'I Am So Confused': Amy Coney Barrett Gets Into Back-And-Forth With Lawyer Over Green Card Standards
Credibility score: 62/100 — Mostly Credible. Mixed credibility - some claims are solid, others need verification.
Claims analyzed
Government never disputed clear and convincing burden applies at border — Dubious (45/100)
Gov never conceded that — they're fighting the burden entirely at border 🚩
Gov must prove clear and convincing evidence of offense at re-entry — Solid (85/100)
👌
2nd Circuit created conflict by requiring burden at border — OK (65/100)
Legit circuit split but 'disrupted enforcement' is lawyer spin ⚠️
2nd Circuit created circuit conflict, disrupted enforcement — Opinion (50/100)
Lawyer's spin on why SCOTUS should hear it — classic advocate move 👌
Gov teed up case assuming clear & convincing standard applies — Solid (80/100)
👌
Barrett: Win means clear & convincing applies at border — Opinion (50/100)
Barrett nailing the logical implication — sharp as always ⚖️
Win just means burden exists at border, per Judge Sullivan — Solid (75/100)
👌
Correct standard for border determination is clear and convincing evidence — Opinion (50/100)
Lawyer pitching their preferred standard like it's settled law 👩⚖️🤔
Barrett confused: thought lawyer argued clear and convincing at border — Just Vibes (50/100)
"I am so confused" — Justice delivering the highlight reel 😂👏
Gov't acknowledges border determination but wants lower standard — OK (65/100)
Accurately reporting opposing counsel's position — lawyer doing lawyer things ⚖️
See the full analysis with sources and timestamps →