If Amy Coney Barrett means what she just said, she should resign from the Supreme Court right now | The Independent

Then why doesn't Amy Coney Barrett just resign?

Many of us have been wondering the same thing about Biden for the past 50 years.

Clueless morons have.  

You're stuck with her. And Breyer most likely won't retire.

"Barrett was an ideal nominee solely because of her personal beliefs — ones she shared often, openly, and with no shame. In 1998, she wrote an article for Notre Dame law school in which she described abortion as "always immoral," and signed an anti-abortion ad in 2006 that called for "the end of the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade " as well as for the US to "restore laws that protect the lives of unborn children." She has voted to rehear cases that previously found anti-abortion laws to be unconstitutional, including an Indiana law that required embryonic or fetal remains to be cremated or buried after an abortion. When she chose not to block the near-total abortion ban in Texas, she helped render Roe v Wade utterly useless for 1 in 10 American women."

When the Texas anti-aborthion law is next considered by the SCOTUS, in light of the above if she does not recuse herself then the SCOTUS will have turned America into a banana republic, and as far as I am concerned, the January 6th insurrection may just as well have succeeded. 

I'm never let down by how stupid these articles by free lance journalists are. Clickbait like this proves PT Barnum correct

"Journalists"?  I just find it funny that they call themselves that.  Journalist implies some kind of integrity.  

I'm never let down by how stupid these articles by free lance journalists are. Clickbait like this proves PT Barnum correct

Why do you consider this article 'stupid'?   

It's an opinion piece and anyone that can't see it is clearly a moron.

Hyper biased angry left-wing nutjob thinks anyone who isn't a hyper biased angry left-wing nutjob should resign.

I'm shocked. *yawn*

I don't think she should resign, but in the circumstances do you think she should recuse herself from deciding the issue of Roe v Wade?

Absolutely not! Some common sense restrictions on this barbaric practice are necessary.

do you think she should recuse herself from deciding the issue of Roe v Wade?

Only if the Left leaning Judges also recuse themselves. Show me a Judge anywhere in the USA who claims they don't have a deep seated opinion on abortion and I'll show you a Liar. 

There are already common sense restrictions in place on this medical procedure. 

Everybody has an opinion about abortion, but I don't think the left-leaning judges have made it quite so obvious what their opinion is.  Barrett CHAMPIONED anti-abortion publicly, written articles about it.

I don't think the left-leaning judges have made it quite so obvious what their opinion is.

It's obvious enough for it to be taken as a given.

There are already common sense restrictions on it. There's no sense to restrict it further or unnecessarily, especially the way Texas is doing.

Elections have consequences.

That doesn't address the point made. There are already restrictions on abortion  in place. You seem to be implying there are none or at least not enough? Elections do not automatically override established legal precedent. 

That is your opinion; which the Texas legislature and those that voted to represent them do not share.

Funny how the left is all for state's rights to make far more restrictive laws when it comes to the Second Amendment- which is in the Constitution- than the Federal Government imposes; but when it comes to abortion anything less that abortion on demand is considered a violation of the Constitution (last I checked abortion is not listed anywhere in the Constitution. I read the Supreme Court's decision on Roe vs Wade- they made up abortion rights out of thin air by stretching the Fourteenth Amendment and Ninth Amendment.)

texarkanagazette

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote for the majority in Roe v. Wade.

The dissenting justices—Byron R. White and William Rhenquist—believed the court had gone too far and created a right out of thin air.

"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes," White wrote in his dissent.

It is interesting to note that the focus of the majority decision was not that abortion in itself was an absolute right—in fact, the court rejected that argument—but that a woman and her physician should be free to make the best decision for the woman's physical or mental health. States were still allowed some regulatory power over abortions.

But over the past 45 years concern for the the physical and mental health of the mother has given way to the politically-inspired mantra of "choice."

Millions of legal abortions later, the ruling in Roe v. Wade still astounds. The court crafted a Constitutional right out of thin air. Abortion law had always been up to the states. And that's where the final decision should rest today.

I guess if you don't like the Texas law then don't live there.  No one is forcing you to do so.

[deleted]

No, it's fact. It's obvious Texas doesn't care about established legal precedent.  But that doesn't mean their law is not unconstitutional. State laws do not override SCOTUS precedent.

So the SCOTUS can make up rights out of thin air? Then they can makes those rights vanish again just as quickly.

The SCOTUS has ruled numerous times on the Second Amendment; it doesn't stop Democrat states and cities from placing restrictions on gun rights that are far more strict than Federal laws.

You can't have it both ways. 

Are you even familiar with SCOTUS rulings on the abortion issue? They didn't make up rights. They recognized one that was already there. And never in the entire history of the court has the SCOTUS ever revoked a right once it was recognized. Doing so would set a very dangerous precedent. It's Texas that doesn't want to recognize or accept a woman's right. Frankly, that is disturbing and draconian.

