In this November 3, 2016 lecture Amy Coney Barrett, speaking more like an analyst than an advocate, said the following about the future of Roe...
"I think people phrase the abortion question, when they think about the Supreme Court, as, 'is Roe vs. Wade going to be overruled?' ...
...We've had 30-plus years of a Court that did take, on the whole, a more conservative approach to the judicial role, and ... Casey vs. Pennsylvania, left Roe largely intact .. I don't think that abortion, or the right to abortion, would change ...
The MN-02 House race will be DELAYED until FEB 9 because the 38-year-old candidate from the Legal Marijuana Now Party died, that's a "major party" in MN, and the law says, "If a major party nominee dies within 79 days of Election Day" you get a special on the 2nd Tues in Feb...
...that's a law enacted in the wake of Paul Wellstone's death, which happened shortly before the 2002 election.
AK: 8 PM E-Day
AZ: 14 days prior
CO: 15 days prior
FL: 22 days prior*
GA: 7 AM E-Day
IA: 1 day prior
KS: unspecific prior
ME: 7 days prior
MI: 7 AM E-Day*
MN: 8 PM E-Day
MT: 1 day prior if using machine
...
NE: 1 day prior
NC: 14 days prior
NV: 14 days prior
NH: when polls close
OH: unspecific prior
PA: 7 AM E-Day
SC: 9 AM E-Day
TX: When polls open but 10/31 in large jurisdictions
WI: When polls open
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...
...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...
If McConnell & the GOP simply held hearings for Garland then rejected him on an up-or-down vote, they wouldn't be subject to hypocrisy charges now.
Why did they bother creating a principle - no nominees in an election year - that they would so quickly abandon?
Here's why...
...Garland's nomination was a nod to the Republican majority. He was long promoted by Orrin Hatch. He was 64 and widely seen as moderate. He would have created an ideologically balanced Court.
To give Garland the platform of hearings would emphasize all that to the public...
...Republicans could still vote No, but they would have to do so while fighting uphill that somehow Garland was some sort of activist judge and Obama was playing politics with the Court.
Instead of letting their long-standing narrative get undercut, they shut down the process...
Disagree. She co-founded the Women's Rights Project at the ACLU. The feminist legal community knew her well and knew she had alternative reasoning to support abortion rights.
But her intellectual honesty in critiquing Roe was likely part of what appealed to Orrin Hatch...