Amy Coney Barrett, About to Be Confirmed to the Supreme Court, Sees a Scenario in Which Abortion Should Be Punishable by Death | Vanity Fair
Such views as those held by ACB should be unacceptable for Senate confirmation...
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
So that's pretty concerning. 
By Bess Levin
October 23, 2020 
By Leigh Vogel-Pool/Getty Images.
The defining feature of Amy Coney Barrett 's Supreme Court confirmation hearing was her refusal to answer a single question that might actually reveal her opinion, as a judge or a person, on some of the most consequential matters to Americans. In particular, Barrett repeatedly claimed she couldn't possibly say anything about the Affordable Care Act or abortion, issues that will no doubt come before her in the 40-plus years she's expected to sit on the court—and probably sooner rather than later.
That's not because she doesn't have extremely strong opinions on these matters but because she does—that's why Republicans nominated her, knowing full well that when a case regarding Obamacare is heard in November, they can reliably expect that she'll vote to overturn it, and that should a challenge to Roe v. Wade come up, she'll do the same. Barrett wrote a law review article criticizing the Supreme Court for upholding the ACA's individual mandate in 2012, in particular going after Chief Justice John Roberts, who looks like a flaming liberal in comparison. In addition, she has praised her mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, for his dissenting opinion in King v. Burwell, which upheld the law's subsidies as constitutional. As for abortion, Barrett wrote in one court opinion that the procedure is "always immoral"; dissented in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. , arguing to uphold an Indiana law requiring doctors to notify the parents of a minor seeking an abortion; and dissented in the case of Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. , arguing in favor of a law requiring that fetal remains be buried or cremated. And, as we heard during her three days before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she signed a letter calling for the end of the "barbaric" Roe v. Wade.
All of which makes one of her nonanswers to a written follow-up question from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse extremely chilling. Specifically, the one in which she says, "As a sitting judge and as a judicial nominee, it would not be appropriate for me to offer an opinion on abstract legal issues or hypotheticals" in response to the question "Under an originalist theory of interpretation, would there be any constitutional problem with a state making abortion a capital crime, thus subjecting women who get abortions to the death penalty?"
https://twitter.com/ilyseh/status/1319084477239492608
Obviously, claiming that she can't answer hypothetical questions has been Barrett's schtick throughout this entire process and, in some instances, it might actually be appropriate to say as much. But not when the question is "can a state sentence a woman to death for getting an abortion," unless of course she thinks there might somehow be a scenario in which the answer is yes!
Anyway, Barrett was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, and today kicked off three days of debate on the Senate floor ahead of a vote scheduled for Monday. Following the vote, Barrett is expected to be confirmed for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, barring something crazy happening like "moderate" Republicans thinking maybe women shouldn't be executed for choosing what to do with their own bodies.
Apparently Benjamin Netanyahu has also seen the polls putting Joe Biden ahead by double digits
https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1319681169315811329
Only the best people, Jared Kushner edition
It would appear that the first son-in-law also only surrounds himself with the best, classiest people and by best and classiest we of course mean an alleged cyber-stalker. Per the New York Times :
Two years ago, the Trump administration offered a seat on the board of the National Endowment for the Humanities to Ken Kurson, a close friend of the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner. As part of the routine background check for the position, the FBI uncovered a swirl of harassment allegations against Mr. Kurson over his divorce in 2015. He then withdrew from consideration, but the fallout from the nomination did not end there. On Friday, federal prosecutors charged Mr. Kurson with cyber-stalking three people and harassing two others, including a friend whom he blamed for the deterioration of his marriage. Mr. Kurson's accusers described his conduct as "diabolical" and "super scary," according to the criminal complaint.… The FBI has gathered evidence that Mr. Kurson also installed software on someone's computer to monitor keystrokes, the complaint said. He used aliases to contact that person's employer to report false allegations of misconduct, according to the complaint.
At this point you've likely lost track of how many people in the Trump orbit have been arrested or convicted of crimes, but a conservative estimate puts it at at least nine, including Ken. In an extremely strange statement, Kurson's lawyer seemed to suggest to the Times that whatever his client has been accused of isn't the big deal everyone is making it out to be, saying that Kurson is "an honorable man, a loving dad, and a gifted writer. The conduct alleged is hardly worthy of a federal criminal prosecution. Ken will get past it."
