Judge Amy Coney Barret Does Not Think SCOTUS 5-4 Split Decisions Are A Sign Of Political Partisanship

Federal Appeals Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett At Hillsdale College In May 2019

In an interview at Hillsdale College in May 2019, Federal Appeals Court Judge and now Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said she does not think the increasing 5-4 split decisions at the U.S. Supreme Court are a sign of political partisanship. This is a very strange assessment given the fact that much of the public angst against the U.S. Supreme Court can be attributed to the increasing number of these 5-4 split decisions between the 5 conservative and 4 liberal justices, which people have reasonably attributed to partisan political differences.

Judge Barrett’s strange position that Supreme Court 5-4 split decisions are not as a result of partisan political differences will certainly draw the attention of Democratic Senators at her confirmation hearings, which are already expected to be the most contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearings ever.

Bottom line folks, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the U.S. Supreme Court, Americans better get used to “non-partisan” 6-3 split decisions on ACA, voting rights, DACA, Trump’s tax returns, 2020 election challenges…….. Simply put, get used to “non-partisan” 6-3 split decisions on steroids!!

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Kavanaugh Unconvincingly Denies Talking To TrumpRussia Lawyer


Sen Kamala Harris(D-CA) questioning Kavanaugh at his U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearing

An interesting segment on MSNBC’s AM Joy show looked into Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh’s troubling ties to the ongoing TrumpRussia investigation.


It is well known that one of the major hang ups Democrats have with Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and possible confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court is the appearance that Trump wants him on the high court to shield himself from the ongoing threat of the Mueller probe(TrumpRussia investigation). Dems therefore paid very close attention to Kavanaugh’s answers to pointed TrumpRussia questions from Sen Kamala Harris(D-CA). Kavanaugh initially denied knowing Marc Kasowitz, a prominent lawyer for Trump in the TrumpRussia investigation. Because Kasowitz is such a high profile lawyer known to many in the DC legal circles, many considered Kavanaugh’s denial an outright lie. The full AM Joy segment is available here but the relevant clip is below.

On the next day of questioning, the dilligent Sen Kamala Harris brought back the Kasowitz question to see if Kavanaugh would give a more convincing answer this time. Interestingly, Kavanaugh’s response changed a little bit from his previous response. He testified this time that he never talked to anybody at Kasowitz’s law firm about TrumpRussia, but notably he didn’t deny knowing Kasowitz this time as he had done the previous day.

As was correctly pointed out in MSNBC’s AM Joy show, it is totally understandable why Kavanaugh would want to steer clear from a TrumpRussia lawyer during his confirmation hearing to the U.S. Supreme Court. That however does not absolve him from answering truthfully serious questions posed to him at his confirmation hearings.

Bottom line there are many unanswered questions regarding Kavanaugh and the ongoing Mueller probe. If the purpose of the confirmation hearings was to allay fears that Trump wants him on the Supreme Court to shield himself against the threat of the Mueller probe, they certainly did not allay any fears. As a matter of fact Kavanaugh’s evasiveness on this crucial TrumpRussia question only added to the fears and will inevitable negatively impact the credibility of the Roberts Supreme Court.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out