-gorsuch-antonin-scalia-replacement-exceeds-co/ The New Scalia: Neil Gorsuch befriends liberal justices while exceeding conservatives' expectations]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved April 8, 2019.
See also:
*Dias, Elizabeth; Ember, Sydney (June 26, 2018). [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/politics/travel-ban-donald-trump.html Abortion and Travel Ban Rulings Are Victory for G.O.P. Tactics on Gorsuch]. ''The New York Times''. Retrieved June 26, 2018.</ref> though ''Reason Magazine'''s analysis found that in his first full term, he positioned himself as slightly more liberal than even Justice Kennedy, the swing vote.<ref name="Reason"/> On June 26, 2017, Gorsuch joined a dissenting opinion by Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] opposing the Supreme Court's decision to reject hearing two cases in which [[gun rights]] groups appealed and which meant that anti-gun and -Second Amendment laws would prevail.<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/justices-thomas-gorsuch-blast-court-decision-to-reject-gun-rights-appeal.html Justices Thomas, Gorsuch blast court decision to reject gun rights appeal]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved June 26, 2017.</ref><ref>Klukowski, Ken (June 26, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/26/justices-thomas-and-gorsuch-supreme-court-should-take-more-second-amendment-cases/ Justices Thomas and Gorsuch: Supreme Court Should Take More Second Amendment Cases]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 27, 2017.</ref> The Court assigned Gorsuch to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.<ref>Lovelace, Ryan (June 27, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/supreme-court-gives-neil-gorsuch-a-midwestern-circuit-in-new-assignments/article/2627193 Supreme Court gives Neil Gorsuch a Midwestern circuit in new assignments]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved June 27, 2017.</ref>

On subsequent [[Second Amendment]] [[Certiorari|petitions for cert]], however, Gorsuch sided with the [[liberal]] wing of the Court in denying cert and thereby allowing anti-[[Second Amendment]] appellate rulings to stand. For example, on Feb. 20, 2018, Gorsuch refused to join a dissent by Justice [[Clarence Thomas|Thomas]] which sought to invalidate a 10-day waiting period [[gun control]] law in [[California]]:<ref>''Silvester v. Becerra'', 138 S. Ct. 945, 945 (2018).</ref>
{{cquote|The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to respect that right, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 749-750, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (plurality opinion); id., at 805, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Because the right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution, courts cannot subject laws that burden it to mere rational-basis review. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 628, n. 27, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008).
But the decision below did just that. Purporting to apply intermediate scrutiny, the Court of Appeals upheld California’s 10-day waiting period for firearms based solely on its own “common sense.” Silvester v. Harris, 843 F. 3d 816, 828 (CA9 2016). It did so without requiring California to submit relevant evidence, without addressing petitioners’ arguments to the contrary, and without acknowledging the District Court’s factual findings. This deferential analysis was indistinguishable from rational-basis review. And it is symptomatic of the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.}}

On April 17, 2018, Gorusch joined the [[liberal]] wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] by casting the deciding vote against [[deportation]] of an [[illegal alien]] who broke the law, and thereby invalidated a key part of [[immigration]] law.

On the [[Fourth Amendment]], Gorsuch alone espouses a view that it should be reinterpreted based on property ownership, rather than privacy expectations. Litigants in Fourth Amendment cases, including the one decided by the Supreme Court in June 2018, do not typically assert such an argument.

On June 15, 2020, Gorsuch joined the liberal wing of the [[Supreme Court]] in voting (along with [[John Roberts]]) to write [[transgenderism]] and "sexual identity" into the twelfth title of the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]<ref>Two references:
*[https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/15/bostock-v-clayton-county-scotus-rules-6-3-that-gay-trans-employees-protected-by-civil-rights-act/# Bostock v. Clayton County: SCOTUS Rules 6-3 that Gay, Trans Employees Protected by Civil Rights Act]
*[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law BREAKING: US Supreme Court votes 6-3 to redefine ‘sex,’ write transgenderism into 1964 law]</ref> in ''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]''.

==References==
{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [http://abovethelaw.com/2017/03/truck-drivers-weigh-in-on-transam-trucking-case-neil-gorsuch-nomination/ Truck Drivers Weigh In On TransAm Trucking Case, Neil Gorsuch Nomination]
* [https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/03/21/the-real-story-about-neil-gorsuch-and-the-transam-frozen-trucker/ The Real Story About Neil Gorsuch and the TransAm 'Frozen Trucker']
* [https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/mar/23/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-frozen-trucker-alphonse-maddin When Neil Gorsuch put corporate interests over a man freezing to death]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gorsuch, Neil}}
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]
[[Category:Moderates]]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Establishment]]