Thread by @hollar_ken

Coincidence Amy Barrett believes Justices’s “opinion” should trump “precedence” in cases like Roe vs Wade?

Argument for HER is w/o original thinking of Justices like her slaves not free & women wouldn’t be able to vote.

She reveals herself in her 2013 hypothetical opinion on...

... what would happen if Roe vs Wade were overturned. She said states would be “free” to ban or keep abortion. Problem is while “states” would be “free” women would no longer be “free” to decide what to do with their own bodies.

Set aside fact Federalist Society (GOP) put in ...

... judges who followed “precedence” ( following what has already been decided ) and picking Barrett so monumentally and obviously gives them a judge not following precedent just to overturn precedent of Roe vs Wade which is a goal of single issue voters voting GOP.

Barrett ...

... in her hypothetical argued, as I said, “states” would be “free” to decide legalizing abortion or not without blinking an eye or mentioning that would let the “state” take away a woman’s right to be “free” what to do with her own body. Quite opposite of usual conservative ...

... argument that the individual citizen not the “state” should decide. My pointing this out is not a “hypothetical” argument like Barrett’s in her “hypothetical” 2013 consideration of overturning Roe vs Wade. You can see it in freedoms taken away in both usual courts and in ...

... court of public opinion. As for courts there are many decisions up to and including SC about women’s health based on forcing a minority religion’s position on the health care of a woman’s body on others despite majority of Americans including majority of Catholics wanting ...

... to keep Roe vs Wade as it is. Why? Maybe protecting 1A freedom of religion even if time immemorial tenets of their own religion are against abortion even if without mother dies.

How can Catholics think that? I don’t know not being Catholic. But I guess they can respect ...

...their own religion without forcing their religion on others whose religions believe differently. Maybe thinking WHOA if we force our religion on others in name of 1A freedom of religion might they not then try to force their 1A freedom of religion on us. Maybe separation of...

... church & state is not so bad.

Counter argument I’ve already heard is if SC judges had not already thought independently ( not followed precedent ) as Barrett approves women would not have “won” right to vote. That’s a disingenuous argument. Women always paid taxes always ...

... should have been able to vote to be fair. Society changed not just judges. Republicans STILL won’t support ERA or equal pay for equal work arguing women don’t need equal pay because they already have equal pay. But they don’t. Some will argue if “SC judges” hadn’t thought ...

... independently slaves wouldn’t be free. Later “racist” SC “separate but equal” took America back to separate Black and white bathrooms still racist disrespect if not outright slavery. Modern SC rolled back voting rights & modern GOP senate won’t bring up anti- lynching law ...

... even though lynchings still take place. Disingenuous arguments.

Trump does not wear a mask at rallies and does not encourage attendees to ( except those behind him seen on camera ) to wear masks or social distance which has led to illnesses even deaths from Covid. Trump...

... has argued people have a “right” not to wear masks or social distance even if it causes deaths. Conversely when it’s politically convenient Trump says “states” have the right to open up. It’s playing politics not public health.

I yesterday saw two pro life protestors ...

...sitting with signs as I drove by. I did not talk to them. If I did I might ask about the tens of thousands of non-fetus children I adopted. Not the cute babies that adopters favor evidently hoping they can mold them in their own images. Pro-life t me means all life. I might...

... ask about the “states” - you know the ones Barrett said would decide if Roe vs Wade were overturned instead of women themselves as determined by Supreme Court - who already tried to rule (often with all or majority men legislators ) that GIRLS - 13 or 12 or 11 - not fully ...

... developed women physically let alone emotionally must carry to term rapist impregnated fetus even if doing so risks their health, actually harms them, or actually kills them. Ditto “states” who decide instead of woman or doctor deciding baby can not be aborted late term ...

... gambling, I guess, that they MIGHT save two lives against medical reality that not aborting can ( and often does ) cost two lives - both mother and child’s lives. Trump and complicit GOP now going with Trump’s hunches with COVID not best science is in my opinion the ...

... best time for all of us to think before we act (vote). McConnell setting a “precedent” no SC judge nominated in election year so wait deny Merrick Garland & let people decide now broken now in another election year. You know like Amy Garrett in her arguments we don’t ...

... always have to follow “precedent” an individual SUPREME Court judge CAN think outside the box.

Unfortunately Amy Barrett checks the box for single issue pro-life voters going for Trump despite her willingness to defy precedence against strict federalist constructionism.

Amy Barrett is a politically convenient SC nominee choice for Trump in this particular election not a conscionable or practical vote for long term balance and integrity in our judicial system.

Regardless GOP senators (representing a mind numbing fewer millions of American...

...citizens than their dem counterparts who are fewer in number but represent millions more voters ) NOT the majority of American people will decide next SC justice.

If recent votes are any indication they will vote for what one man ( Trump ) and one party ( GOP ) wants not ...

... on any discernible principles or common sense or even how founding fathers intended our Constitution to work. Example : Senate’s duty to “advise and consent” does not say “only if and when our party’s President wants us to.”

Vote according.

* “unadapted” not “ I adopted”- spell check - sorry