✅ Fact-checked    

Judge Barrett's appointment — Trump's election triumph?

Conservative lawyer Amy Connie Barrett took the oath of office as a member of the US Supreme Court. Earlier, the Senate, which is mostly Republican, approved the candidate nominated by Trump. During her swearing-in, Barrett once again stated that she would work as a judge, not being guided by her political preferences. However, observers believe that everything is already a foregone conclusion.

This is his true legacy!

Even if the political outcome of Trump's presidency leaves much to be desired, this appointment will leave an indelible mark on the history of the country for many decades, The Daily Telegraph notes:

“Even if the Republicans lose everything next week, at least Trump will leave this legacy to the country, which is critical: whatever Joe Biden tries to do as president, his actions can always be slowed down through the Supreme Court. In foreign policy, the president is still gaining points (in the Arab League, one state after another recognizes Israel), but his most important achievement in domestic politics, namely economic recovery, turned out to be a crossed-out covid. The appointment of Judge Barrett means Trump will leave an indelible mark for generations to come, and a constant reminder that he served in the White House.”

Now Barrett will turn around

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung notes with regret that the Supreme Court will no longer be an institution that can counter the growing polarization of society:

“Now Connie Barrett will have plenty of time to leave her mark on the country's history. ... Actually, she has already noted that she has gradually achieved the restriction of the right to abortion. This did not turn her into the idol of most Americans, but still ensured her popularity in the eyes of very, very many. For all the outrage at the deliberate policy of splitting society, carried out by Trump and his predecessors, we must not forget that ideological contradictions in American society are by no means a chimera. By themselves, they are not a flaw. But the fact of their existence requires the presence in the country of institutions that would be engaged in the search for compromises or would ensure at least respectful coexistence of citizens. And little is left of the mutual respect of people for each other in the United States.”

Rude and shameless

Der Standard regards Amy Coney Barrett's approval as a very deliberate blow to democracy and the rule of law:

“On the one hand, Republicans have achieved this success by dishonest means. In 2016, eight months before the presidential election, they denied Barack Obama the legal right to nominate a judge, and now, a few days before the election, they are pushing their candidate. This is a rude and impartial policy that spits on all sorts of political manners and decency. On the other hand, the country's most important judicial body is losing its democratic legitimacy. Moreover, it risks becoming an institution representing the interests of a rapidly shrinking minority — after all, America is drifting to the left for demographic reasons alone, which, apparently, explains why Republicans are so fanatically fighting for this bastion.”

Now it's important for democrats not to panic

The fact that the Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is talking worldwide about the possibility of expanding the composition of the Supreme Court is a very ill-considered move, says Berlingske:

“In this way, Biden is intervening in a problem that he should — especially on the eve of the elections — stay away from. Even if the justices of the Supreme Court — like anyone else — have their own point of view, there is no reason to tarnish that institution. There are many examples of judges making unexpected decisions based on legal criteria. The most recent example is Trump's tax ruling when two of his appointed judges voted against Trump. ... Biden's initiative was too early and was born in a state of panic. ... It will only lead to the opening of another front in the endless confrontation between the two camps of American politics.”

Views: 211


Add a comment!