Bloomberg News’ Sahil Kapur is getting a lot of attention for a tweet he posted Saturday morning about an “interesting” 2016 law article by possible Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett:
Interesting 2016 law article by Trump SCOTUS prospect Amy Coney Barrett suggesting true “originalism” requires reversing Brown v. Board of Education, invalidating Social Security as unconstitutional, and declaring West Virginia illegitimate.https://t.co/vydMhQUyHV
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) July 7, 2018
Wow, that is interesting, and it’s racked up nearly 900 retweets as of this writing. Celebs like Debra Messing certainly were alarmed, to say the least.
AMERICA! This is Trump’s choice. Do you agree she represents you and our constitution? https://t.co/wiaJx2iyNq
— Debra Messing (@DebraMessing) July 7, 2018
Howard Dean says Coney Barrett is now “unconfirmable.”
They were never going to appoint a woman in any case. This is as good an excuse as any. She is unconfirmable now. https://t.co/hKwwJbIzf5
— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) July 8, 2018
Kapur’s follow-up tweet, though, has garnered only 71 retweets as of this writing.
It’s not that Barrett is saying she’d actually rule that way. The crux of the piece is about grappling with the tension between originalism and pragmatism on law that’s woven into the nation’s fabric. It’s worth a read.
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) July 7, 2018
A lot of people are saying it is worth a read — particularly Footnote 1, which Kapur seems to have overlooked.
This has gotten hundreds of RTs. https://t.co/wWe1PzhW8t
— Nathan, son of Robert (@NathanWurtzel) July 7, 2018
This is what happens when political reporters try to play gotcha with law articles…
The original misleading tweet now has almost 800 RT’s and countless QT’s from large accounts attacking ACB. ~Zero of those people read any of the actual paper or will ever retract. https://t.co/YYItb5kQnE
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) July 8, 2018
Now over 800 RT’s for the misleading tweet vs 67 for the one that at least correctly identifies the topic. That’s not counting all of the QTs from countless blue check marks (like @DebraMessing and @AshaRangappa_ which clearly didn’t bother to read the paper)
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) July 8, 2018
I urge folks to read all 44 pages. That’s not what the authors suggest: Footnote 1 is key. https://t.co/XwCELtKaZA
— Progressive GOP (@NixonandIke) July 8, 2018
Did you even read footnote 1? We do not want our choice of examples to obscure our argument. We identify some well settled precedents whose consistency with the original public meaning has been challenged, but we recognize that different readers will reach different conclusions
— ?? #SpyGate ?? (@plettkeman) July 8, 2018
I don’t think it suggests that —“If a nonoriginalist precedent is truly part of the constitutional fabric, the Court will not be asked to reconsider it, nor does a commitment to originalism require that any Justice volunteer to do so.”— but Dems will argue it does. https://t.co/Zcwsr75OOc
— Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) July 7, 2018
You’ve not given appropriate weight to the entire article. She specifically cites, for example, how the Supreme Court would never be in a position to reverse Brown v Board as it is a super precedent.
— RNR Maine (@RNRMaine) July 8, 2018
"We do not…examine how any of the precedents we mention would fare under an originalist analysis."
— RNR Maine (@RNRMaine) July 8, 2018
https://twitter.com/MikeCMuller/status/1015607902843916288
https://twitter.com/MorleyGareth/status/1015763788123893760
https://twitter.com/derektmuller/status/1015739124483911680
Thanks for the link to the article which shows clearly your tweet is misleading. Did you read past the first page?
— Rev. Nancy ❄️️ (@revnancyg) July 7, 2018
From the linked article, "Yet the hypothetical is contrived, because no Supreme Court Justice will have to face the question whether paper money is constitutional or whether Brown v. Board of Education was rightly decided." https://t.co/VgXuIfQxfU
— Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) July 7, 2018
Could you please point me to the part of the article that says this? I don't see it.
— Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) July 7, 2018
In fact, the text of the article seems to indicate the exact opposite.
From page 2: pic.twitter.com/KiUgNJrPT0
— Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) July 7, 2018
https://twitter.com/RandyEBarnett/status/1015733973929086976
Factually true, but misrepresented. She says in the opening that reversing these decisions would “wreak havoc” and that they are baked into the fabric of our society. She’s pointing out the conflict between originalist thinking and respect for precedent. https://t.co/xbzyGrA80k
— Steve Schwab (@SDSCHWAB) July 7, 2018
You may want to re-read the paper because the paper presents the argument of "originalism" in order to discuss the consequences of it. Originalism may seek those things but that doesn't mean that Barrett is arguing for it.
— Media Gundam: Exia. (@Mediaverse) July 7, 2018
https://twitter.com/StephBGoldberg/status/1015598609377693696
So making stuff up by jumping to radical conclusions (despite her writings disputing his conclusion) is what passes for journalism these days. https://t.co/eiSo3DXNDy
— Tom Mcclusky (@TMcClusky) July 7, 2018
Stop lying https://t.co/yz006tGtzh
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) July 8, 2018
What’s the O/U on how many of the outraged commenters actually read the article? Low single digits seems about right. https://t.co/Z4xCSF9iv4
— Mike Lowder (@michael_lowder) July 7, 2018
At this point I’m kind of rooting for Trump to choose Amy Barrett based solely on the level of dishonest and deplorable smears that have been launched against her.
I also think she would make a good SCOTUS Justice.
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) July 8, 2018
Related:
'BLATANT FALSEHOOD'! CAP gets BUSTED for this LIE about possible SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett https://t.co/A1u5HoaocK
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) July 3, 2018