Saturday, 19 April 2025

What’s Up With Justice Amy Coney Barrett Siding With Liberal Justices!? (Karoline Leavitt Responds During WH Briefing)

100 Percent Fed Up
Hits: 10

President Trump’s choice of Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg after her death in 2020 has been a doubled-edged sword for conservatives.

On one hand, Supreme Court Justice Barrett was one of the decisive factors leading to the overturning of Roe vs Wade, ending the decades old misconception that killing the unborn should somehow be considered a Constitutional right.

But there have been other cases, other issues, other votes in which Justice Barrett didn’t exactly stick to conservative principles.

One of those most recent turncoat moments happened in January, when Justice Barrett sided with the three liberal Justices.

In that ruling, she voted to DENY President Trump’s request to halt his sentencing in the Manhattan case just days before he would re-assume the Presidency alongside the courts’ liberal votes.

But that wouldn’t be the last time Justice Barrett chose to side against President Trump, and stand with the liberals on the Supreme Court.

Just two days ago the same thing happened again!

With the Supreme Court landing a 5-4 decision to put Judge Boasberg in his place and hand President Trump back his Constitutional authority to deport illegals, she again came out AGAINST the President!

Justice Barrett actually joined those three liberal judges again in voting AGAINST President Trump’s authority to deport dangerous illegals from American streets!

And what’s more, she even argued that the Supreme Court shouldn’t have intervened in Judge Boasberg’s attack on the Presidency to begin with!

What in the world keeps pushing this supposedly ‘conservative’ Justice into the liberal lane!?

One White House Correspondent actually asked WH Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt that exact question during yesterday’s WH briefing.

Cara Castronuova, a reporter for Lindell TV and investigative journalist for the Gateway Pundit, shared the clip with Leavitt’s answer to her question.

Here’s that clip, with the full screen version below for easier viewing:

And here is the full text of Castronuova’s post, detailing exactly what she asked the WH Press Secretary — and giving her take on the situation:

WHAT’S THE DEAL WITH THE FRAUDULENT JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT?

Barrett sided with loony lib justices and Tren de Aragua gangs, after throwing J6 political hostages under the bus last year in another example of her despicable interpretation of the law (where she again sided with vindictive libs).

I asked Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt the administration’s comment to Barrett at today’s Press Briefing at The White House.

Cara Castronuova- “President Trump has designated Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization and deported its members while also moving to restrict Venezuela’s oil exports. Is the administration preparing additional military or economic actions against Venezuela and the Maduro regime?

“And my second question is about Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Does the administration have a comment on her decision to go with the liberals, and to go actually with the Tren de Araguas?
This is the same Justice that actually sided against January 6th hostages last year. So does the administration have a comment? Are they disappointed in Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett?”

Karoline Leavitt- “To your first question I do not have any to readout in terms of Venezuela. The President has imposed secondary tariffs on the Maduro regime and on Venezuela in the form of oil which is obviously going to have a crippling effect on the Maduro Regime and that’s the intended effect of this administration. As for the justice you mentioned, as for the Supreme Court, we’ve made our feelings very clear- we believe this was a massive victory. Certainly we wish this was a 9-0 decision because we firmly believe the President was well within in his Constitutional authority and the Supreme Court made that very clear last night. They put Judge Boasberg in his place. We called onto Supreme Court not reign in these judges, who are acting as Judicial activists – not real arbiters of the truth and the law, and that is exactly what we saw the Supreme Court do yesterday.”

UNJUST Justice Barrett IS THE WORST. They don’t make immaculate justices like Clarence Thomas or Alito anymore. Praying that those two guys live long, long lives. Neil Gorsuch too.

In the end God wins.

Justice Barrett’s shocking unwillingness to take a conservative view of the deportation issue regarding these dangerous illegals has definitely earned her a lot of MAGA hate.

She was the only conservative to dissent to President Trump’s Executive authority in this matter, according to a report in Newsweek:

Conservative Supreme Court judge, Amy Coney Barrett, has sided with the court’s liberal wing in opposing the use of wartime legislation to deport civilians, but did not agree with some criticisms of the Trump administration.

On April 7, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to use the wartime Alien Enemies Act to deport criminal suspects from the U.S. but said they must get a court hearing.

It comes after the Trump administration deported more than 200 Venezuelan nationals, whom the U.S. alleges have ties to the Tren de Aragua street gang.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s emergency request while legal challenges proceeded.

Amy Coney Barrett was the sole conservative to dissent, siding with the three liberal judges: Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

However, Coney Barrett was very careful in choosing which parts of Sotomayor’s strident dissenting opinion she supported.

While Kagan and Brown Jackson put their names to Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion in total, Coney Barrett only agreed with Part II and Section B of Part III.

That means that, while Coney Barrett agreed with Sotomayor’s overall opinion, she avoided some of Sotomayor’s most colorful criticisms of the Trump administration.

For example, in Part I, Sotomayor alleged that the Trump administration was trying to covertly deport people without judicial oversight.

Coney Barrett agreed entirely with Part II of Sotomayor’s opinion, which is far more conciliatory in tone and finds common ground with the court’s conservative majority.

Here, Sotomayor notes that all the Supreme Court justices agree on a crucial point: that anyone facing deportation under the Alien Enemies Act is entitled to a court hearing and due process.

However, Coney Barrett did not shy away from criticizing the court’s conservative majority for taking the case on an emergency basis, without letting it first go through the normal federal appeal court system.

