Amy Coney Barrett Sparks MAGA Fury Over Trump Supreme Court Decision
Amy Coney Barrett Sparks MAGA Fury Over Trump Supreme Court Decision
Barrett drew immediate backlash for—along with Chief Justice John Roberts—voting with the court's liberal wing against Trump.
The court currently has a 6-3 conservative supermajority, but both Barrett and Roberts have at times broken ranks and voted with the court's liberal wing in rulings that have infuriated the MAGA base.
The high court handed the U.S. president a significant setback when it ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration must abide by a lower court order to unfreeze $2 billion in foreign aid.
The aid was blocked after Trump signed an executive action his first day in office ordering the funding freeze while his administration scoured U.S. spending for what Trump and his allies characterize as "waste, fraud and abuse."
A lower court judge subsequently ordered the administration to unblock the aid in response to a lawsuit filed by nonprofit organizations in connection to the Trump administration's freezing of foreign assistance through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department.
In a 5-4 ruling on Wednesday, Barrett and Roberts joined Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson and left in place the ruling by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali.
Mike Cernovich, a longtime conservative activist and Trump supporter, amplified a video of Barrett and Trump interacting during his address to a joint session of Congress.
"She is evil, chosen solely because she checked identity politics boxes," Cernovich wrote. "Another DEI hire. It always ends badly."
Mike Davis, a former law clerk for Gorsuch and the former chief nominations counsel for Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, didn't name Barrett directly but echoed Cernovich's criticisms of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which Trump has dismantled across the federal government.
He wrote on X: "President Trump will pick even more bold and fearless judges in his second term. Extreme vetting. No DEI. No missteps."
-
“She is evil, chosen solely because she checked identity politics boxes,” Cernovich wrote. “Another DEI hire. It always ends badly.”
She was DEI hired by your guy, motherfucker.
-
She was a Christian woman hire. Double DEI!
-
(Relatively) young Christian woman hire. Triple DEI, no erasees.
-
-
-
They didn't say anything about Thomas being a dei hire.
-
He's never handed them a loss. Weird coincidence.
-
-
I think she was there to dismantle Roe. High odds you can count on Heritage loyalty.
Working class should be a bit more at ease about this. Voting to maintain the status quo of paying people who have already performed work under contract is a very good thing.
Women and reproduction are toast with this one, but workers might be ok. Or I’m scrabbling around in the dark looking for any spark of light.
This decision should have been unanimous. Paying people for work completed should simply be a given. Or why bother?
-
Paying people for work completed should simply be a given.
I see you don't know much about the current president of the US. Why pay people when you can simply have them do the work and then keep the money yourself?
-
Pretty much Bezos’ philosophy, more or less. Literal sweat shop in those places to fund his yachts and penis rockets.
-
-
The only thing that should come out of not paying for fair labor should be guillotines
-
Voting to maintain the status quo of paying people who have already performed work under contract is a very good thing.
I was kind of surprised that Gorsuch ruled against... Isn't he the one who ruled in favor of upholding super old treaties with Native Americans? What are those if not contracts?
-
-
You know what would be awesome... if Trump threw a temper tantrum and packed the Supreme Court.
At this point it'd just shred the last remnants of legitimacy that Roberts is desperately trying to cling to.
It'd also suck, of course, but it's going to suck regardless.
-
I wouldn’t put it past him. Other presidents stuck by norms instead of flexing/reaching for power outside of the strict reading of their position. Trump 2.0 gives two shits; if the SCOTUS rebuffs him? WTF wouldn’t he delegitimize them by forcing Congress to accept his stooges as he packs the court. Where’s that hair dye guy? Or that hack judge from Florida? Or any of his lawyers the last 10 years.
-
By hack judge from Florida I assume you mean Aileen Cannon the person voted by me to be most deserving of being struck by lighting two years running.
I'm sure he'd love to get her on the court and I'd fucking hate it.
-
-
the monkeys paw curls and your new justices are MTG, Matt Gaetz and the trump children.
-
This is one thing the Democrats actually have the power to block. They can't filibuster court appointments but they can filibuster attempts to expand the court and attempts to impeach a court justice. That means unless one of them dies, Trump can't touch the court.
-
I don't think SCOTUS would dilute their own power by seating more judges if there wasn't a Congressional Act to legally change the size of the court, which is set by federal law.
-
-
Both Roberts and Barrett joined the liberal block on this vote, and as a 5-4 ruling both of them were required to get to a majority. That only Barrett is getting social media energy over it says something.
-
That only Barrett is getting social media energy over it says something.
That there is no such thing as being "one of the good ones". If you are not a rich white male they will turn on you, it's just a matter of time.
-
-
And I hope the backlash she receives encourages her to make the right decision more often. Not saying it will, just that I hope so. Some "fuck you" energy would be appreciated.
I'm being entirely too optimistic here, but it's the only thing keeping me sane.
-
My first thought too - when she sees the kooks, will she remember that she was hired because she is/was one?
-
-
Haha wow, insane people run our country now, cool cool cool cool cool