GATE TO THE HIGHEST COURT...

 "I never imagine myself to be in this position," she said. 

past activities: Women in the Law -- keynote speech in Seattle WA in 2006: note that the law firm of Bill Gates' father was one of the sponsors

 https://www.vabaw.com/2006-banquet

The Vietnamese-American Bar Association of Washington's
2nd Annual Banquet

Our 2006 banquet was a memorable one, incorporating many cultural elements. Our theme was “Raising the Bar.”

One of the highlights of the evening was University of Denver College of Law Professor Wendy Duong’s passionate speech reminding Vietnamese American attorneys of the need to overcome stereotypes, to always remember where we come from, and most importantly to use the law profession as a means to “supply ourselves with the podium in life from which we can speak” to make a difference in our profession, communities, and global society.  To read Professor Duong’s speech, click here.

The banquet generated a buzz in the local Asian-American community. Almost 200 guests were in attendance, including 40 dignitaries comprised of WSBA Board of Governors, Judges, representatives of each minority bar association, leaders from local organizations, and representation from Seattle University, University of Washington, Gonzaga University, and Lewis & Clark. Our event was mentioned in 4 local newspapers in both English and Vietnamese, together totaling a circulation of nearly 75,000.  A performance by the Huong Viet Performing Arts group closed out the evening.

For photos from the Second Annual Banquet, click here. We also thank the Sponsors of our Second Annual Banquet, listed below.

Lychee Sponsors:

• Cairncross & Hempelmann
• Davis Wright Tremaine

Tamarind Sponsor:

• Perkins Coie

Papaya Sponsors:

• Aoki Sakamoto Grant
• Cohen & Iaria
• Helsell Fetterman
• Preston Gates Ellis

A look at the 2020 Presidential debate of September 29, 2020, and then look back at the 1960 era of the Cold War:

If nothing at all, this 2020 presidential debate confirmed that we, elderly citizens, are NOT over. Both candidates, over 70 years of age, are still at it, wanting to run this country, the superpower of the world!  

Therefore, we, elderly citizens, are definitely NOT over yet!  

I am...NOT over yet! 

Compare Kennedy and Nixon, 1960, below  

 

ARTSY MUSIC AND VISUAL COMING OUT OF VIETNAM'S YOUTH TODAY

 

John J. Pickering, founding partner of Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, my training ground in the law

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Pickering

more of Dattie Do, the Vietnamese son of Jazz

 

outstanding women in the law from my time: Colleen Mahoney, Justice Thurgood Marshall's daughter in law

 https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1991-06-28-9102270108-story.html

here is an article from the Chicago Tribute about the late SCOTUS Justice Thurgood Marshall:  

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1991-06-29-9102270267-story.html 

Ms. Mahoney was admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991, toghether with her lawyer husband, Thurgood Marshall Junior,  before her father in law, Justice Marshall, then 83 years of age. 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1991-06-25-1991176080-story.html

series kheo du nuoc mat khoc nguoi doi xua...VIET BAO NAN DOI NAM AT DAU

 

Du toi la cong dan My, da tuyen the vao quoc tich, toi van nho nuoc mat khoc nguoi VN moi lan nhin thay noi kho cua nguoi Viet:  Day la mot trong nhung ly do.

ve tam hinh: ngoi chom hom squatting la dac tinh dan toc cua nguoi Viet Nam. 

https://vietbao.com/author/post/3641/1/pham-cao-duong

Nan doi nam At Dau 

SCOTUS Justice Hopeful Aimy Coney Barrett

 wiki profile of USCOTUS nomiee: Aimy Coney Barrett:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett

FOR VIET READERS: V/D CÔNG DANH CUẢ NỮ LUẬT SƯ TRONG DÒNG CHÍNH: như quý vi thấy, những nữ luật sư trong dòng chính theo đuổi đường công danh tương tự như những con đường tôi đã đi qua: tôi đi trước bà Barrett khoảng trên một thế hệ, lớn hơn bà 1̀5 tuổi, và đường công danh cũng đi vào những chỗ tương tự: làm việc cho hãng dầu quốc tế, tổ hợp luật rất lớn, phụ tá cho thẩm phán liên bang, làm thẩm phán, dạy đại học luật, ec. Riêng tôi còn làm việc tố tụng cho chính quyền liên bang trong khi bà Barrett tiếp tục đi trong ngành tư pháp trong truyền thống một trong hai đảng phái chính trị ở Mỹ: hoặc thủ cựu Cộng Hoà hoặc cấp tiến Dân Chủ.

