Barrett weighs in on Trump third-term talk
Barrett weighs in on Trump third-term talk
Access to this page has been denied
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett weighed in on President Trump floating the idea of a third term, acknowledging the 22nd Amendment prevents more than two terms.
Fox News “Special Report” host Bret Baier said in an interview with Barrett that aired Monday, “The 22nd Amendment says you can only run for office for two terms.”
“True,” replied Barrett, who was nominated by Trump in his first term.
When Baier asked if she thought “that’s cut-and-dried,” Barrett said, “Well, that’s, you know, that’s what the amendment says, right? You know, after FDR had four terms, that’s what that amendment says.”
In an appearance on ABC’s “The View,” Barrett’s liberal colleague, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, was asked if she believes the 22nd Amendment is settled law.
Sotomayor agreed that while the Constitution was settled law, no one had ever challenged the 22nd Amendment regarding running for a third term.
“No one has tried to challenge that. Until somebody tries, you don’t know. So, it’s not settled because we don’t have a court case about that issue, but it is in the Constitution,” she said.
“And one should understand that there’s nothing that’s the greater law in the United States than the Constitution of the United States,” she added.
Roe v. Wade had a court case and was considered settled law. Look how that turned out.
Roe was ways based upon a "right to privacy" in the Due Process Clause. That is, in and of itself, a terrible argument with regards to the constitution. It even laid out groundwork pseudo legislation to dictate when abortions could be preformed. It was getting the right answer with the wrong work. It's not well substantiated without interpretation. It should have been codified a dozen times over, by Congress. It wasn't, and conservatives attacked it, knowing they could win if they had conservative justices. Because it's all based on interpretation.
This is different, fundamentally, because it's clearly laid out in the constitution. Signed, sealed, delivered. I'm all for hating our current SCOTUS system and justices, but this is not something to be concerned about. More pressing, should be the war crimes and treatment of immigrants.
There are several reports, of several lawyers, indicating that this was the court stepping into legislation. That's not the Court's job, they should have directed congress to amend the constitution to ensure a right to privacy for all Americans. Something we do not have. But I am unsure, how that would have played out.