Thread by @billscher

I don't think Barrett meets the Hawley standard

She has given lots of pro-life signals & judicial opinions that'd weaken Roe. She doesn't revere stare decisis. She has critiqued Roe for the political reverberations it caused. But I'm not aware of a "wrongly decided" statement...

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1308129367810342914

...Does it matter? Obviously not to Hawley and I doubt any other Republican senator. And her overall record is deeply unsettling to any pro-choice advocate.

But there's an element of her comments I think is worth exploring...

.....a Notre Dame magazine article about Barrett's comments during a "Roe at 40" forum said: "By creating through judicial fiat a framework of abortion on demand in a political environment that was already liberalizing abortion regulations state-by-state, she said...

...the court’s concurrent rulings in Roe and Doe v. Bolton 'ignited a national controversy.' Barrett noted that scholars from both sides of the debate have criticized Roe for unnecessarily creating the political backlash known colloquially as 'Roe Rage,'..."...

...article link here magazine.nd.edu/stories/lazy-i… ...

... the ND student paper reported it as follows: "
“'Roe [v. Wade] was a dramatic shift,' she said. 'The framework of Roe [v. Wade] essentially permitted abortion on demand, and Roe [v. Wade] recognizes no state interest in the life of a fetus.'...

...The decision led to a political backlash that legal scholars have termed 'Roe rage.' Barrett said some individuals on the 'pro-choice' side of the abortion issue believe the Court overstepped in Roe v. Wade...

...and should have instead allowed more time for states will [sic] trend toward more permissive laws. She said these people point to 'Roe rage' and its political consequences as evidence."

Article link ndsmcobserver.com/2013/01/law-pr…

...

...Considering that Barrett has also said that life begins at conception and has issued opinions as a judge that would weaken Roe, it's pretty clear she would be quite open to the incrementalist strategy of undermining Roe piece by piece...

...and the fact that she doesn't believe in strict adherence to stare decisis opens the door to the possibility that she would flat overturn Roe if given the opportunity...

...but the "Roe rage" comments also raise the question whether she might flinch at a flat overturning of Roe, for fear of generating a counter-backlash...

...Neither scenario is reassuring to those of us who are defenders of reproductive freedom. But the speed at which action might be taken on Roe factors in to the question: if Democrats control the Senate, are they morally obligated to pack the court?

...

...it's not the sole factor to consider in the court packing question. And of course, we can't really know what might happen, because Supreme Court Justices can behave in surprising ways...

...but the slower SCOTUS moves, the more time Ds would have to recalibrate the Court through traditional means-simply waiting until other conservative vacancies open up when they might have to power to fill them. (Thomas is 72. Alito 70. Roberts' health is a bit of a question)...

...For now, Barrett's record on abortion deserves a deep scrub (without bringing her religion into it). I, for one, would be interested in some questioning about her "Roe rage" comments.

Earlier today, on my new "Scherable" YouTube series, I offered thoughts on what might transpire if Roe was flat overturned, and if court packing can actually prevent it. Check it out! Subscribe!