Amy Coney Barrett Tears Into Trump Official to Defend Liberal Justice at Supreme Court
Amy Coney Barrett Tears Into Trump Official to Defend Liberal Justice at Supreme Court (The Daily Beast)Barrett, who was appointed by Trump in 2020 but has recently drawn the ire of MAGA, slammed Solicitor General Dean John Sauer for giving what she felt was an insufficient response to Justice Elena Kagan, an appointee of Barack Obama.
Barrett stepped in after Sauer’s answer and asked, “Sir, are you really going to answer Justice Kagan by saying there’s no way to do this expeditiously?”
She added, “You resisted Justice Kagan when she said, ‘Could the individual plaintiffs form a class...’ Were a class appropriate for class certification, you can see that it could resolve the question quickly?”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/amy-coney-barrett-tears-into-trump-official-to-defend-liberal-justice-elena-kagan-at-supreme-court/
Alternate link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/amy-coney-barrett-tears-trump-165748353.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Or whatever she's into. 
Thomas and Alito scum are in the bag for anything trump wants to do (as long as it doesn’t make Alito feel like someone is picking on him). So that’s 2 for Trump.
Gorsuch, Keggers and Roberts seemed to be balancing the government’s desire to let a multitude of cases simply “percolate” through the districts and circuits vs. the likelihood that the underlying EO was unconstitutional. But who knows where those three will really land when push comes to shove.
Kagen, Sotomayor and Brown-Jackson - exactly where you’d expect them to be and right on target. Kagen’s reframing this question as it would apply to an EO to “take the guns away” was an interesting twist that clearly threw the SG off base. She and others (including Roberts) even came back to that reframing a couple times. The priceless line was about the government seeking a “catch us if you can” solution to the problem they have, namely that have not one a single hearing at the district level. They’re clearly going to find for the plaintiffs.
So that leaves ACB and honestly, while I’m no expert and don’t listen to these things day in and day out like a pundit, her common sense language left me driving home thinking she had some energy to really open the door on the whole EO.
In the end, I think the Holy 9 are going to go 7-2 with a decision to leave the universal injunctions in place and ask for an expedited hearing on the merits of the EO…a decision that will be very unwelcome in the WH. The SG desperately wanted to avoid any questions about the underlying merits and, in the end, I think that’s where this goes.
All IMHO. 
