Amy Coney Barret

[Jim Eshelman]

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, was born January 28, 1972 in New Orleans, LA. No time is available.

Her Sun is in Capricorn. This tells us a great deal about her. In modern politics, it's a classic marker of extreme conservatism, with examples including Dick Cheyney, Jeb Bush, Ronald Reagan, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Kellyanne Conway, Brett Kavanaugh, and John Roberts. (Even liberal-leaning Capricorns are on the conservative end of liberalism, e.g., Pete Buttigieg. And there's an occasional FDR.)

Capricornian conservatism characteristically has two forms. One is, of course, a focus on fiscal conservatism. The other side of it is a sometimes radical libertarianism. Sidereal Capricorn's core traits arise from motivation to survive and secure physical and psychological autonomy. I understand a bit of why Tropical astrologers have no cognitive dissonance in thinking these people Aquarian because there often is a rebellious expression (for example, more American Revolution and American Civil War generals had Capricorn Suns; and there is the occasional FDR, who had Uranus angular, though they conveniently forget McKinley). This is not Uranian rebellion though, not a demand for freedom for its own sake or for all. Instead, it's a solitary, cut-off, non-mingling "leave me alone to live my life on my own own terms, don't take my money or my guns, and stay off my land" demand fort autonomy mixed with aggressive individualism to back it up. That is, it's Capricorn's Saturn plus Mars.

Perhaps, though, Judge Barret more resembles Capricorn Joan of Arc mixed with a little Eva Braun. (If you're interested, you've read her story by now, so I don't need to repeat her history of legal decisions or concerns about their intermingling with her distinctive religious beliefs.)

Her judicial philosophy is originalism and she's respected as a scholar of original statutory interpretation.

Her scholarship likely arises from her Gemini Moon, a placement marking curiosity, inquiry, and intellectual pursuits as central (and provides us some of the great scientific minds of history (that's encouraging). - I take no comfort in the fact that the best known figures with Sun in Capricorn and Moon in Gemini are Franklin Roosevelt and Janis Joplin: The list also includes Brett Kavanaugh. For every Leonard Nimoy, Moon in Gemini gives us an Osama Bin Ladin; for every Jerry Brown, it gives us a Mike Pence.

Her untimed chart doesn't give us much to go on for aspects. The (possibly) closest are Moon aspects - which may or may not exist, depending on time of day. In fact, there is nothing else close except a Saturn-Pluto trine, which reinforces the libertarian conservatism.

Right now, as she comes to public attention, transiting Pluto squares her Mars and Uranus has recently squared her Sun (it will be back). Though I expect her to be approved readily enough (based on political thinking, not astro-logic), transiting Saturn's conjunction with her Mercury casts an astrological doubt on that. - It would be so nice to have a birth time for such considerations.

Progressed Sun is still more than a degree from square her Jupiter *(unless she was nearly at the end of the day). Also, the solar arcs that we can identify (those that do not rely on angles or Moon) seem to weigh against her: Directed Neptune may conjoin her Mercury. Directed Saturn squares her Uranus.

We can't determine the angles of her solar return without a birth time, but partile aspects may give a clue. On her last birthday, Saturn conjoined Pluto atop her Mercury and Venus-Neptune squared Mars. Again, birth time is everything in tipping the scales on this. For example, if she was born at noon, progressed SSR Moon squared natal Jupiter in May; if she was born at 2-3 AM, progressed Moon hits Jupiter in the next month.

PS - I'm not sure why Donald Trump likes her so much. (I suspect it's that his advisors on judicial appointees like her so much: He gave her first judicial appointment in 2017 and, despite her inexperience, almost at once gave her the Supreme Court appointment that went to Kavanaugh.) Among other interchanges, her Mars squares his Saturn and her Saturn squares his Mars-Ascendant. These aspects don't inspire great affection or even, necessarily, respect. The only positive-leaning strong aspect between them is her Uranus conjunct his Jupiter within half a degree. (Even her Mercury opposite his Venus is compromised by her Mercury opposite his Saturn.)

[Soft Alpaca]

I'm not sure how I feel about her, Jim (and keep in mind my kind of conservative nature very much matches this said above). One one hand the Moon-Gemini could bring out her devout catholic background (making an old grouchy nun-with-ruler type character) or perhaps she will set a precedent to leave religion at the door step in a type of mental-consertivism to truly do the Job that is the break down and ruling of legislation.

As a general note I like this luminary combination (and of course people like Joplin). It would be interesting to see this go through (however who knows what will happen). In terms of the balance of three systems the supreme court has for the most part kept my favor (versus the other 2 and the media). Many folks are upset about the replacement of ginsburg like this (yet the electorial college still stands, drinking-smoking-voting-tax paying- and going to war still aren't alignment, and my people are still carrying race cards so I doubt it will come to fruition).