Lưu ý, bà Barrrett sau khi thực tập với toà liên bang, trở về Houston làm việc cho tổ hợp Baker Bott, cũng đã interview va recruit tôi ngày tôi ra trường năm 1984. Tôi chọn Fulright Jaworski thay vi Baker Bott nhưng sau đó tôi q/d chọn Wilmer để lên Washington, D.C. hành nghề, vớ chuyên môn về tố tụng liên quan đến thị trường chứng khoán.

Riêng tôi, trong thập niên đầu tiên hành nghề, đã chọn lựa dứt khoát sẽ theo đuổi luật học và viết văn/nghệ thuật, song song cùng một ĺúc, nhưng tựu trung, với tôi, trách nhiệm gia đình giữ gìn di sản cho cha mẹ là trên hết. Tôi cưu mang ba phần trọng trách bản thân này (1) nghề luật, 2) lòng yêu nghệ thuật/cây viết sáng tạo, di sản cuả gia đình, va 3) BỔN PHẬN VỚI CHA MẸ: trong trường hợp cuả tôi, ba trọng trách này sẽ phải đứng trên việc lập gia đình mang nặng đẻ đau con cái, vì... chẳng còn thì giờ nữa, PHẢI CHỌN LỰA và...hy sinh. Cha mẹ tôi cũng đã phải hy sinh RẤT NHIÊU để tôi đượ́c tung cánh trong sự chọn lựa cuả mình.

Nhưng trên hết, còn có việc quyết định lập gia đình với ai, một nam nhân nào có thể hiểu mình, sẽ hy sinh sẵn sàng hỗ trợ sự nghịch lý giưã luật và nghệ thuật, lại tập trung vào một phụ nữ rất feminine được cộng đồng cuả mình cho rằng có khả năng...văn nghệ, nhưng lại rất cương quyết còn hơn nam nhân, chứ không "nâng khăn sửa túi," cho ai, và nhất là phải chọn ai cho xứng đáng vớI CHA MẸ và nguồn cội dòng họ cuả t̀̀ôi: những trí thức VN như cha mẹ tôi không bon chen xã hội, sống với lòng vị tha vô bờ cuả người VN có học trong truyền thống Khổng Mạnh lại mang kiếp di dân... LÀM SAO DỰA BÓNG TÙNG QUÂN NHỈ, NẾU CẢ SAN HÀ THỤC NỮ MANG??? ̣DNN

THÂN NÀY VÍ THỬ LÀM TRAI ĐƯỢC....HXH ̣(???)

Ý chính cuả tôi nhân dịp bà Aimy Coney Barrett trải qua thử thách đươc chọn lựa để bước vào SCOTUS: tôi cho rằng người quan trọng đứng đằng sau những nữ luật sư được đề cử vào tối cao pháp viện liên bang HOA KY chính la chồng và cha mẹ cuả họ.