If she won't resign then she should at least be censured and removed.

Are you even familiar with SCOTUS rulings on the abortion issue?

Again I read Roe vs Wade back in college, had to do a mid term report on it. It was another of those wonderful Supreme Court decisions that was based on feelings rather than the Constitution. 

They didn't make up rights. They recognized one that was already there.

Again, point out where abortion is mentioned in the Constitution; or the right to one is specifically enumerated.

And never in the entire history of the court has the SCOTUS ever revoked a right once it was recognized.

First time for everything. Maybe the court is starting to learn not to accept mistakes by previous rulings finally.

Doing so would set a very dangerous precedent.

You mean like making an executive EO/EA the same as a law? The court has done it twice now with Obama's DACA and Trump's remain in Mexico for illegal immigrants awaiting trial. The court does not get to make laws. In their ruling the court infringed on the President's executive power to end a previous President's EO/EA. They were wrong in both cases.

It's Texas that doesn't want to recognize or accept a woman's right. Frankly, that is disturbing and draconian.

No one is forcing anyone to live in Texas. If anyone doesn't like the law they don't have to live there, and can leave at any time. If the left really wants to find out what disturbing and draconian looks like- take a trip to Afghanistan. I am sure the Taliban would love to give a free education to anyone on the subject.

If I were your college professor, I probably would have failed your paper, given your apparent lack of understanding of the constitution and SCOTUS precedent.. the SCOTUS interpreted the constitution to deem then anti abortion laws unconstitutional. That made abortion legal by default based on one's right to privacy. Or do you seriously think something must be explicitly stated in the constitution to be valid? I also wonder what makes you more of an authority on the constitution than a SCOTUS Justice. It's also rather telling that you think rights should be removed by the courts.

That made abortion legal by default based on one's right to privacy.

That's the key to Roe. The one lifers don't want to talk about. 

Or they ignore it. The thing is, abortion rights have been ffirmed and expanded on in subsequent cases in front of the SCOTUS. I also have yet to hear a rational, objective argument presented as to why abortion, especially before viability, should be illegal or restricted.

Read post 4.1.6

The dissenting justices—Byron R. White and William Rhenquist—believed the court had gone too far and created a right out of thin air. "I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes," White wrote in his dissent.

I will take Rhenquist over you any day of the week. The other judges gave their interpretation of the Constitution and expanded the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. They inserted something that isn't there. Not the first time a court over reached; and it won't be the last. This fascination with keeping rulings that were wrong just because of precedent is insane. 

It's also rather telling that you think rights should be removed by the courts.

When the rights are made up out of thin air by those same courts? You do realize how dumb that sounds. Courts have the power to grant rights; but not the power to take those rights away once they grant them- even if it was in error.

If I were your college professor, I probably would have failed your paper, given your apparent lack of understanding of the constitution and SCOTUS precedent.

Then you would have failed Rhenquist as well; because I leaned on his decisions heavily. What do you say to that?

I don't think she should resign, but in the circumstances do you think she should recuse herself from deciding the issue of Roe v Wade?

Of course not. 

Putting the idea forward is merely a tried and true batshit leftist ploy to pretend any institution that makes a decision they don't agree with is somehow corrupt and therefore illegitimate.

Fascinating how these lunatics never suggest a liberal judge recuse themselves.

There are already common sense restrictions on it. There's no sense to restrict it further or unnecessarily, especially the way Texas is doing.

That depends very much on where you think life begins.

Abortion rights are not based on when "life" begins. Rather, on individual autonomy with respect to viability.

Elective Abortions are not performed after viability. Or did you ignore the part where I said "with respect to viability?"

Abortion rights are not based on when "life" begins. Rather, on individual autonomy with respect to viability.

So....they're based exactly on when that fetus is considered to be a life.

In your mind, that's viability.  For others, it's conception.

Wrong. Viability is a medical determination. When one considers "life" to begin is clearly subjective and otherwise irrelevant. 

Viability is a medical determination.

Obviously.

When one considers "life" to begin is clearly subjective and otherwise irrelevant.

Subjective, yes. 

Irrelevant, no.

We're talking about a codified moral position, and all morality is subjective.

You consider viability to be the point when that human being has a life of its own that must be respected.  Viability itself is a medical determination, but the choice to use that as the defining point in time is wholly subjective.

Viability is a medical determination. When one considers "life" to begin is clearly subjective and otherwise irrelevan

No it's not. Life begins at conception. That's objective fact.  The subjective dispute is whether its worth protecting. 

Jack says where life begins is individually based. Some say conception. Some say viability. Some say birth, ect.. since there are differing opinions, it's subjective. That's why a standard is legally  applied. Whether it's worth protecting is also subjective. What is being protected is a woman's established rights and autonomy. 

