Saturday, September 19, 2020

UPDATED: Conventional Wisdom: Amy Coney Barrett Will Be Nominated

I've heard various views on this, including that Trump was underwhelmed with Judge Amy when he interviewed her last time. Still, I believe there's truth in the conventional wisdom. Barrett may be the right nominee at the right moment. And it's not just that she'd be replacing a woman. Trump needs a nominee with the intestinal fortitude to go through a brutal process. Barrett went through that during her last confirmation and appeared to show that she has what it may take. Beyond that, her persona should resonate throughout the land. The usual vicious Dem rhetoric will backfire in the face of what seems to be Barrett's sheer normality.

There's a good overview of who Barrett is at the American Spectator this morning: 

Amy Barrett — Immediately, If Not Sooner

President Trump has the right nominee at the right moment in American history.

The article starts off with a fairly long section on Ginsburg's arrogant miscalculation that she could go out in a blaze of glory under a President Hillary. Then after a bit on the political dynamics of the moment, the author gets into the specifics on Why Amy.

Amy Barrett is neither East Coast nor West Coast. She grew up outside of New Orleans, attended elementary and middle school at St. Catherine of Siena Catholic School in the middle-class suburb of Metairie, St. Mary’s Dominican High School in the city, graduating in 1990, and then Rhodes College in Memphis. Barrett obtained her law degree from Notre Dame, then after a pair of clerkships for distinguished jurists Lawrence Silberman and Antonin Scalia and a couple of stints at well-respected private law firms, became a law professor at Notre Dame for several years before her nomination to the 7th Circuit in 2017.

Barrett’s confirmation to the 7th Circuit was a disaster for the Left. It included the famous gaffe by California’s Dianne Feinstein in which the latter essentially attempted to disqualify Barrett for having deeply held Catholic beliefs, as though that made her akin to a cult member. “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that people have fought for for years in this country,” Feinstein told Barrett during the confirmation hearings, in a moment most Democrats would like to forget.


It was an excellent performance, one which put Barrett on the map as a potential Supreme Court justice, and Barrett’s demeanor and poise in handling Feinstein’s rather obnoxious assault was eye-opening in a positive way. ..., it became quite clear that Amy Barrett is not someone the Democrats can beat down in a confirmation hearing.

Presenting Amy Barrett to the Senate for Supreme Court confirmation would tee up yet another potential disaster for the Democrats just like her confirmation for the 7th Circuit was, and it would do so when virtually every American is watching intently.

She’s young, in her late 40’s. She’s a mother of seven, including two adopted children from Haiti, she lives a middle-class lifestyle (her husband Jesse Barrett is a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s office in Chicago), she’s attractive, she’s exceptionally well-spoken and an excellent, compelling speaker on the law and the Constitution.

She also boasts an outstanding perspective, as a mother of seven who’s been a lawyer, a law professor, and a federal appellate judge, on the question of how women might balance a career and a family. ... That’s a healthy viewpoint the majority of American women, and particularly middle-class or upper-middle-class women in the suburbs, will find wisdom in.


The author finishes with some perspectives on the prospects for Barrett's confirmation. That includes some interesting ideas on possibly prying away a couple of Dems. Really. And that's part of how Barrett's normality could come into play.

Trump likes to surprise, but this seems like a reasonable guess.

UPDATE 1: Reports are that Trump spoke with Cocaine Mitch today and that the choice is narrowed to Amy Barrett or Barbara Lagoa from Florida. I don't know much about Lagoa, a Cuban American, but she gets very high marks from conservatives in Florida. She also has a tremendous amount of experience.

One indication of her views comes from the preface to a series of questions that Dianne Feinstein presented during Lagoa's confirmation hearing when Lagoa was appointed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Feinstein said:

When you were appointed to the Florida Supreme Court in January 2019, the president of the Florida Family Policy Council issued a statement praising your judicial appointment as a “home run” and describing you as having “a conservative judicial philosophy that appreciates the limited role of the court.” According to its website, the Florida Family Policy Council is a state-based policy council that has, among other things, organized a statewide campaign to defund Planned Parenthood, and encouraged attendance at “pro-life events” that are “mourning Roe v. Wade,” with the assertion, “We are winning this battle but the pro-life abolitionist movement needs your help and support.”

UPDATE 2: should have pointed out what's pretty obvious. Florida is a hugely important state in presidential elections. Trump is courting Hispanics nationwide, not just in Florida, and making headway. A Lagoa nomination would seem to really put the Dems in a box.

UPDATE 3: Politico is claiming that Lagoa is at the top of the list.


  1. She's the diversity nominee: she's not a Yale or Harvard Law graduate.

    1. Only three words in that sentence matter to me.
      She's, the and nominee.

    2. I take it as snark, and "not ... Yale or Harvard" is a major plus. She might actually be capable of rational thought.

  2. Not a Yale or Harvard Law graduate isn't the end all. It might be nice to have someone outside the elite on the courts. Also, what does she bring as far as a legal view on issues of immigration? It would be nice to have a conservative hispanic voice on the court that can be a counterweight to the "wise Latina" that is the hyper partisan Sotomayor.