Trong thời điểm quá quan trọng cuả nước Mỹ hiện nay, đúng hay sai những q/d trong đời sống nghề nghiệp cá nhân của tôi trong quá khứ? Thì tôi cũng q/d viết những dòng này cho bạn hữu VN ngày xưa, và cho các bà mẹ VN trong cộng đồng tỵ nạn ở Mỹ ngày hôm nay, đã vượt trùng dương vì tương lai con cái:

Trong việc hướng dẫn con cái nhất là con gái muốn độc lập và theo đuổi công danh sự nghiệp: một cá nhân như tôi đến từ đất nước nghêo nàn bất hạnh như VN sau cuộc chiến tranh đẫm máu tượng trưng cho ý thức hệ thế giới ̣-- tôi xin nhắc lại. cương quyết nhác lại: cuộc chiến tranh ý thức hệ thế giới -- ngay từ 1975, tôi đã phải đi trước phụ nữ Mỹ từ 12 đến 20 năm, để bước vào những chỗ dành cho những phụ nữ Mỹ xuất sắc nhất trên đường công danh cuả họ, ngày hôm nay. Vì là người thưà kế di sản tinh thần của cha mẹ, cọng thêm quan niệm cho rằng cây viết sẽ cho tôi được nói sự thật hơn là tìm danh vọng ở hệ thống quyền lực chính trị, cho nên tôi đã q/d từ bỏ những nơi chốn quyền lực ấy: một chuỗi dài quyền lực: hãng dầu quốc tế Mobil, bốn tổ hợp luật lớn nhất HK/quốc tế (Wilmer, Weil Gotshal Manges, Baker McKenzie, Locke) chính phủ liên bang SEC, toà án, và môi trường khoa bảng luật học.

Ngày hôm nay, nhìn thấy sự tiến bộ cuả phụ nữ̃ Mỹ sau phong trào ME TOO khi tiếng nói phụ nữ Mỹ đã được hoàn toàn "đem ra ánh sáng," biết đâu chúng ta những phụ nữ Mỹ gốc Việt, sẽ được thấy, lầ̀n đầu tiên, có thể sẽ có bốn hoặc năm phụ nữ trong tối cao pháp viện liên bang HK -- tất cả ̣là chín vị. Đó sẽ phải là sư chọn lựa cuả cô bé ấy, nhưng chúng ta có bổn phận cho cô bé kinh nghiệm dẫn đến WISDOM --điều mà tôi không có khi tôi phải đi vào dòng chính quá sớm, một mình, vì chúng ta còn...phôi thai.

Ngày hôm nay, tôi rất hãnh diện, từ một cô bé gái tỵ nạn đến từ phi trường Tân Sơn Nhất đ̀ôi ngày trước khi pháo kích, tôi đã đi những bước tiên phong cùng với phụ nữ Mỹ bước vào những nơi chốn nghề nghiệp ở quốc gia mới, mà tôi luôn luôn là người VN độc nhất, luôn luôn phải làm việc ba trăm phần trăm so với đàn ông Mỹ, và tôi đã chọn cây viết chứ không chọn chính trị, cho dù tôi cúi đầu trước tấm gương kinh bang tế thế cuả anh hùng bi thảm Nguyễn Trãi. Tôi đã chọn không chính thức lập gia đình dù biết rằng lập gia đình sẽ củng cố đời sống cho sự nghiệp công danh, lý do là vì tôi quá bận rôn không gặp được sao khuê xứng ̣đáng làm con rể cuả mẹ tôi, và tôi đã phải để cho các em tôi làm việc "nối gĩõi tông đường" cháu nội cháu ngoại cho cha mẹ có chút niềm vui ̣(I believe wholeheartedly in...delegation of tasks to others, such as...bearing children, so that I can have the freedom to become my mother's MAY ALL YOUR WISHES COME TRUE." The definition of May-All-Your-Wishes Come True is FREEDOM OF CHOICE, not SUCCESS, as SUCCESS is defined by others, whereas FREEDOM can be defined by YOU!!! And this was the reason why we, Viet refugee women, boarded the plane or the boat ).

Tôi hy vọng, sau khi tôi đã phải bước những bước tiên phong gay go nhất trong thời điểm mở đầu, từ 1975, 1980,... thì ngày hôm nay, gần nưả thế kỷ sau, khi đường quan lộ cuả phụ nữ Mỹ hoàn toàn mờ rộng thênh thang, tôi và các bà mẹ gốc Việt tỵ nạn ̀sẽ có dịp nhìn thấy con gái cuả quý vị trỏ thành một trong chín vị biểu tượng cho HIến Pháp HK trước thế giới...trước khi chúng ta nhắm mắt....

