Quote: Notorious ACB? No and no. Trump’s nominee is no RBG.
By Robin Givhan (Washington Post) September 27, 2020 at 8:55 a.m. GMT+8
.......
On an overcast Saturday evening in the Rose Garden, President Trump announced
Amy Coney Barrett as his nominee for the Supreme Court. And more than the woman herself, the flags were the centerpiece of the ceremony. They flew from poles. The lined the colonnade. They served as backdrop.
........
Nonetheless, Republicans have already begun referring to Barrett as ACB or Notorious ACB, in an echo of the Notorious RBG moniker that liberals bestowed on Ginsburg because of her powerful dissents and her history-making work tearing down laws that enforced gender discrimination. Barrett’s nomination process may well go down in history as notorious. And if she is confirmed, she may build a distinguished legacy. But at the moment, she is merely the peg the Republicans needed posthaste.
-------
Source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/26/notorious-acb-no-no-trumps-nominee-is-no-rbg/
Here, ACB stands for Amy Coney Barrett and RBG for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The question here is how to understand the phrase "Notorious ACB? No and no" in the headline.
What does the phrase mean?
It seems to have two possible meanings to me:
(1) The phrase means "Is ACB notorious? No. Not at all."
(2) The phrase means "Is notorious ACB qualified to fill the vacancy left by RBG? The answer is NO! NO! She is not qualifed at all."
Which is correct? (1) or (2)? Logically, I think (2) is correct.
Am I on the right track?