  3. If there's one thing Trump has consistently demonstrated, it's that he's a terrible judge of people. So if he wasn't overly impressed with Barret then perhaps he should nominate her.

    Besides, two Hispanic females would be over-representation on the court. The Left is all about identity and equality, right? Or have white women been canceled?

    1. President Trump would never have succeeded in business if he had been "a terrible judge of people". As an entrepreneur, he would have listened to everyone's story (I know from experience that that is what entrepreneurs do) and judged whether what they were "selling" would be good for him or not. That is a quantum leap from the White House, where loyalty to the president and his policies would be key. Trump was a Washington DC neophyte. He had to rely on the opinions of those more experienced in the political milieu. They did not always serve him well. Contrary to what many say about his attitude toward the military, he put too much faith in the senior military who ended up in his administration. Many of them came recommended by Condi Rice. I can see them being inherently bad material because they are used to being commander-in-chief in their own world, and are not ready to support someone else with whom they might not agree. Considering the dreadful people like - Eric Holder, Samantha Power, Clapper, Comey, Brennan et al - who have been chosen and supported by previous presidents, I'd say his judgment of people has been - overall - pretty good.

    2. I suppose we can blame Trump for personnel problems, just like we could blame a beaten spouse for allowing her husband to cheat on her.

      Or we could admit the problem is the entrenched Democrats in D.C. bureaucracies who "resist" to suit their own political agendas. To defeat a bureaucracy takes a personality like Mick Mulvaney and Richard Grennel. That’s 2. Bill Barr (the bagpiper) could make 3 but I don’t think he measures up to Mulvaney/Grennel. So we’ve got 2 ½ men, plus Trump. That’s 3 ½ men to drain the swamp. Well, that’s a start.

    3. Trump announces appointment: "Fantastic person, going to do a great job!"

      Six months or a year later: "Worst person ever!"

      Again and again.

  4. Harvard and Yale law are over rated with a huge amount of diversity and SJW indoctrination. Barrett is battle proven, but a wise Latina would be nice.

  5. "Trump needs a nominee with the intestinal fortitude to go through a brutal process."

    No one is prepared for what is coming.

    1. My current theory is that the Senate Dems will be afraid to attack her like they tried before and will try to hand that job off to the MSM. But the MSM no longer controls the narrative like it used to.

  6. Daily Mail grabbed the MSM baton and took off with a longish description of a self-described “charismatic” religious group called People of Praise, of which it appears that Amy Barrett and a number of family members are also members. In its headline, DM refers to it as a “sect”.

    1. That's my reservation about ACB. It may not be my cuppa, but I suspect 'People of Praise will seem very normal to a pretty broad swath of potential Trump supporters--including many who don't normally vote. OTH, she's obviously smart and articulate, she handled attacks well previously and has had plenty of time to prepare. Her upside could be a broader appeal than the Cuban Lagoa--Cubans don't really translate into 'general Hispanicity.'

    2. "That's my reservation about ACB."

      But if the Dems are going to try to take her down (and they will try to take her down), I'm guessing People of Praise will be a tougher issue for them than, say, alleged teenage drunkenness and sexual assault.

    3. I agree with Mark that a “pretty broad swath of potential Trump supporters” will not be put off by People of Praise. Most seem to be in the south and middle of our country, based upon what they post on internet forums. A group like People of Praise might even pique their interest.

      My personal problem with it would be the handing off of all my personal information to a Handmaid. Consulting them for personal decisions. Having them as an assigned mentor. Flies in the face of my personal beliefs. I am too independent for that.

      But trying to use that against her? That would be a tough fight, IMO.

  7. I'm not sure they will be 'afraid' to attack her. They have no scruples.

    But it may not be a winning political calculus. It'll be interesting to see whether they can restrain themselves. I would guess not.

    1. Would this work?

      Amy Barrett sold lemonade from an unlicensed stand as a kid, to a man who 36 years later developed type 2 diabetes.

    2. Maybe at eight years old she refused to dress Ken in one of Barbie's dresses thus denying his preferred gender identity. The bigot.

  8. In 2017 Sen Dianne Feinstein suggested that Amy Coney Barrett's religion disqualifies her from high judicial office:

    Senator Feinstein told Ms. Barrett: “I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the Dogma lives loudly within you.

    “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for, for years in this country.”

    Imagine. Senator Feinstein suggesting a religious test for eligibility for office in the United States of America.

    Following this, in 2018, she attempted to take Brett Kavanaugh out with unsubstantiated and unprecedented smears. At the time of the Senate vote, she said, "Women and sexual assault survivors have been sent a clear message that there are no consequences for men who abuse women. They can still achieve one of the most powerful positions in the country".

    She essentially accused Kavanaugh of sexual abuse and assault (a crime) with no evidence other than an uncorroborated accusation.

    I wonder what this utterly despicable person has got up her sleeve this time around.

  9. > Trump needs a nominee with the intestinal fortitude to go through a brutal process.

    Also, it would probably be harder for the democrats to come up with a witness to her gangraping people 15 years ago in an undisclosed location.