DNN 9/27/2020

----

Amy Coney Barrett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

📷

This article is about a person involved in a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. Please feel free to improve this article (but note that updates without valid and reliable references will be removed) or discuss changes on the talk page. (September 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

📷

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (September 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Amy Coney Barrett

📷

Barrett in 2018

Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Incumbent

Assumed office November 2, 2017Nominated byDonald TrumpPreceded byJohn Daniel TinderPersonal detailsBorn

Amy Vivian Coney

January 28, 1972 (age 48) New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.Spouse(s)Jesse BarrettChildren7[1]EducationRhodes College (BA) University of Notre Dame (JD)Academic backgroundAcademic workInstitutionsNotre Dame Law SchoolWebsiteNotre Dame Law Biography

Amy Vivian Coney Barrett (born January 28, 1972)[2][3] is an American lawyer, jurist, and academic who serves as a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

President Donald Trump nominated Barrett to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on May 8, 2017, and the Senate confirmed her on October 31, 2017. Before and while serving on the federal bench, she has been a professor of law at Notre Dame Law School, where she has taught civil procedure, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation.[3][4][5][6]

Eleven months after her confirmation to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett was added to Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees.[7] On September 26, 2020, Trump nominated Barrett to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the United States Supreme Court.[8][9]

Contents

• 1Early life and education
• 2Career2.1Clerkships and private practice 2.2Teaching and scholarship 2.3Federal judicial service2.3.1Nomination and confirmation 2.4Notable cases2.4.1Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 2.4.2Immigration 2.4.3Second Amendment 2.4.4Fourth Amendment
• 3Judicial philosophy and political views
• 4Supreme Court nomination
• 5Personal life
• 6Affiliations and recognition
• 7Selected publications
• 8See also
• 9References
• 10External links

Early life and education

Amy Vivian Coney was born on January 28, 1972, in New Orleans, Louisiana.[3] She is the eldest of seven children, with five sisters and a brother. Her father Michael Coney worked as an attorney for Shell Oil Company, and her mother Linda was a high school French teacher. She grew up in Metairie, a suburb of New Orleans, and graduated from St. Mary's Dominican High School in 1990.[10]

Barrett studied English literature at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee. She graduated in 1994 with a Bachelor of Arts magna cum laude and was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa.[11] She then studied law at Notre Dame Law School on a full-tuition scholarship. She was an executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review[12] and graduated first in her class in 1997 with a Juris Doctor summa cum laude.[13]

Career

Clerkships and private practice

After law school Barrett spent two years as a judicial law clerk, first for Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1997 to 1998,[14] then for Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1998 to 1999.[14]

From 1999 to 2002, she practiced law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C., which, while she worked there, merged into Baker Botts, based in Houston.[12][15] While at Baker Botts, she worked on the Bush vs. Gore U.S. Supreme Court case, providing research and briefing assistance.[16]

Teaching and scholarship

Barrett served as a visiting associate professor and John M. Olin Fellow in Law at George Washington University Law School for a year before returning to her alma mater, Notre Dame Law School, in 2002.[17] At Notre Dame she taught federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation. Barrett was named a Professor of Law in 2010, and from 2014 to 2017 held the Diane and M.O. Miller Research Chair of Law.[18] Her scholarship focuses on constitutional law, originalism, statutory interpretation, and stare decisis.[13] Her academic work has been published in journals such as the Columbia, Cornell, Virginia, Notre Dame, and Texas Law Reviews.[17]

At Notre Dame, Barrett received the "Distinguished Professor of the Year" award three times.[17] Barrett has continued to teach as a sitting judge.[19]

Federal judicial service

Nomination and confirmation

📷

Judge Laurence Silberman, for whom Barrett first clerked after law school, swearing her in at her investiture as a judge on the Seventh Circuit.

