All the “inside” reports are saying that Trump will nominate Barrett this afternoon, not a tough call, so, of course, the utterly and completely un-biased news along with Dem pundits are working to tell us why she is bad, such as
Here is what #AmyConeyBarrett can expect from #JoeBiden and his leftist allies. Character assassination. Personal attacks. #Shame #Adoption https://t.co/BP2lxndBfU
— Tim Huelskamp, Ph.D. (@CongHuelskamp) September 25, 2020
And, of course they think the adoption should be investigated. They’re also coming after her religion, leading to a piece by a college president and big time law teacher in defending her from those attacks. And then
Many Republicans have hailed Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s apparent nominee to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as a dream candidate: a relatively young woman of impeccable conservative credentials. The federal circuit court judge believes that life begins at conception. She is a critic of the Affordable Care Act, the Obama-era health care law that Trump wants badly to dismantle. She has upheld restrictive immigration statutes while protecting corporations from lawsuits.
But she has also been consistently against injecting politics into the business of judging, presenting a potential problem for those who see the Supreme Court as a means of achieving ends not possible through legislation.
“I would have had no interest in the job if the job was about policymaking and about making policy decisions,†she said last year in an address at conservative Hillsdale College. “If we reduce the courts to mere politics, then why do we need them? We already have politicians,†Barrett added a little later. “Courts are not arenas for politics.â€
Somehow, this is supposed to be a bad thing that she’s interested in deciding things based on the Constitution, rather than political belief.
“I conceive of justices as being driven by first-order commitments to constitutional methods rather than solely by partisan political preference,†she wrote in a 2013 article for the Texas Law Review. Later in the same article, she wrote that “partisan politics are not a good reason for overturning precedent. But neither are they a good reason for deciding a case of first impression.â€
The word “precedent†is especially loaded when it comes to abortion. Precedent, on that issue, is Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania, both of which outlined conditions under which an abortion could be performed. Republicans’ judicial nominees worried that they will be depicted as abortion foes often make overtures about respecting precedent. They usually do so when pressed in a congressional hearing room, not in their own academic writings.
Notice that Democrats immediately jump to abortion on demand, because that is really their #1 Sacrament. How did one political party become so enamored with protecting the ability to kill the unborn?
Expect the serious hit pieces to start this evening and for Sunday editions
