{"id":78504,"date":"2020-09-30T02:19:47","date_gmt":"2020-09-29T23:19:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/en.buradabiliyorum.com\/amy-coney-barrett-has-a-fine-record-on-civil-liberties\/"},"modified":"2020-09-30T02:19:47","modified_gmt":"2020-09-29T23:19:47","slug":"amy-coney-barrett-has-a-fine-record-on-civil-liberties","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/amy-coney-barrett-has-a-fine-record-on-civil-liberties\/","title":{"rendered":"#Amy Coney Barrett has a fine record on civil liberties"},"content":{"rendered":"

“#Amy Coney Barrett has a fine record on civil liberties<\/strong>”
\n<\/p>\n

\n Democrats worry that Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, an originalist and textualist who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia in the late 1990s, will emulate him if confirmed by the Senate. We could do a lot worse.<\/p>\n

Although progressives often portrayed Scalia as an authoritarian ogre, he was, in fact, a more faithful defender of First, Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights than some of his purportedly \u201cliberal\u201d colleagues on the court. Barrett\u2019s track record during her three years on the US Court of App<\/a>eals for the Seventh Circuit suggests she also would frequently prove to be a friend of civil liberties.<\/p>\n

In a 2018 opinion, Barrett concluded that an anonymous tip didn\u2019t provide reasonable suspicion for police to stop a car in which they found a man with a felony record who illegally possessed a gun. \u201cThe anonymous tip did not justify an immedia<\/a>te stop, because the caller\u2019s report was not sufficiently reliable,\u201d she wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel, noting that the \u00adreport of gun possession by itself didn\u2019t \u00adindicate criminal conduct.<\/p>\n

In another Fourth Amendment case, \u00addecided in 2019, Barrett concluded that federal drug agents violated the Constitution when they searched a suspected heroin dealer\u2019s apartment based on the consent of a woman who answered the door but didn\u2019t live there. Because the search was invalid, she said, the evidence it discovered should have been suppressed.<\/p>\n

In a 2018 opinion for a unanimous Seventh Circuit panel, by contrast, Barrett said it didn\u2019t matter whether the warrant authorizing tracking software that identified users of a child-pornography Web site was valid. The evidence could be used anyway, she said, based on \u201cthe good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another Barrett opinion that may give pause to civil libertarians is her 2019 dissent from a decision in which the majority held that state and federal courts had erred by rejecting a defendant\u2019s claim that prosecutors improperly withheld exculpatory \u00adevidence when they tried him for attempted murder. While Barrett agreed that prosecutors should have revealed that the victim, whose testimony was crucial in \u00adobtaining a conviction, had undergone hypnosis prior to the trial, she thought the issue wasn\u2019t clear enough to override the determination of an Indiana appeals court.<\/p>\n

Although that dissent might be cited as a reason to question Barrett\u2019s commitment to due process, her 2019 opinion in a case \u00adinvolving a Purdue University student who was suspended for a year based on uncorroborated sexual assault allegations points in another direction. She said the university\u2019s \u201cfundamentally unfair\u201d adjudication of those charges \u201cfell short of what even a high school must provide to a student facing a days-long suspension.\u201d<\/p>\n

When it comes to federal sentencing, an area where Scalia\u2019s Sixth Amendment views had a major impact, Barrett has \u00adrepeatedly (although not always) sided with criminal defendants who argued that their punishment was more severe than the law allowed. Her record on qualified immunity \u2014 a court-invented doctrine that shields police officers from federal civil-rights claims when their alleged misconduct didn\u2019t violate \u201cclearly established\u201d law \u2014 is also mixed. Still, she wrote a reassuring 2019 opinion that demolished the argument of a detective who maintained that he couldn\u2019t be sued for lying in a probable-cause statement that was used to charge a man with murder.<\/p>\n

Barrett\u2019s critique of categorical bans on gun ownership by people with felony records, which she argues are inconsistent with the Second Amendment, will alarm gun-control supporters. But her scholarly 2019 dissent in a case involving a man convicted of mail fraud shows how her originalist approach casts doubt on policies that permanently deprive people of the fundamental right to armed self-defense even when they have never demonstrated violent tendencies.<\/p>\n

Barrett, in short, isn\u2019t the sort of conservative who automatically defers to the government\u2019s position when its actions \u00adimpinge on constitutional rights. The \u00adSupreme Court could use more skeptics like her.<\/p>\n

Twitter: @JacobSullum <\/em>\n <\/div>\n

\n

For forums sites go to Forum.BuradaBiliyorum.Com<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

If you want to read more News<\/a> articles, you can visit our News category.<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Source<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“#Amy Coney Barrett has a fine record on civil liberties” Democrats worry that Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, an originalist and textualist who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia in the late 1990s, will emulate him if confirmed by the Senate. We could do a lot worse. Although progressives often portrayed Scalia as an authoritarian…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":78505,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/nypost.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2020\/09\/SPL5189975_Amy-Coney-Barrett.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1200","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[70897],"tags":[73426,71982,73624,73226,71404],"class_list":["post-78504","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-9-29-20","tag-amy-coney-barrett","tag-civil-liberties","tag-rulings","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78504","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=78504"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78504\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/78505"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78504"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78504"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78504"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}