Opinion: Amy Coney Barrett a perfect choice for half of America

The nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett embodies the idea that there isn't just one way for women to think, write and reason about the law.

Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court is truly a triumph of Ginsburg's equality project.

Elizabeth Slattery is an attorney in Washington who writes about the Supreme Court and the separation of powers.

Laura Coates: A judicial selection process that sets Lady Justice's blindfold on fire

I'm uncomfortable.

It's not Judge Amy Coney Barrett's qualifications.

Is Trump the first to seek or even nominate a Supreme Court justice whose record, personal or ideological convictions are music to the ears of even the most partisan politician?

If the framers of the Constitution did not intend for this to be political, the president, an officeholder selected through a national election, would not have been chosen to nominate a justice, and the Senate would not have been expressly empowered to advise and consent on that nomination.

Each has refused and, in the case of Barrett, likely will refuse to reveal how they intend to decide cases in advance -- and will state a deference to the concept of stare decisis, a concept whereby the judiciary respects Supreme Court precedent -- hedging just enough to placate Senate Judiciary Committee members eager to interpret that hedge as a wink and a nod, and just enough to aggravate members who see the insincerity but have no recourse to prove it.

Paul Callan: Amy Coney Barrett has the head, heart and history to fill the SCOTUS seat

Amy Coney Barrett, a 48-year-old judge at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, has the head, heart, and history to be an outstanding Supreme Court justice.

After graduation, she worked as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and later as a law clerk to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Her qualities of selflessness, empathy and heart are demonstrated in her and her husband's decision to adopt two children from hurricane and strife-torn Haiti and to raise a child with Down Syndrome, her youngest Benjamin, who she has described as the children's "favorite sibling."

History: A jurist of formidable intellect, Barrett has authored more than 100 opinions, including some spirited dissents, since being named to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017.

She would undoubtedly agree with the statement of her mentor, Justice Scalia, who described his judicial philosophy as, "I'm an originalist and a textualist, not a nut."

Sadly, the controversial decision of the Republicans to proceed with a Supreme Court nomination on the eve of the presidential election will undoubtedly inspire a bitter and rancorous response from Democrats at the Senate confirmation hearing.

Elliot Williams: If Republicans insist on flouting norms, they should be prepared for the consequences

Judge Amy Coney Barrett should not be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.

This statement has nothing to do with Barrett's record.

It has everything to do with how the confirmation of any replacement for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg represents a flagrant insult to the basic norms of integrity and decency that should govern our country.

In February 2016, some nine months before Election Day, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell started a blockade of Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's selection to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

Within hours of Ginsburg's death, McConnell proclaimed that the Senate would immediately consider a Trump nominee, noting that Garland's nomination was different because the president and Senate were of different parties.

There are many reasons not to proceed with this nomination, and any one of them should be dispositive: polls demonstrate consistently and clearly that the public wants the winner of the election to select the nominee; the Senate has never confirmed a Supreme Court nominee this close to an election; the President has sown doubt about election results and made clear that he wants a hand-picked justice in place to resolve disputes about his own re-election.

What Amy Coney Barrett's nomination means

Presuming Senate confirmation for President Donald Trump's third Supreme Court nomination, Judge Amy Coney Barrett would become the sixth Roman Catholic on the nation's highest court, joining John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Brett Kavanaugh.

If and when Barrett takes her seat on the Supreme Court, that 40-year-old Republican policy goal may well come to fruition.

Barbara A.

Follow her on Twitter @BarbaraPerryUVA.

Shan Wu: Trump is sending a clear message: Make America White again

What strikes me about President Donald Trump's choice of Amy Coney Barrett is who he didn't pick.

A worshipper at former Justice Antonin Scalia's altar of originalism and a child of Cuban exiles, she was the first Hispanic woman appointed to the Florida Supreme Court.

This is exactly what Trump needs in an election that the United States Supreme Court may end up deciding.

There's little danger here of a Justice Neil Gorsuch-like streak of independent thinking ruining an otherwise perfectly good replay of the Supreme Court's Bush v.

His Twitter handle is @ShanlonWu.

Elie Honig: Obamacare could be the first casualty of a newly aligned court

The first and most important thing you need to know about President Donald Trump's selection of Amy Coney Barrett as the next justice of the Supreme Court is this: 6-3.

Once Barrett is confirmed by the Senate, which seems all but certain, given the Republican party's 53-47 Senate majority, the court will consist of six traditionally conservative justices and three liberal ones.

Even before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away, the Supreme Court was already tilted in favor of the conservative bloc, with a 5-4 split.

And even if Barrett is not confirmed in time for the ACA case, a tie vote of 4-4 would uphold a lower court ruling, which struck down the ACA's individual mandate, putting the entirety of the law in jeopardy.