Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, has written roughly 100 opinions in more than three years on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Wow. I read all seven topics, and seven times she came out with an egregious reactionary decision couched in the language of undemocratic victim-blaming and Originalist claptrap. No wonder she is the darling of the Federalist Society. Talk about changing the balance of the court, the angle from RBG to ACB is exactly 180 degrees!
Judging from this, she’s basically another Alito. But I also had to chuckle at that Judge Easterbrook’s argument that requiring funeral rites for fetuses is just like statutes providing for the safe disposal of animal remains. Were a state to have a law requiring that dogs and cats be buried with elaborate funeral rites implying that they had souls and so on, Easterbrook would be right there siding with plaintiffs complaining that the law infringed on their sincerely held religious convictions that pet animals don’t have souls and that the state didn’t have a right to impose this pagan view on them.
When a self-proclaimed “devout” Catholic woman suddenly stops having babies and begins adopting, it’s because she’s been having miscarriages and/or had to terminate a pregnancy early. She thinks she may have committed the ultimate sin and it haunts her very existence.
Nothing is ever said, however, when these women suddenly aren’t reproducing any longer. The husband could have gotten a vasectomy (a mortal sin in the Catholic faith) or they are no longer having sex.
Either way, they become sexually repressed. It surely has affected Barrett’s outlook on life and the justice system that is supposed to separate church and state. She feels unrealistic guilt and must blame someone/something for her inability to live up to the standards she has imposed on herself in the past.
If you grew up Catholic, you know these sorts of women. They try to rule other peoples’ lives and take over your parish to run it with an iron hand. This People of Praise organization preys on them, maybe even more so than young women.
They feel they have failed their husband, their families, God and Humanity. They are systemic victims of an organized religion gone way off track, run by misogynist males (who have their own problems) and a society that doesn’t allow anyone to make mistakes.
There are enough men on the Bench who already confuse government with morality.
Barrett doesn’t have the life experience, court experience or the intellectual stability to make decisions based only on the law. She has adopted all of Scalia’s excuses and cute little labels for inappropriate practices that punish rather than provide justice for our citizens.
The People give the courts power and they don’t have to tolerate less than FULL respect back from the justices who are supposed to be our public servants not deities in their own right.
Handmaiden carrying a deplorable basket.
She ain’t no Disney flick…
Perhaps half of all fertilized human eggs (zygotes) are not carried to term.
Should we have funerals for all of these millions of unborn babies?
“The n-word is an egregious racial epithet,” Barrett wrote in Smith v. Illinois Department of Transportation. “That said, Smith can’t win simply by proving that the word was uttered. He must also demonstrate that Colbert’s use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment.”
I stopped right here. I don’t need to read any more. She’s full of shit.
Not to mention:
“The n-word is an egregious racial epithet,” Barrett wrote in Smith v. Illinois Department of Transportation. “That said, Smith can’t win simply by proving that the word was uttered. He must also demonstrate that Colbert’s use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment.”
I can think of lots of words that describe this woman, but I wouldn’t utter them because it would create a hostile and abusive society.
I find it appalling that she can twist her mind around to conclude being called that name didn’t alter the conditions and environment.
She looks to be all in with comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted.
“Barrett used most of her 37-page dissent to lay out the history of gun rules for convicted criminals in the 18th and 19th centuries.”
When will she use most of a SCOTUS ruling to lay out the history of justifications for slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries, as part of her decision to allow employers to withhold payment from workers, and beat them if they then refuse to work? Justifications for women automatically surrendering property to their husbands upon marriage, and not being able to testify in court without permission from husband? Justifications for denying the vote to working-class males?
“Originalism” is the shallowest of cons. Its professors are liars who speak in bad faith. But it speaks poorly of the entire nation that such bullshit has attained the status it has in popular discussions of law.
Well that’s going to make it hard for Regeneron to make their COVID treatment.
Since it’s made out of stem cells from aborted fetuses.
And nobody has said word 1 about that - and Trump is touting that therapy.
Not to be picky, but the therapy was tested on cells derived from aborted fetuses. Tomayto Tomahto, I know.
I thought they were using the stem cells in the therapy.
If not I’ll quit saying it
Snopes rating: “mixed”
Originalism is a euphemism for going back to white male power, shared by no other group.
Fantastic post!
This is an analysis that provides many cogent and interesting points about Barrett and aids in understanding her. I feel that I know her much better now.
Sandyh explains a lot about the basis for Barrett’s life decisions and the legal opinions past and future.
You can rest assured that Barrett will support some of the most awful court decisions that come her way.
Wasn’t the Second Amendment based on the right of slave holders to carry guns, and use them in hunting down runaway slaves and protecting themselves from slaves revolts?
Shouldn’t this be included when using “originalism” as an analytical and legal tool?
Yes, it would appear so – but Sheldon Whitehouse and others argue that there’s something else going on at the same time.