Tags
Who is online
406 visitors
No wonder the damn goppers are called deplorable!
Thanks (vanity fair) for telling us what she thinks even though she gave a stock answer using the Ginsburg rule that the democrats created. As long as you are telling us what she thinks why not tell us what that scenario is? And you wonder why you have lost all credibility.
They had some left to lose?
Abortion is always immoral????
What the hell? Will she say that when she's pregnant and the doctors give her a choice between her life or the fetus'?
They never will say just what the punishments will be for women who choose to terminate and their doctors once abortions are criminalized, again...
Many of those who believe that terminations are the murder of babies also believe that the punishment for aborting should be long imprisonments or even the death penalty, although they seldom will admit to it...
What I want to know is why abortion is always immoral even if a mother's life is at risk? I've told this story a million times, but I'm going to tell it again. My mother had rheumatic fever as a kid and it messed up her heart (rheumatic heart disease). She never should have had my brother and me, but she did because she didn't know at the time she was sick. We ruined her health. When I was about 3 or 4 she got pregnant again and by that time the doctors knew she wasn't going to make it if she didn't abort. I'm glad she did. I got to have a mother up until she died 10 years ago
Trump and his nominee should e aborterd
That's not very nice.
and....
I still love you
Long time !
i did not intend to minimize your mother and your loses, just stating my MANY times stated opinion that Trump is an Abortion that should have been terminated to allow the rest of US, to LIVE
My Grandmother was in the same boat.
She had three kids already and got pregnant. If she continued to carry it was the real possibility that it was going to kill her. It would have, I should say.
Her and my Grandfather decided it was better to terminate the pregnancy.
There is no way he could have taken care of the three young daughters by himself ( he couldn't even make a sandwich) and they didn't want them to grow up without a mother.
They made the right decision, what was for the best of all involved.
I know you didn't. I just get a creepy feeling when someone says somebody should be aborted. That's on me, not you.
I'm glad they did. My dad would have been left with 2 young children, one of them still very much a toddler. It would have been very difficult for him
peopel always seem to get "creepy" fellings round me, hmmmmm....
Your compassion and understanding is overwhelming....
Do you honestly think a mother of three should lose her life over it and leave them all alone?
That it would somehow be better?
"No but the outcome for the unborn was not good but I do understand in some cases there is no choice."
So then zip your lip instead of admonishing Enders' family for their choices.
Morality is subjective and should not be legislated or used in legal analysis and decisions.
I agree. The only thing necessary in a medical or legal decision are facts
Although throughout history societies have based laws on agreed upon moral constructs, laws against criminal acts that are wrong because they violate the moral, public, or natural principles of a society. Indeed in Western culture the concept of criminal laws against crimes "mala in se" (as opposed to those "mala prohibita") has been around for centuries.
In this particular case, however, I agree that our society does not largely consider the act of abortion to be a crime mala in se, and therefore it should not be treated as such. The argument thus far is whether it should be considered mala prohibita either at the State or Federal level, and the legal precedent of course to date is that it should not be considered a crime at all if conducted within the framework of the Roe v. Wade decision, which of course hinges on the concept of fetal viability. People may have differing opinions about the morality of it, or the scientific realities of fetal development and the point of viability, but none of that will rise to the level of treating it as a crime mala in se. I think such fears are overblown.
Having said that, I think we can all agree that reducing the incidence of abortion needn't be viewed as a political matter, nor as a bad thing. Certainly efforts to provide better education, proper contraception and other programs aimed at reducing the number of unintended pregnancies is a worthy endeavor to improve the situation for everyone. And if some really want women faced with this terrible choice to consider the motto "choose life", then there needs to be more effort to make sure quality alternatives are available to those women and the child during and after those pregnancies. Treating them like criminals is certainly not the answer.
Buddy, you are going to be really disappointed when you come to understand what laws are....
Laws ARE society's morality legislated.
My problem is people sticking their noses into other people's medical decisions.
Acting like their views should over ride everything else.
Who's morality specifically? Laws are (or should be) based on the Constitution. Not one's idea of morality.
Exactly! I'd say facts are necessary (or at least preferable) in just about every decision.
Imo laws are for protection, not morality...