I am however a general fan of the idea of a female economical conservative with a heavy libertarian core as a supreme court member. Less big government more personal rights all the way (as someone who wants to start a huge weed farm this would be a huge gain for the future of my family).

Also on Trump liking her, this time he is really just trying to do his Job (I'm not surprised by this display of pure business over sentiment, and I don't think she would even allow any sentiment to grow too he honest).

[Jim Eshelman]

Yes, you and I have different political priorities (which is not a surprise and is utterly OK with me ).

In the long view, in the balance between protected individualism and shared social responsibility, I think the most important priorities need to be collective responsibility for all - a sense that we all thrive best when we all thrive best, and the best society would be one in which the greatest number of us are committed to the thriving of the greatest number of us.

I think that, in the short view - right now! - we need this even more than usual. The last four years have been about division and ripping apart. I think no factor is more important right now than the healing of dissolving divisions and bringing factions back together respectfully and cooperatively.

Only this year did I realize that all of my life - every single election in which I have voted since 1972 - I've never voted for someone based on thinking they would do something good for me personally. I've always voted based on what I thought was the best priorities for our nation (state, county, city) as a whole. I've usually been shocked to see someone voting based on what they wanted for themselves - felt it like they'd slapped me in the face - but never examined that closely.

I understand this "being shocked" is a narrowness in me, something I was missing, so I'm watching it differently now. It's a brand new discovery that most (not all) liberal-leaning people I know also vote for what they think the collective needs, while most (not all) conservative-leaning people I know vote for what they think a candidate will do to benefit their lives specifically.

It's the "individual vs. collective" polarity - these polarities need to be in balance. Political trends will swing between them. I'd like a good, long run of a president and Congress that are primarily committed to what benefits the nation as a whole and not what benefits particular individuals. I know that at some point it will go overboard and need a good hard smack in the other direction for a while, but I'd like those to be brief and uncommon.

I understand, of course, that this is just me talking about me

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

I was never shocked some people voted for their own self-interest and nothing else. What always surprised me is how many people would vote for someone else's self-interest going directly against their own.

[Soft Alpaca]

I've never voted mind you, as I believe a social collective (which I agree one adds there personal vote as a twist to add diversify to the pool of said social collective) is a failure in this current time and has occured many times in history, for example the original democratic slave owning votes were casted in light of the current social perspective (to which PA in and of itself neither applied itself to either the north or souths perspective- we really aren't a swing state if you think about it).

In my own mind the so-called social perspective has been wrong sense all men were "Created equal", and in actuality color mattered and still does matter first.

[Jim Eshelman]

I agree with your observations, more or less.

The difference is that I think the ethical action (and the only one that can make a real change) is to vote. It's pretty much guaranteed that silent voices will never be heard.

[Soft Alpaca]

The difference in us there is that I believe (honestly) that the constitution of the USA should be uprooted, the white male hierarchy should fail (my tribe was of course lead by females who can better apply themselves per situation as a norm versus acting purely on theroy- which actually occured in the very statements made between you and Jsad lol) .

I believe that the vote (until every single service member, - at very least/minium votes get counted regardless of local origin. Mind you this is like my version of a baby step not even scratching the surface) will remain ineffective and the disestablishment of the electorial college is abousetly critical to my own personal view point of the constitution, to which I won't mind a disestablishment of entirely (exception the the bill of rights).

Something else of course to mind is the generational and regional influences we experience, honestly however dispite these, on a purely intellectual level I normally agree with you.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

The constitution might get uprooted, but the white male hierarchy won't fail. It will get stronger. It will absorb the lighter skinned Hispanics (already mostly has) and those in the minorities will lose what gains they have made. That's one of the things "being in the minority" means.

Remember black men couldn't vote till white men said they could.
Women couldn't vote till white men said they could.
Slavery didn't end till white men said it should, and then white men fought white men to make it end.

[Soft Alpaca]

Your underestimating your own gender.This time that is the breaker of the mark of colonistic male society, you are the apocalypse Jsad, females are the difference in the equation- the variable. This is the difference that Einstine would contribute to not doing something over again, with no change and expecting different results (aka crazy).This time humanity has decided that the female matters, that the environment matters (the left is screaming about forests, the right screaming about cities. Both environments, both being destroyed for an expectation of peace within subjugation- the oil and hearts.