“In its rush to decide the issue now, the Court halts the lower court’s work and forces us to decide the matter after mere days of deliberation and without adequate time to weigh the parties’ arguments or the full record of the District Court’s proceedings,” Sotomayor complained.

The pushback on social media was swift and severe, having already become critical of Justice Barrett for that January vote against President Trump’s request to stay his sentencing in the Manhattan trial.

Multiple popular conservative Pro-Trump accounts have started lambasting Justice Barrett for her failure to stick to conservative principles in her judgments.

The word ‘traitor’ and ‘disgrace’ is starting to be used quite frequently in proximity with any mention of her name online:

And considering this was one of the key security issues that led to President Trump’s sweeping mandate from the American people, the sense that Barrett is playing politics of some kind is not going over well.

Justice Barrett, who has several adopted children, even fell under the sarcastic ire of the Babylon Bee.

Here’s their viral hit piece, presuming that the Supreme Court Justice must have adopted an MS-13 gang member… since her loyalties seem skewed in that direction:

This clip of Justice Barrett’s facial expressions following President Trump’s speech to Congress recently keeps coming to mind.

Does Justice Barrett secretly loathe President Trump?

The measured response by Karoline Leavitt when asked about Justice Barrett’s apparent duplicity notwithstanding, the WH position seemed clear.

It should have been a 9-0 vote; and Justice Barrett was one reason it wasn’t.

WH Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt nevertheless accurately called the Supreme Court decision a ‘smackdown’, according to a story on MSN.com from The Daily Beast:

The White House took a veiled dig at Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett after she sided with liberals to oppose Donald Trump’s deportation flights to El Salvador.

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called the 5-4 SCOTUS decision to allow the administration to resume the deportations a “massive legal victory.”

But she added: “Certainly, we wish this was a nine to nothing decision because we firmly believe that the president was well within his constitutional authority.

“The Supreme Court made that very clear last night, and they put Judge Boasberg in his place,” she added.

Leavitt didn’t mention Coney Barrett by name, but she made it clear that Trump wasn’t happy with her decision to split with her conservative colleagues on the panel.

“We called on the Supreme Court to rein in these judges who are acting as judicial activists and not real arbiters of the truth and the law, and that’s exactly what we saw the Supreme Court do yesterday,” Leavitt added in another pointed remark about the decision.

She said the ruling would allow the administration to keep removing “foreign terrorist invaders” using the Alien Enemies Act.

Leavitt called the tight decision a “smackdown” to James Boasberg, the judge who called a halt to the deportation flights amid questions over their legality. Leavitt branded him a “rogue, low-level district court judge who has relentlessly tried to prevent President Trump from using his constitutional powers as head of the executive branch and as commander-in-chief.”

She added that the “highest court in the land” backed the administration and thanked them for “protecting the Constitution.”

There have been other plausible reasons for Justice Barrett’s departure from conservative principles in her judgements.

Conservative talk show host Jesse Kelly put forward the possibility that Barrett is voting alongside liberals because ‘they’ have targeted her family with violence.

And he shared this headline:

While Barrett’s rulings certainly seem conflicting enough to warrant a deeper look into the plausibility of that scenario, I don’t really think that’s what has caused her to vote with the liberals.

My fear is that she has always had a liberal slant, and in our haste to seat a conservative in the place of Ruth Bader Ginsburg… we all just missed it.

Check out this clip of an answer she gave during her confirmation hearing regarding the ongoing George Floyd situation:

If that isn’t enough to pin the word ‘liberal’ on her, it is certainly enough to recognize a dangerous amount of liberal bias and clear liberal apologist tendencies.

As many have noted, we may have made a huge mistake assuming the conservative underpinnings of Amy Coney Barrett.

That would fill in a lot of blanks in what led Barrett to rule against the Trump Administration over a month ago in a DIFFERENT ruling.

In that case, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 (sound familiar?) that President Trump could not simply freeze funds that had previously been earmarked to be paid out as foreign aid.

Here’s a NewsNation video report that covered that instance of Justice Barrett’s liberal judgement:

The backlash from each of these successive liberal votes from Justice Barrett just keeps growing.

And many are simply arguing that she’s been a wolf in sheep’s clothing all along.

Maybe even a plant by the Deep State to fool conservatives — and President Trump — into thinking he was getting the conservative win he was being promised when he nominated her.

Whatever the reason for Amy Coney Barrett’s liberal decisions, she has decidedly lost the support of President Trump’s conservative base.

And though lower courts are coming under the proposed idea that they might be censured and even impeached for their rogue tendencies…

There is no legal basis by which a Supreme Court Justice who was expected to vote one way, but decides to vote another way instead, can be charged with any actual wrongdoing.

So while Justice Barrett’s liberal voting tendencies seem to be growing more frequent, she isn’t technically doing anything wrong.

She isn’t attempting to insert herself unlawfully into a jurisdiction that isn’t hers, like Judge Boasberg did.

And she isn’t attempting to overstep the high court’s reach — she actually argued that SCOTUS should NOT have intervened in the deportation case.

Unfortunately, it seems that we’re stuck with a liberalized Supreme Court Justice who we wrongly assumed was conservative through and through.

And for the foreseeable future, President Trump will be forced to take into account the likely liberal vote whenever his agendas wind up litigated in the nation’s highest court.

Where conservatism was expected, we now find frequent liberalism from the very Justice who helped defeat federally protected abortions.

They say that ‘wonders never cease’, but neither do surprises… when it comes to Amy Coney Barrett.

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport.

View the original article here.


Source link

Search