The people writing the laws. Unless you believe laws are transmitted in perfect from from a higher entity to vessels on earth who merely transcribe what's dictated to them.
ws are (or should be) based on the Constitution.
The Constitution has very little to do with most laws, but the Constitution is itself a reflection of the founder's belief in what constitutes a just government. Laws are simply the codification of a society's moral principles. Slavery was legal until society's morality on the subject changed. What was legal became illegal because our morals changed.
Not at all. Laws may reflect moral elements. But that does not mean they are nor should be based on morality. Given how different people have different morals or moral standards, I'd say basing laws on morality would result in a so called "battle of the fittest." Besides, there are countries that do base their laws largely on morality; Certain Middle East countries, specifically emphasizing religious morality. Is that what we want to emulate? That should give one pause when there is the claim that our laws are based on morality.
But what deserves protection is a moral question.
No, it is a safety question.
That's why we have different laws. Different societies have different morals, hence different laws.
Again, whom?
I'm sure there are those who actually believe that too.
Our whole system of jurisprudence is based on the Constitution. Laws passed must also pass Constitutional muster, lest they be deemed unconstitutional.
Wrong. As I previously stated, laws may reflect moral elements. But that's about it. Laws themselves must be based on the Constitution with respect to individual rights and protections.
There were those who thought slavery was moral, and those who didn't. Yours is a perfect example of why laws should not be based on one's idea of morality. But rather by a system applicable to all, such as the Constitution.
We have different laws to reflect or address different needs or protections of society.
Really? So slavery was legal because it was safe? It became illegal because it was unsafe?
All the abolitionists were lying when they argued against slavery on explicitly moral grounds?.
So you are going to use one instance as a catchall for all?
Yes it is/was for the protection of Black people. A protection we are all entitled to. They were protected from being thrown into a life of subservience, a life of beatings and death.
It was also against our constitution, that all men are created equal.
Sad that some things have to be defined, to include different races.
In our country the law making power is invested in the legislature. Is that news?
I'm sure there are those who actually believe that too.
That seems to be your understanding of the law.
aws passed must also pass Constitutional muster, lest they be deemed unconstitutional.
So you avoid my point. Okay.
t. Laws themselves must be based on the Constitution with respect to individual rights and protections.
You, again, are missing the point that those rights and protections reflect the moral choice of the drafters.
different laws to reflect or address different needs or protections of society
You can't construct an argument to explain why those needs or protections of society are chosen. You, as best as I can tell because you haven't made a coherent argument, just think laws spontaneously appear without human involvement,. I I know from past experience how emotionally invested you are on this subject and it appears your emotions are clouding your judgment. Try and think rationally and I'm sure you'll admit the obvious, namely that laws are simply reflect the moral choices of a given society. That's why we have different laws than Saudi Arabia, our country has a different moral system. Slavery is against the law here because we believe it morally wrong.
I know religion and topics that appear to touch on it are difficult for you to discuss logically, but I'm not making any value judgements on the laws, just stating facts. For better or worst, our laws reflect our morals and when our morals change, our laws to do too. There's nothing wrong with admitting the truth.
No, but it's simple and since you aren't making any argument other than simply declaring "no".....
s for the protection of Black people. They were protected from being thrown into a life of subservience, a life of beatings and death
Exactly. That was of course, perfectly legal until the abolitionists made the persuasive moral argument that slavery was wrong. Then, after decades of moral persuasion, the country went to war on the topic and the north's moral position on slavery triumphed over the souths. And the Constitution was changed to reflect the now pervasive moral view that slavery was morally wrong.
t was also against our constitution
but it obviously wasn't for almost 100 years.
Legislature only passes laws. That doesn't mean morality is the center of it. And as I said, any law passed must also pass Constitutional scrutiny. The Constitution is the basis on which laws are permissible or not.
Apparently, your understanding of my understanding is quite limited.
And you ignored mine.
Merely your opinion.
Individual liberties and freedoms are at the core of the laws.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
Point our precisely where I ever said that!
You must be projecting. Or making a joke!
You first!
You keep saying that, but fail to demonstrate it!
Our country has a different system of jurisprudence and basis for law.
It's against the law because it restricted individual freedoms.
If that's what you think, then it seems logic eludes you.
Only in your mind.