On May 8, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Barrett to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit after Judge John Daniel Tinder took senior status.[20][21] A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on her nomination was held on September 6, 2017.[22] During the hearing, Senator Dianne Feinstein questioned Barrett about a law review article Barrett co-wrote in 1998 with Professor John H. Garvey in which she argued that Catholic judges should in some cases recuse themselves from death penalty cases due to their moral objections to the death penalty. The article concluded that the trial judge should recuse herself instead of entering the order. Asked to "elaborate on the statements and discuss how you view the issue of faith versus fulfilling the responsibility as a judge today," Barrett said that she had participated in many death-penalty appeals while serving as law clerk to Scalia, adding, "My personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge"[23][24] and "It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law."[25] Barrett emphasized that the article was written in her third year in law school and that she was "very much the junior partner in our collaboration."[26] Worried that Barrett would not uphold Roe v. Wade given her Catholic beliefs, Feinstein followed Barrett's response by saying, "the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern."[27][28][29]

The hearing made Barrett popular with religious conservatives.[12] Feinstein's and other senators' questioning was criticized by some Republicans and other observers, such as university presidents John I. Jenkins and Christopher Eisgruber, as improper inquiry into a nominee's religious belief that employed an unconstitutional "religious test" for office.[25][30][31]

Lambda Legal, an LGBT civil rights organization, co-signed a letter with 26 other gay rights organizations opposing Barrett's nomination. The letter expressed doubts about her ability to separate faith from her rulings on LGBT matters.[32][33] During her Senate hearing, Barrett was questioned about landmark LGBTQ legal precedents such as Obergefell v. Hodges, United States v. Windsor, and Lawrence v. Texas. She said these cases are "binding precedents" that she intended to "faithfully follow if confirmed" to the appeals court, as required by law.[32] The letter Lambda Legal co-signed read, "Simply repeating that she would be bound by Supreme Court precedent does not illuminate—indeed, it obfuscates—how Professor Barrett would interpret and apply precedent when faced with the sorts of dilemmas that, in her view, 'put Catholic judges in a bind.'"[32]

Barrett's nomination was supported by every law clerk she had worked with and all of her 49 faculty colleagues at Notre Dame Law school. 450 former students signed a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supporting her nomination.[34][35]

On October 5, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11–9 on party lines to recommend Barrett and report her nomination to the full Senate.[36][37] On October 30, the Senate invoked cloture by a vote of 54–42.[38] It confirmed her by a vote of 55–43 on October 31, with three Democrats—Joe Donnelly, Tim Kaine, and Joe Manchin—voting for her.[11] She received her commission two days later.[3] Barrett is the first and only woman to occupy an Indiana seat on the Seventh Circuit.[39]

Notable cases

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

In Doe v. Purdue University, 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019), the court, in a unanimous decision written by Barrett, reinstated a suit brought by a male Purdue University student (John Doe) who had been found guilty of sexual assault by Purdue University, which resulted in a one-year suspension, loss of his Navy ROTC scholarship, and expulsion from the ROTC affecting his ability to pursue his chosen career in the Navy.[40] Doe alleged the school's Advisory Committee on Equity discriminated against him on the basis of his sex and violated his rights to due process by not interviewing the alleged victim, not allowing him to present evidence in his defense, including an erroneous statement that he confessed to some of the alleged assault, and appearing to believe the victim instead of the accused without hearing from either party or having even read the investigation report. The court found that Doe had adequately alleged that the university deprived him of his occupational liberty without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and had violated his Title IX rights "by imposing a punishment infected by sex bias", and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.[41][42][43]

