Tuesday, October 13, 2020

Republicans Say Barrett Should Be Given (As Soon As Possible) A Lifetime Position On The Highest Court In The US, Despite Her Refusal To State:
(A) If A President Has Authority To Delay An Election,
(B) If Presidents Should Ensure Peaceful Transfers Of Power,
(C) If Voter Intimidation Is Illegal,
(D) If Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Abolished,
(E) If She Thinks In Vitro Fertilization Is "Manslaughter" And Should Be Criminalized,
(F) If She Believes Women Should Have Control Over Their Own Bodies,
(G) Whether Racial Slurs Do Or Do Not Create An "Abusive" Work Environment,
(H) A Defense Of Her Use Of Outdated And Offensive Terms In A LGBTQ Rights Case (She Also Lied About Never Having Discriminated Against Anyone Because Of Sexual Orientation),
(I) If She Would Vote To Abolish The Affordable Care Act,
(J) If She Would Recuse Herself In A Case Involving The Outcome Of The 2020 Election.
Also, She Has Been A Paid Speaker Five Times For A Hate Group That Defends The Sterilization Of Transgender People Abroad And She Believes The 14th Amendment (Abolishing Slavery) Is "Possibly Illegitimate"


Judge Barrett, in your opinion, is the act of murder against the law?
"I can't characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation."

What about the rape and torture of young children? Should that be a crime in the United States?
"I can't characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation."

 

150 Civil & Human Rights Groups Oppose Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett
The groups point to Barrett suggesting in 2017 that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, and her signature on a 2006 advertisement in an Indiana newspaper calling for the end of the legal right to abortion. In 2016, Barrett also appeared to criticize Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark Supreme Court decision that resulted in marriage equality for same-sex couples. . . .

In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. AutoZone, Barrett ruled against an African-American worker whose employer involuntarily transferred him to another store as part of a practice of assigning African-American employees to stores in African-American neighborhoods. In Doe v. Purdue University, Barrett wrote an opinion that allowed a male student who was credibly accused of committing sexual assault and suspended from the university to advance a Title IX lawsuit against the university, alleging he was discriminated against because he was a man.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), founded in 1940 as the first civil and human rights law organization in the United States:
announced its objection to the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump's nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the United States Supreme Court. A report outlining the organization's objection to the process undertaken by the President and the Senate since the death of Justice Ginsburg, and the stakes of this confirmation for core civil rights protections, accompanied the statement opposing Judge Barrett's confirmation. . . .
"This process should not occur until the next president has been inaugurated and the next session of Congress has been seated in January 2021," said Sherrilyn Ifill, LDF's President and Director-Counsel. "The fact that the United States Senate is prepared to rush through a confirmation hearing and vote to fill a Supreme Court vacancy while millions of voters are engaged in early voting and casting absentee votes, and less than one month before the general election for the President and for Senate seats across 34 states – one in which millions of ballots have already been cast – is an unconscionable political power grab. It taints the process, the nominee, and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
"The troubling record of Judge Barrett makes the prospects of this confirmation even more objectionable. From voting rights to affirmative action, to health care and abortion rights, the record and judicial philosophy of Judge Barrett constitutes a threat to the protection of core civil rights. Our report outlines the gravity of our concerns about this process and Judge Barrett's judicial record." . . .
On five separate occasions, Judge Barrett was a paid speaker of the Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a result of its support for the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; defense of state-sanctioned sterilization of transgender people abroad; and its contentions that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia. In addition, Judge Barrett, in a 2016 speech, contended that Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which also prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, does not protect transgender persons from discrimination because, in her view, "no one . . . would have dreamed of that result" at the time the law was enacted. . . .
Although many have described Judge Barrett as being in the mold of Justice Scalia, her judicial philosophy is even more extreme than that of Justice Scalia.
Judge Barrett has advocated for a concerning approach to following judicial precedent (otherwise known as "stare decisis") and has described constitutional stare decisis as especially weak. She believes judges should generally decide cases as they see fit, rather than based on reliance interests or other stare decisis considerations – a notion which places longstanding civil rights protections in grave danger.
Judge Barrett's adherence to an extreme version of constitutional originalism, a doctrine which purports that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its understood meaning at the time of ratification, appears to be fundamentally inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment's express commitment to equal citizenship under law.
The judge's writings suggest that . . . she believes [Brown v. Board of Education] may have been incorrectly decided in accordance with her interpretation of originalism. Judge Barrett has also suggested that, while she does not think it would ever be invalidated by a court, the Fourteenth Amendment [which outlawed slavery] may also be "possibly illegitimate." . . .
Posted by at
Labels:

2 comments:

laura k said...

Great post. I'm not watching the hearings, so this is a very good alternative. Plus what a headline.

I can't imagine anyone using the expression "sexual preference" anymore. It reminds me of "colored people". Something you hear once every few years and wonder about the mindset of the person who said it.

Wednesday, October 14, 2020 6:41:00 AM
allan said...

Granted, it is the person's "preferred" gender of sexual partner, but it implies that preference was a conscious choice after some deliberation. ... Yesterday, I read a very recent interview with Bob Mould and he used the term.

She has been often referred to as the "female Scalia".
Other reasonable people have said she is to the right of Scalia.
She's only 48. She could be ruining lives for the next 30-40 years.

Wednesday, October 14, 2020 12:36:00 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)