"I don't think she should resign, but in the circumstances do you think she should recuse herself from deciding the issue of Roe v Wade?

Of course not."

Well, I think you're wrong.  Any self-respecting judge who had written and publicly published anti-abortion documentattion that she did would have recused themself.  If she doesn't, then IMO your whole legal system is banana republic. 

I will take Rhenquist over you any day of the week.

No doubt Justices can and will dissent on certain matters. But it's the majority opinion of the Court that matters.

The other judges gave their interpretation of the Constitution and expanded the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Interpreting the Constitution is what the SCOTUS is supposed to do.

They inserted something that isn't there.

No, they interpreted the Constitution accordingly to affirm what is already there.

This fascination with keeping rulings that were wrong just because of precedent is insane. 

Merely your opinion, and one which the Court does not share, especially in subsequent rulings.

When the rights are made up out of thin air by those same courts?

The rights were already there. The Court simply interpreted the Constitution to affirm that. I asked you before if you think something must be explicitly stated in the Constitution to be valid. I also noticed you didn't answer the question.

Then you would have failed Rhenquist as well; because I leaned on his decisions heavily. What do you say to that?

I'd say you had a poor teacher and are in the minority camp on the ruling.

Irrelevant, no.

Yes, it is. Some want  to focus on life in abortion arguments, which is little more than an appeal to emotion. But if when "life begins" is so subjective, it cannot be used as a determinant in abortion rulings. That's why pro-lifers who argue their position based on "life" have not succeeded in their arguments after all these years.

We're talking about a codified moral position, and all morality is subjective.

Yes, morality is subjective. Therefore, it cannot be legislated or used as a basis or defense of law. An objective rationalization is required. Hence, viability became the objective rationale for abortion rulings.

You consider viability to be the point when that human being has a life of its own that must be respected. 

I said no such thing. 

Viability itself is a medical determination, but the choice to use that as the defining point in time is wholly subjective.

As a medical determination, viability is an objective point in time, which the court used in its post-Roe ruling. 

Well, I think you're wrong.  Any self-respecting judge who had written and publicly published anti-abortion documentattion that she did would have recused themself.  If she doesn't, then IMO your whole legal system is banana republic.

Your implication here is that ACB is somehow incapable of being impartial regarding the facts of a specific case because of her well known existing views.

Based on that idea, RGB, Kagan, Thomas, and Alito should probably have recused themselves more often than they heard cases.

Yes, morality is subjective. Therefore, it cannot be legislated or used as a basis or defense of law.

Are we really going to pretend that most of US law is not some sort of codified morality?

Everything from the illegality of murder to the existence of public housing vouchers is a legislated moral position.

Are we really going to pretend that most of US law is not some sort of codified morality?

It's really  amazing how ignorant some people are of the obvious. Our laws are simply codified moral choices.  But the concept of  "morality " scares some   people and they lash out when they hear it.  

Are we really going to pretend that most of US law is not some sort of codified morality?

Law is generally based around Constitutional guidelines and with respect to individual liberty and rights. That's why murder, stealing, ect is illegal. There just happens to be a concurrent moral connection to it.  We agree morality is subjective. So whose "morality" do we adhere to when codifying laws? Laws need to objectively apply to everyone equally, regardless of individual morality.

Your implication here is that ACB is somehow incapable of being impartial regarding the facts of a specific case because of her well known existing views.

All three of Trump's Supreme Court appointees came from a list of judges who were known to be from the political right point of view. None of them were selected because they were known for judicial independence. 

Law is generally based around Constitutional guidelines and with respect to individual liberty and rights. That's why murder, stealing, ect is illegal. There just happens to be a concurrent moral connection to it.

No...  It doesn't just "happen" that way. 

  We agree morality is subjective. So whose "morality" do we adhere to when codifying laws? Laws need to objectively apply to everyone equally, regardless of individual morality.

Laws are the reflection of our collective morality.  That's true for any society, BTW.

If enough of us believe that whatever behavior is not the right thing to do, we outlaw it.  If enough of us believe that something is a mandatory thing to do in accordance with our collective moral code, we mandate it.  

For example, in England, their moral code finds the act of using racial slurs so vile they have outlawed the practice and you can be arrested for it.  However in the United States, our moral code values the freedom of speech above the freedom from offense, so the use of such words is legal here.

That's purely, utterly, and completely subjective.  

In the case of abortion, everybody agrees it's abhorrent to kill a child.  However we have a strong division over what constitutes a child.  Pro life advocates believe a child is created at conception.  Pro choice advocates believe a child is created later.  Both views are utterly and completely subjective.  Subjective doesn't become objective simply because the SCOTUS shares the opinion.

All three of Trump's Supreme Court appointees came from a list of judges who were known to be from the political right point of view. None of them were selected because they were known for judicial independence.