Immigration

In Cook County v. Wolf, 962 F.3d 208 (7th Cir. 2020), Barrett wrote a 40-page dissent from the majority's decision to uphold a preliminary injunction on the Trump administration's controversial "public charge rule", which heightened the standard for obtaining a green card. In her dissent, she argued that any noncitizens who disenrolled from government benefits because of the rule did so due to confusion about the rule itself rather than from its application, writing that the vast majority of the people subject to the rule are not eligible for government benefits in the first place. On the merits, Barrett departed from her colleagues Diane Wood and Ilana Rovner, who held that DHS's interpretation of that provision was unreasonable under Chevron Step Two. Barrett would have held that the new rule fell within the broad scope of discretion granted to the Executive by Congress through the Immigration and Nationality Act.[44][45][46] The public charge issue is the subject of a circuit split.[44][46][47]

Second Amendment

In Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019), Barrett dissented when the court upheld a law prohibiting convicted nonviolent felons from possessing firearms. The plaintiffs had been convicted of mail fraud. The majority upheld the felony dispossession statutes as "substantially related to an important government interest in preventing gun violence." In her dissent, Barrett argued that while the government has a legitimate interest in denying gun possession to felons convicted of violent crimes, there is no evidence that denying guns to nonviolent felons promotes this interest, and that the law violates the Second Amendment.[48][49]

Fourth Amendment

The case United States v. Watson, 900 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2018) involved police responding to an anonymous tip that people were "playing with guns" in a parking lot. The police arrived and searched the defendant's vehicle, taking possession of two firearms; the defendant was later charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court denied the defendant's motion to suppress. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit, in a decision by Barrett, vacated and remanded, determining that the police lacked probable cause to search the vehicle based solely upon the tip, when no crime was alleged. Barrett distinguished Navarette v. California and wrote, "the police were right to respond to the anonymous call by coming to the parking lot to determine what was happening. But determining what was happening and immediately seizing people upon arrival are two different things, and the latter was premature...Watson's case presents a close call. But this one falls on the wrong side of the Fourth Amendment."[50]

Judicial philosophy and political views

Barrett identifies as an originalist.[51] She is a constitutional scholar with expertise in statutory interpretation.[11] Reuters described Barrett as "a favorite among religious conservatives."[52]

Barrett clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. She has spoken and written of her admiration of his close attention to the text of statutes, and praised his adherence to originalism.[53]

In 2013, Barrett wrote a Texas Law Review article on the doctrine of stare decisis in which she listed seven cases that should be considered "superprecedents"—cases the court would never consider overturning. The list included Brown v. Board of Education but specifically excluded Roe v. Wade. In explaining why it was excluded, Barrett referenced scholarship agreeing that in order to qualify as "superprecedent", a decision must have widespread support from not only jurists but politicians and the public at large to the extent of becoming immune to reversal or challenge. She argued the people must trust a ruling's validity to such an extent the matter has been taken "off of the court's agenda", with lower courts no longer taking challenges to them seriously. Barrett pointed to Planned Parenthood v. Casey as evidence that Roe had not yet attained this status.[54]

Barrett also included Mapp v. Ohio in her list of superprecedents. In Mapp, the court found through the doctrine of incorporation that the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure were binding on state and local authorities in the same way it historically applied to the federal government.[54]

Barrett has never ruled directly on abortion, but she did vote to rehear a successful challenge to Indiana's parental notification law in 2019. In 2018, she voted against striking down another Indiana law requiring burial or cremation of fetal remains. In both cases, Barrett voted with the minority. The Supreme Court later reinstated the fetal remains law, and in July 2020 it ordered a rehearing in the parental notification case.[52] At a 2013 event reflecting on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, she described the decision—in Notre Dame Magazine's paraphrase—as "creating through judicial fiat a framework of abortion on demand."[55][56] She also remarked that it was "very unlikely" the court would overturn the core of Roe: "The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand. The controversy right now is about funding. It's a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded."[57][58] NPR reported that those statements were made before Trump's election and his appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, which could make Barrett's vote pivotal in overturning Roe.[59]

Barrett was critical of John Roberts's majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius. Roberts's opinion defended the constitutionality of Obamacare's individual mandate by characterizing it as a tax. Barrett disapproved of this approach, saying, "Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute."[59][60][61] She criticized the Obama administration for providing employees of religious institutions the option of obtaining birth control without having the religious institutions pay for it.[60]

