And the United States senate and perhaps the most acute is the role of policy preferences. It is the job of the senate to pursue her policy preferences. In fact it would be a dereliction of duty for her to put policy goals aside. By contrast it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences. It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give into them. Federal judges dont stand for election, but have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people. This separation of duty from political preference is what makes the judiciary distinct among the 3 branches of government. A judge declares independence not only from congress and the president but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her, it captures the essence of the judicial duty, rule of law must always control. My fellow americans, we still work for you. It is your constitution that establishes the rule of law. The oath that i have solemnly taken tonight means at its core that i will d
On this mornings washington journal the duties of the office on which im about to enter, so help me god. At the white house last night, Amy Coney Barrett becomes a 115th justice to the Supreme Court and the fifth woman to the court in its 231 year history. This happened hours after the senate voted 5248 to confirm the 48yearold justice, President Trumps third nominee to the Supreme Court. Your reaction this morning, republicans democrats and us on twitter as well remember you can text us with your first name, city and state. Lets begin with Amy Coney Barrett at the white house yesterday. She delivered rare remarks for a justice just sworn into the high court, he or she is. The confirmation process has made ever clear to me one of the fundamental differences between the federal judiciary and the United States senate. Acute isps the most the role of policy preferences. Of a senator to pursue her policy preferences. In fact, it would be a dereliction of duty for her to put policy goals as
Groups that dont disclose their donors and take up to 250 million into the scheme, according to the washington post. Weird enough that people feel the need to run tv ads for judicial nominees, but when theyre taking a check for 17 million, two checks for 17 million if an anonymous donors or maybe two anonymous donors, yeah, if you think thats weird its because it is. That shoofnts happen that shouldnt happen anywhere around a court. And if theres one thing that we are entitled to there have been a lot of highminded speeches about the judiciary and its independence and all of that. The most important standard that a court must meet is that it is not a pantomime court. A pantomime court in which the rituals of adjudication get acted out. People come to the bench wearing their robes, hear the arguments, render decisions, read the briefs, buff at the end of the but at the end of the day, the decision is cooked by big special interest influence that insinuated its way into the court by cont
Circuit of appeals. Her life expenses provide her with valuable perspectives and evident wisdom and perhaps most important, shes a woman of unquestionable character and integrity. The presence ofse which is essential to our nation as the confidence of the court itself is in the balance. Ill be honored to vote to confirm her nomination. Mr. President , i rise to address my concerns regarding the division contempt fort others among many of our citizens, the causes of this are many and varied, the one which i draw attention is the declining trust held by the citizenry in our many institutions. Democratic republic is highly dependent upon the confidence of its people in the institutions that light in. These include churches, schools, governments at all levels for us, corporations, markets and most relevant today, the Justice System and the courts. Absent Public Confidence in these institutions, a democratic republic will not thrive or perhaps indoor. Fortunately, the Supreme Court enjoys a
Review of the major cases decided in the recently ended u. S. Supreme court term. The judicial nomination and confirmation process. After that, Federalist Society panelists will discuss this terms highprofile opinions. Hello. This is one of the chairs of the colorado federal society. My cochairs are on the wind today but you cannot see them on the screen. I want to thank everyone in our membership and in the audience for coming to todays wonderful presentation. This is one of our Flagship Events of the year. We are honored to have this panel to talk through the 2019 Supreme Court term with you. Im going to introduce our opening speaker then we will turn it over to our moderator who will then throw things off with the panel. We are looking forward to an interesting discussion today with a lot of diverse opinions. We are accepting questions in the q a box. If you have a question, you can open that box and submit a question at any time. We look forward to having a good number of questions