Only if your definition of "political right" is "anybody not left of Bernie Sanders".

There actually does exist in this country a group of people called "moderates".  

Laws are the reflection of our collective morality. 

Key word there is "reflection." As I said, laws are guided by the Constitution. If a law does not pass constitutional muster, it can be challenged and struck down, regardless of how one's "morality" views it. The various states anti-abortion laws, which have been largely deemed unconstitutional, are a prime example.

If enough of us believe that whatever behavior is not the right thing to do, we outlaw it.  If enough of us believe that something is a mandatory thing to do in accordance with our collective moral code, we mandate it.  

As long as a compelling argument can be made for it and it doesn't violate the Constitution.

However in the United States, our moral code values the freedom of speech above the freedom from offense, so the use of such words is legal here.

You just proved my point. Racial slurs here are generally frowned upon by society. Passing a law prohibiting slurs based on moral qualms can be attempted, but the Constitutional freedom of speech overrides moral conviction and would cause such a law to be struck down as unconstitutional.

That's purely, utterly, and completely subjective.

Morality typically is. But the Constitution itself as a guide is more objective.

Pro life advocates believe a child is created at conception. 

Scientific fact defines a "child" as human from infancy (post birth) to puberty. The problem is, too many people prefer to go by beliefs over facts and reason.

Pro choice advocates believe a child is created later. 

Not quite. Pro-choicers advocate continuing a pregnancy or not to be just that, a choice. Some might "believe" there's a child during the stages of pregnancy or not. But that is not necessarily central to a pro-choice position.

Both views are utterly and completely subjective.  Subjective doesn't become objective simply because the SCOTUS shares the opinion.

Which is why abortion rights are based on individual autonomy and privacy.

"Ok, we'll mark you as being against ACB."

Au contraire.  When she was first being considered before Kavanaugh was chosen I thought she was a pretty good choice.  I simply think that she has made it abundantly clear publicly what her very strong attitude towards abortion is, and that is why I did NOT think she should resign, but that she should recuse herself from deciding that particular issue.  Any decent lawyer or judge would agree with that.  This is NOT a political opinion, which I believe yours is. 

generally based around Constitutional guidelines 

The Constitution is, in itself,   merely a collection of the subjective opinions the  founders believed necessary to form the framework of would would constitute a  "just" government.  It's completely based on their morality. 

I'm sure you actually believe that too. Given the Founders history and experiences, especially with regards to the British Crown and how it treated the colonies, it becomes obvious as to why the Founders wrote the Constitution as it was. Hint: morality was not really the issue. But keep telling yourself otherwise if it makes you feel better.

So where was the left when Kagan didn't recuse herself on cases involved with the PPACA? She was the solicitor general for the Obama administration coming up with ways to defend the PPACA in possible court cases; her feelings about it were very well known.

nationalreview

This happens every time a politically charged case comes before the Supreme Court; both sides find reasons why a judge they oppose should recuse themselves. It rarely happens. 

The Supreme Court has become as political as every other branch and group in government. The left are just pissed that they don't have the numbers in the Supreme Court right now; which is the reason they were looking at packing the court with up to 5 more justices. They only reason to do that is to drag the Supreme Court to the far left; they would not be nominating moderates.

Did you know, Ronin2, that lawyers often represent clients and argue cases that they don't necessarily believe in?  Not every lawyer is an Al Pacino in "And Justice for All".  I would bet that a lot of lawyers who argued that the election was fraudulent were of that example.  What one does for their job and what they personally believe can be two different things.  In ACB's case, her very strong personal feelings were broadcast by her far and wide. 

Considering how and when she was put on the Court, I agree she should resign. It should have been up to the "next administration."

She was embarrassed by the Texas abortion law and so she wants to make it look like she's not that bad

  the problem is she voted in favor of the Texas abortion law

Barrett said justices should be "hyper-vigilant to make sure they're not letting personal biases creep into their decisions, since judges are people, too." She went on to insist that "judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties" and that "to say the court's reasoning is flawed is different from saying the court is acting in a partisan manner."

I don’t see what’s wrong with that. That’s what I would want to hear from any justice. In fact, I would assume her eight colleagues would agree with this statement.

But her own record and statements demonstrate that she is hyper-partisan.

I’m no expert on her record or words, but my impression of her judicial record is that it is solidly grounded in the law. The whole point of her comment is that a person can have strong political opinions and be a justice. I don’t think it’s a secret that we have justices with strong political feelings that may lie far from the center. Justices are allowed to be people until it comes time to interpret the law.

Name one Supreme Court justice that isn't?

Kagan and Sotomayor definitely are hyper partisan. RGB took hyper partisanship to new limits; but the left loved her.

The real issue here is that Barrett is considered on the extreme right; a constitutional fundamentalist. If she were an extreme leftist we wouldn't be hearing a peep from the Democrats or left.