Supreme Court nomination

Main article: Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination

📷

Barrett and her family with President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump on September 26, 2020

Barrett has been on Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees since 2017, almost immediately after her court of appeals confirmation.[62] In July 2018, after Anthony Kennedy's retirement announcement, she was reportedly one of three finalists Trump considered, along with Kavanaugh and Judge Raymond Kethledge.[18][63][64] Reportedly, although Trump liked Barrett, he was concerned about her lack of experience on the bench.[65] In the Republican Party, Barrett was favored by social conservatives.[65]

After Kavanaugh's selection, Barrett was viewed as a possible nominee for a future Supreme Court vacancy.[66] Trump was reportedly "saving" Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat for Barrett if Ginsburg retired or died during his presidency.[67]

Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020, and Barrett was widely mentioned as the front-runner to succeed her.[68] On September 26, Trump nominated Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States.[8]

Personal life

📷

Barrett with her husband, Jesse

Since 1999, Barrett has been married to fellow Notre Dame Law School graduate Jesse M. Barrett, a partner at SouthBank Legal in South Bend, Indiana.[69][70] Previously, Jesse Barrett worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana for 13 years.[71] They live in South Bend and have seven children, ranging in age over a decade,[70] two of whom were adopted from Haiti. The older daughter was adopted in 2005 and her adopted son became part of the family after the 2010 Haiti earthquake.[16] Their youngest biological child has Down syndrome.[70][72][73]

Barrett is a practicing Catholic[74][75] and also has been an active participant with the small, tightly-knit, nondenominational Charismatic Christian intentional community People of Praise.[76][77] Founded in South Bend, the self-described ecumenical "covenant community"[78][79][80] is associated with the Catholic charismatic renewal movement although it is not formally affiliated with the Catholic Church. Approximately 90% of its members are Catholic.[77][81] In 2015, Barrett signed a letter to the Synod on the Family, giving witness that the Church's teachings on marriage and family are "founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman".[82][83]

Affiliations and recognition

From 2010 to 2016, Barrett served by appointment of the Chief Justice on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.[17]

Barrett was a member of the Federalist Society from 2005 to 2006 and from 2014 to 2017.[28][11][12] She is a member of the American Law Institute.[84]

Selected publications

A partial list of Barrett's academic publications:

• Barrett, Amy Coney; Garvey, John H. (1998). "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases". Marquette Law Review. 81: 303–350.
• Barrett, Amy Coney (2003). "Stare Decisis and Due Process". University of Colorado Law Review. 74: 1011–1074.
• Barrett, Amy Coney (2005). "Statutory Stare Decisis in the Courts of Appeals". The George Washington Law Review. 73: 317–352.
• Barrett, Amy Coney (2006). "The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court". Columbia Law Review. 106: 324–387.
• Barrett, Amy Coney (2008). "Introduction [Symposium: Stare Decisis and Nonjudicial Actors]". Notre Dame Law Review. 83: 1147–1172.
• Barrett, Amy Coney (2008). "Procedural Common Law" (PDF). Virginia Law Review. 94: 813–888.
• Barrett, Amy Coney (2010). "Substantive Canons and Faithful Agency" (PDF). Boston University Law Review: 109–182.
• Barrett, Amy Coney (2013). "Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement" (PDF). Texas Law Review. 91: 1711–1737.
• Barrett, Amy Coney (2014). "Suspension and Delegation". Cornell Law Review. 99: 251–326.
• Barrett, Amy Coney; Nagle, John Copeland (2016). "Congressional Originalism". University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 19: 1–44.
• Barrett, Amy Coney (2017). "Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty [review]". Constitutional Commentary. 32: 61–84.
• Barrett, Amy Coney (2017). "Originalism and Stare Decisis". Notre Dame Law Review. 92: 1921–1944.