By Allan Wall, September 29, 2020
Here we go again – another SCOTUS confirmation process.
President Donald Trump has nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett (pictured right) to fill the seat occupied for decades by the recently-deceased Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The votes in the Senate appear to be there for her confirmation.
According to Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, hearings are set to begin October 12th. The confirmation vote is expected on October 29th – right before the November 3rd presidential election.
The Washington Post, owned by world’s richest man Jeff Bezos, published an article about the subject: Amy Coney Barrett, a disciple of Justice Scalia, is poised to push the Supreme Court further right.
Judge Barrett clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia and spoke fondly of him on September 26th when Trump announced her nomination. If Barrett is truly a “disciple” of Scalia, many who admired the jurisprudence of the late Justice, a strict constitutionalist, would be pleased.
Specifically, how would a Justice Barrett be on immigration?
We can never say for sure beforehand. For one thing, we don’t know all the future cases to be considered by the Court, and, sometimes, justices can surprise us.
All we can do at this point is to look at her previous jurisprudence on the issue. Since late 2017, Judge Barrett has served on the federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin.
Preston Hunnekens has already done the research for us. It’s available at Immigration Reform.com , a website of FAIR, the Federation of American Immigration Reform, in an article entitled Amy Coney Barrett’s Immigration Rulings.
According to Hunnekens, Judge Barrett has ruled twice on immigration – Yafai v. Pompeo in 2019 and Cook County v. Wolfe in June of 2020, just three months ago.
Here’s what Hunnekens reports about each case:
1. “ … Barrett wrote the majority opinion in the 2019 case Yafai v. Pompeo. Barrett ruled that the wife of a U.S. citizen could not challenge the denial of her visa application by a consular officer who suspected the wife of child smuggling.”
2. “She [Judge Barrett] authored the dissenting opinion in the case Cook County v. Wolf in June 2020. The 7th Circuit’s decision temporarily barred the Trump Administration from imposing new rules that would exclude potential immigrants from green cards if they were likely to require public assistance. Barrett’s dissenting opinion supported the Trump Administration’s action and argued that Cook County, Illinois’ definition of public charge was too narrow and was not supported by law. The 2nd Circuit Court subsequently lifted that ban in September 2020.”
Hunnekens concludes that, “Barrett’s time on the appellate court has been short, and subsequently does not have a long record of immigration decisions. That said, her two rulings indicate that she supports the legality of President Trump’s public charge ruling and the independence of consular officers to reject immigration petitions without obtrusive review from activists. While her nomination is far from guaranteed the frontrunner at this time has two rulings on immigration, one of which defended the new public charge rule, one of the Trump administration’s successful attempts to reform our country’s immigration system.”
La Opinión, the largest Spanish-language news outlet in the United States and no friend of strict immigration enforcement, ran an article entitled Expertos advierten daños a grupos vulnerables con jueza nominada por Trump para Corte Suprema which translates “Experts Warn of Damage to Vulnerable Groups Because of Judge Nominated by Trump for the Supreme Court.”
Wow, that sounds bad. What’s the author, Jesús García, really talking about?
The first paragraph reads [my translation]: “Civil rights and immigrant organizations, and experts in democratic processes [huh?] reject the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court … considering that her agenda would affect vulnerable groups.”
By “vulnerable groups” it’s certainly not referring to the unborn – the most vulnerable group of all.
Among other concerns, the article notes that Judge Barrett would put “Protection of ‘Dreamers [youngish illegal aliens]’ ” at risk, as well as the “protection of vulnerable immigrants, such as the indocumentados” [euphemism for illegal aliens].
They’re saying Judge Amy Coney Barrett would uphold the rule of law in our immigration system? Sounds great!
Visit Allan’s website.