Read on Twitter
Here is a thread of posts summarizing Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s judicial and scholarly stances. I haven’t read all the original sources myself, but still find these to be informative—and they take you to the original sources. I will add more as I come across them.
Stare decisis has divided Originalists. The “weak theory” is probably stronger than how the Justices actually respect precedent. https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/judge-barrett-on-stare-decisis/
Judge Barrett seems sound on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. I’m pretty sure, with her, we’ll start seeing SCOTUS engage. Https://reason.com/2020/09/23/amy-coney-barrett-thinks-the-second-amendment-prohibits-blanket-bans-on-gun-possession-by-people-with-felony-records/
This is heartening. https://reason.com/2020/09/23/amy-coney-barrett-demolishes-the-qualified-immunity-claim-of-a-detective-who-framed-a-man-for-murder/
For a “conservative” judge, this “mixed” record is pretty good. https://reason.com/2020/09/21/scotus-contender-amy-coney-barretts-mixed-record-in-criminal-cases/
This piece by @damonroot succinctly summarizes how Judge Barrett’s approach differs from mine. His source is her essay partially disagreeing with my “Our Republican Constitution.” I wish it was otherwise. But never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. https://reason.com/2020/09/24/amy-coney-barrett-and-the-problem-of-conservative-judicial-deference/