Even "the loony" orange haired "man baby" - Trump; is saying there is a need for the female presence in politicians and modern society. His push for a woman (who has never been president- Unlike both african americans and homosexuals) is crucial to him winning the race. If Kamala becomes president through Biden ... most females I talk to who are "conservative", are terrified that this will prove a woman can't stand without a man (they believe if a female will be president she will be the nomination, not the second step. ). {RIP RBG}

[Jim Eshelman]

Then again... at present time, there is no way a woman could be elected president. None at all.

It's not because of any weakness in the woman, but the resistance in society.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Most women are perfectly aware at this time, no woman could win the presidency. Look at Mrs. Clinton. She had it in the bag.. till the bag was stolen by men shielding their crotches while desperately blocking people from voting. Too many conservative women vote the way their men tell them to, and believe everything they are told.

Have you seen the ads with the 40 year old footage of rioting in the LA streets being passed off as what's happening "in the cities" now? So many of those people are dead, I'm surprised the orange one isn't promising to protect suburban women from zombies.

[Veronica]

Then again... at present time, there is no way a woman could be elected president. None at all.

It's not because of any weakness in the woman, but the resistance in society.

What woman would truelly have the *time* to spare to be President.
Between raising kids, working full time, working part time, cleaning, errands, family, health and economic......

And that (running woman ragged day in and out) imho is
On purpose......

[Soft Alpaca]

To the point of Amy Barrett, I doubt she will be letting her husband influence the way she votes on supreme court decisions. To my own point I understand why if could seem abousetly dissatisfactory if Kamala or any Woman becomes the first female president without it being her own victory (I'd have even more disappointment in today's society). I believe that a woman could do this even with all the other things listed, however I agree with the on purpose part.

Also on her Mars in Pisces, I wonder how this will pan out in the court room (maybe there is possible occult or cult vibes in her life).

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

To the point of Amy Barrett, I doubt she will be letting her husband influence the way she votes on supreme court decisions.

I doubt her husband would vote any differently. I don't think she discusses cases with him either. But she's not a typical Conservative woman.

Also on her Mars in Pisces, I wonder how this will pan out in the court room (maybe there is possible occult or cult vibes in her life).

Um... possible. She's a member of the People of Praise charismatic group within the Catholic Church. I'm not inclined to think that's a very big deal, but a lot of people do.

At least she's consistent. She's anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. I see a huge difference between those views, (one involving someone else's life) but I am pleased she's anti-death penalty. Trouble is she has said before she would recuse herself on death penalty cases because of her beliefs. Hope she's consistent on both views in that as well.

I've said all I have to say on the subject on an astrology board, at least.

[Soft Alpaca]

I also appreciate consistency, very very deeply, at least in my own work and drive.

Either way I'm interested to see how this all plays out..

[Jim Eshelman]

I propose a birth time of 2:08 PM, for anyone who wants to experiment with it.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Based on the Senate vote, the "swearing in" ceremony for the political ads, the actual swearing in later today, or something else?

[Jim Eshelman]

The entire time of her hearings and approval have been under October 9 SLR. When these have striking features they are usually the best way to narrow a likely birth time (at least crudely). Starting with a noon birth time (center of the possible 24-hour range), we find that the SLR has Moon-Sun-Jupiter atop natal Moon-Uranus - the Moon positions being less certain, of course. It seems highly likely that this would be on the SLR angles.

Of the four possible birth times that would put this on SLR angles, only two of them really include Moon - making it a Moon-Sun-Jupiter T-square. A little more filtering with spot checks for the few other events available puts one of these clearly ahead of the other: The time for somewhere around quarter past 2 PM is a stand-out.

Starting with this, we find that the Demi-SLR is similar to the SLR, though a little contentious. It does, however, keep the Moon-Jupiter conjunction reasonably strong, square an even more angular Mars, has the virtue of putting natal Jupiter near Ascendant. (There re other features.) -- Then (a quite nice discovery) the same time puts transiting Jupiter closely angular in the SSR for Washington as well! The solunars all fall in place for this one time.

Quotidians for yesterday were pretty descriptive - e.g., one put natal Sun on MC - but the 2:12 PM working time brought Solar Arc Uranus square natal MC - within orb, but late in the orb. Adjusting to 2:08 PM made that exact (but anything in that time range is descriptive).

For yesterday afternoon when she was confirmed and Justice Thomas swore her in, SQ MC exactly squared SSR Jupiter. SNQ MC was in orb of conjunct natal Sun (but is closer today). Her Sun is important for its own sake, and also because transiting Uranus sure natal Sun is her most important transit.

The math and filtering all done, I noticed that she has natal Venus near MC for South Bend (fitting) and that the resulting natal chart does no violence to what we know of her (quite the contrary).

So it's a start, and not a bad use of 20 minutes, I think.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Thanks for explaining.