Repeating yourself is neither convincing or persuasive.
Morals are subjective.
Protections are universal.
What an empty platitude.
you are confusing the motivations behind an action for the product that results.
Morality is the motivation for the creation of protections.
Fear is the motivation of protections.
So abolitionists opposed slavery out of fear of what, exactly?
Just so I'm clear.... Progressives are motivated by fear.
They don't want to raise taxes on the rich out of fairness, it's out of fear.
They support Obamacare and/or universal health care out of fear.
Do progressives advocate for any policies out of altruism or fairness, or is it just out of fear?
Clear as mud.
Fear of what?
Shake it up baby now...
Twist and shout...
Yeah... a lot of that going around...
Our society deems monogamy beneficial for children, families and for economic reasons.
One reason might b because of the rights, privileges, or benefits that comes from marriage, especially those associated with the government. The government only recognizes 1 legal spouse. Claiming more than 1 and trying to benefit from it is fraud. But there's nothing stopping someone from being legally married to 1 person and having multiple partners, as is the case with polygamous households.
Polygamists probably do consider polygamy moral. Others outside that lifestyle or religion/s which practice it do not. Again, morality is subjective.
That's good because there are no children involved in abortion.
Majority rule or whatever the voters decide is the arbiter of what society deems best...
When a woman already has more children than she can provide for or care for then her existing children benefit from her not having more children which she cannot support...
Ask the government, not me.
Not a theory. Just simple legal fact.
You're the one who asked about morality. I didn't say morality played a factor in the law. If you actually understood the point, you would see why laws should not have "moral" bases.
One man can seldom provide for multiple families which leaves society responsible...
Complications of legal rights such as suppirt and inheritance overload courts if marriage is not defined as between only two persons.
This is why the ancients defined marriage so.
Let's not forget the government benefits associated with marriage, like taxes.
That's an argument for another discussion.
No one said that except you goose.
No, no one said that except you goose.
Refer to the landmark SCOTUS case: Reynolds v. US (1878). Also note, polygamy is a function of certain religions. In the US, it is predominantly Mormon. Allowing polygamy can be viewed as preferential consideration to Mormonism, which violates the principle of the separation of church and state. Even a polygamous individual has the right to marry 1 consenting adult of their choosing. They are also free to have as many partners on the side as they wish. They simply cannot have 2 or more legal spouses, just like everyone else. So it also becomes an issue of equality.
Your opinion is noted.
I already said the law may reflect moral aspects. You're assuming morality is the basis for a law.
Of course abortion is birth control. It prevents continued pregnancy and birth. It's the medical eviction of a clump of cells.
I know I am . . . thanks for the recognition.
I bet a lot of those polygamous families rely heavily on government assistance.
ature only passes laws. That doesn't mean morality is the center of it. And as I said, any law passed must also pass Constitutional scrutiny. The Constitution is the basis on which laws are permissible or not.
Literally nothing you wrote is pertinent to the discussion. At some point are you going to offer something but unsupported conclusions detached from a logical argument?
It's against the law because it restricted individual freedoms.
And that it's wrong to restrict (some) individual freedoms is a moral decision. Certainly, you aren't suggesting that our society doesn't restrict any personal freedoms.
epeating yourself is neither convincing or persuasive.
A lesson you should take to heart.
Rather than wasting my time with silly substance free rejoinders why don't you explain why we have a society that's decided it's wrong to restrict some freedoms and not others? Make an actual argument rather than just unthinkingly pointing to the Constitution as some sort of answer for everything. Again, you are aware the Constitution was created by men and reflects their viewpoints, right? It wasn't handed down in perfect form to be accepted unquestioningly by mere mortals. Because that's the foundation of your argument, even if you don't understand what you are arguing.
I know you are compulsive about getting the last word, but try and actually form a coherent explanation if you are going to bother responding. If your last effort was the best you can do, don't waste my or your time.
The Asian Obama appointed judge who ruled against the plaintiff and was upheld unanimously by Barrett and two other justices must be a monster, huh?
When did she say that?
Sad you are sharing fake news that even politifact, a reliably democratic mouthpiece, called it out. Per politifact, "Posts sharing the alleged quote were flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. "
You should probably delete your fake quote and stop doing Putin's work for him.
What nonsense are you rambling on about?