Graham asks Barrett to define her philosophy as an Originalist: “I interpret the Constitution['s ...] text as text, I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it.”
The Constitution's "text" codifies slavery (among other things). 🙃
Amy Coney Barrett just refused to admit whether or not she'd rule to overturn Obergefell (marriage equality) by giving an evasive, ambiguous answer about whether or not a case challenging it would even make it to the Supreme Court to begin with.
Barrett on the late Justice Scalia: "His philosophy is mine too."
Scalia on the marriage equality decision: "The Supreme Court...has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."
Amy Coney Barrett was a legal fellow with notorious anti-#LGBTQ hate group, Alliance Defending Freedom. @SenatorLeahy asks if she is aware of their decades-long fight against marriage equality.
Her answer: No.
Here's a screenshot we just took from their website.
"You suggested that you agreed with the dissent in the marriage equality case Obergefell, that it wasn't the role of the Court to decide that same-sex couples had the right to be married."
@maziehirono@JACL_National@NAPAWF WATCH: @maziehirono grills Judge Barrett on her use of the offensive term "sexual preference" earlier today and her praise for self-proclaimed "mentor" Justice Scalia, who issued multiple SCOTUS opinions against #LGBTQ rights throughout his career.
WATCH: @CoryBooker references our case on behalf of Michael Ely while questioning Judge Barrett.
Michael & Spider were together for 43 years but could not legally marry until 2014. Spider passed 6 months later. Michael was denied survivor's benefits.
"Those who rely on the ACA are afraid of their lives being turned upside down if the court strikes it down."
Thank you @KamalaHarris for illustrating the danger of confirming a SCOTUS Justice who's hostile to healthcare protections. Millions of lives are at stake.
As @SenFeinstein notes, President Trump has promised to nominate a Supreme Court Justice who would dismantle the Affordable Care Act and health care rights for millions of people across the country.
This is exactly why he nominated Amy Coney Barrett.
Judge Barrett joined a letter in 2015 supporting the position that “marriage and family is founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman” and the “significance of sexual difference and the complementarity of men and women.”
Judge Barrett refused to respond to questions posed regarding whether she believes the Supreme Court's marriage equality decision qualifies as “superprecedent” (aka that no Justice would overrule).
#BREAKING: News outlets are reporting that Donald Trump will nominate Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. If confirmed, Judge Barrett will unleash a Court majority that is hostile to basic civil rights. The impact will be felt for decades. nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/…
Judge Barrett’s personal belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman, and has been unwilling to affirm that the Supreme Court’s decision making marriage equality the law of the land is settled law.
Her cramped so-called “originalist” view of the Constitution also threatens the civil rights of not just LGBTQ people but a host of others, including women and people of color, who have relied on the courts to make progress in the fight for equality and justice.
HAPPENING NOW: @SharonMcGowanDC is testifying in front of a subcommittee of the US House of Representatives about the Trump administration’s (many) civil rights abuses over the past 3+ years.
Before she joined our team, @SharonMcGowanDC was an attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. She left when President Trump nominated Jeff Sessions to lead the department.
.@SharonMcGowanDC: "I have found it exasperating to see how the Civil Rights Division’s scarce and valuable resources have been deployed to undermine rather than advance civil rights."
The military is waging war on servicemembers living with HIV, citing outdated science and fear-based reasoning. But HIV treatment has advanced to where it’s not relevant to whether someone can deploy.
Some background: Since 2018, we've filed three cases against the military on behalf of servicemembers who were denied the opportunity to enlist, deploy, or commission as officers due to their HIV-positive status.
The cases:
Harrison v. Esper: On behalf of Nick Harrison, a sergeant in the D.C. Army National Guard who was denied the opportunity to serve as an officer and a position in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps. lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases…