Poll: Voters Back Barrett's Supreme Court Confirmation By 17-Point Margin
By: Alison Durkee (Forbes)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Topline
Voters support Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court by a 17-point margin and a slim majority believe she should be confirmed before the election, a new Morning Consult poll finds—though the poll was conducted before Senate Democrats spent the week making the case against her confirmation at the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings.
Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on ... [+] Capitol Hill on October 14, 2020. (Photo by Susan Walsh-Pool/Getty Images)
Getty Images
Key Facts
48% of poll respondents believe the Senate should confirm Barrett to the Supreme Court, while 31% believe they should not.
The poll was conducted Oct. 9 to 11, before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings began Monday.
The number marks an increase over when the question has been asked in the past: 37% wanted Barrett to be confirmed Sept. 26, the day her nomination was announced, and 46% backed her confirmation when the question was asked Oct. 2-4.
Barrett's support is largely driven by Republicans—77% of whom support her confirmation—as compared with only 27% of Democrats and 38% of Independents, though both Democrats and Independents showed an increase in support since the question was last asked.
44% believe Barrett should be confirmed "as soon as possible," regardless of the outcome of the election, while 36% think the Senate should only vote on her confirmation if Trump wins the election.
That margin has also increased: 43% supported Barrett's immediate confirmation and 37% said it should wait until after the election when asked Oct. 2-4, and on Sept. 26, 40% favored waiting while only 39% wanted the confirmation to immediately proceed.
Chief Critic
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have used their time at Barrett's confirmation hearing to strenuously object to her confirmation, both due to the quick confirmation process while Americans are already voting in the election and Barrett's history of social conservatism, which they believe threatens issues like abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act. "Republicans are scrambling to confirm this nominee as fast as possible because they need one more Trump judge on the bench before Nov. 10 to win and strike down the entire Affordable Care Act," Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said during her questioning Tuesday. "This is not hyperbole." In addition to lawmakers, faculty from Notre Dame University, where Barrett has served as a professor, have also called on Barrett to halt her confirmation process until after the election. "The politics of your nomination...will further inflame our civic wounds, undermine confidence in the court, and deepen the divide among ordinary citizens," the faculty wrote in an open letter to Barrett, "especially if you are seated by a Republican Senate weeks before the election of a Democratic president and Congress."
Key Background
Barrett's confirmation process has been a major source of controversy, as Senate Republicans have pushed forward with the process despite the ongoing election—reversing their precedent set in 2016, when they blocked Merrick Garland's confirmation—and a Covid-19 outbreak among several Judiciary Committee members after Barrett's nomination announcement became a likely super spreader event. Barrett's conservative views have also come under scrutiny, as her confirmation would give the Supreme Court a 6-3 conservative tilt and likely affect a range of issues, from health care and abortion to potentially the outcome of the November election. Despite the criticism, the Morning Consult poll is in line with other polling showing support for Barrett's confirmation rising as the confirmation hearings approached, with a Washington Post/ABC poll released Monday finding that support for waiting to confirm the next Justice until after the election had dropped by five points. The small majority of poll respondents who favored Barrett's immediate confirmation in the Morning Consult poll contrasts with a number of other polls, however, which have typically shown a majority favoring waiting until after the election.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
53 visitors
The people have chosen!
And this was prior to even the start of the hearings. Can't wait to see the result now after...........especially since today is behind closed doors I believe
It is interesting isn't it?
I'd love to be a fly on the wall in there today
It's being televised on Fox News right now. Spartacus is speaking.
He gave a campaign speech looking toward 2024. Jackass.
Too bad the people do not get to choose a SCOTUS Justice nominee.
But they do get a choice every election. In 2016 the people chose the current president who under the U.S. Constitution gets to appoint nominees when there is an open seat. And the people in 2018 got to chose the makeup of the Senate which under the U.S. Constitution gets to vote on said nominees. Yes, it's rather obvious why they are pushing thru this now due to the fear that Biden will win the WH next month. But as RBG herself said, a president is elected for 4 years and there is nothing to prevent him from making a nomination when a seat opens up and she also said that the Senate should vote on said nomination. She said this back in 2016 when President Obama nominated Garland and the senate played party politics and refused to vote.
Can you honestly state that the Democrats would not do the exact same if the places were reversed?
Sort of like a 9 member legislature? I suppose we can then rename the nation Cuba and rip up the Constitution.
That would be truer if the House confirmed. The Senate represents the states (voters weighing in every 6 years), whereas the House (voters weighing in every 2 years) far better represents the people (or at least the districts). This is part of the constitutional design.
What I would like is a term limit on justices. Basically, give them 10 years or so and then they are out. No renomination, just end of term. That way they have a long run, are still immune to political pressure (in theory) but they are not on the court forever.
Yes the Senate represents the states, but they are no longer appointed by state legislators. They are elected by the people..
Does not change the fact that the Senate (2 senators per state regardless of population) represents the states.
The people of CA have 2 senators, just like the people of WY. To consider the votes of senators to represent the wishes of the people, the population of the states would have to be equal.
Vic,
What are you talking about with Cuba? If you are talking about Puerto Rico, if they vote for statehood (which they are allowed to do) then that might change things. But it wouldn't require ripping up the Constitution, since it allows for that.
Exactly. Which is why it is not the will of the people.
And yes I am for term limits on both houses and the justices.
I'm talking about Gordy's suggestion that we suddenly vote for judges. To me that implies that Gordy wants to turn the Court into another legislative body - something liberal activists have in effect done for about 50 years.
It is clear that many progressives recognize that Judge Barrett is obviously someone who does not agree with Roe's Constitutional foundation. Maybe if the dems win the White House and the Senate in the coming election, they can do what they couldn't do back in 1973 - enact abortion legislation into law! That would end the controversy once and for all. It would be the right way to do it instead of pretending it was in the Constitution under some phantom right of privacy!
Agreed, but they are not going to impose limits on themselves and there are too many lazy, uninformed voters who blindly vote on name recognition or based on party designation so the electorate does not even impose limits via elections.
We have a systemic problem of career politicians.
That would make sense and seams reasonable.
That doesn't address my post. Do you have a point to make?
Of course we do. We, the people, elect the POTUS and Senate.
Read my post again Vic. I made no such suggestion. It was in reply to your post, where you said the people have spoken."
We the people do not elect a Justice. One can only hope the President nominates a candidate a person likes and the Senate confirms them.
Gordy, please read comment 1.3.17 again. I never said that We, the People elect a justice. I said that we elect a POTUS and Senate members. IOW, the POTUS nominates, and the Senate advises and consents. I cannot make the US Constitution clearer than that.
Electing representatives is the choice. The decisions those representatives make on our behalf is not our choice. We choose the representation, then we must live with ALL of their decisions until the next election cycle.
It is extremely unlikely that the SCotUS nominees by USA presidents would match the choice of the people if up for a vote.
What you wrote, via context, is that the people do get to choose a SCotUS Justice nominee.
Since that is not what you meant, what is your actual point?
We did when we elected Trump in 2016 and expanded the senate GOP majority in 2018.
You mean when the gop suffered its worst popular vote whopping in American History?
You can't lose the 8,800,000 and call it a win!
Yet the damn gop lost the overall popular vote by 8,800,000 votes in the 2018 midterms. Trump cannot pull off an electoral college win while losing the popular vote by such margins. It is mathematically impossible...
If as Xx says "the people spoke" in 2018 then what they said was a complete repudiation if Trump and everything he stands for!
The gop lost the 2018 Congressional midterm election by 8,800,000 votes. That has nothing to do with the Senate where few Republicans were running. It was a stark indicator of the American people's will though and it definitely was a repudiation of the gop and of Trump. That is, unless you can somehow spin losing by 8,800,000 votes into a good thing! Do try though. We can all always use the laugh...
So that's one vote for no right to privacy. Anyone else?
The Democrats winning the popular vote in the 2018 midterm elections means everything in the context of XX saying, "The People Spoke". Yes, they spoke, but it was not an endorsement of Trump or Trumpism. What they said was an utter and complete repudiation of both!
So? Very few repubs were even running in 2018. You cannot spin the worst popular vote loss in all US history into some kind of endorsement of Trump, butt do keep trying..
Yes, and the gop suffered its worst popular vote loss in all US history during the 2018 midterm elections losing by 8,800,000 votes overall. That is eight million eight hundred thousand votes. 8,800,000 less Americans voted for the damn gop than for Democrats in 2018. And, it looks like that number will exceed ten million votes November 3rd!
We were talking about "The People Speaking".
So, to you losing by 8,800,000 votes was a win?
How Orwellian can get? Some pigs may be more equal in Oceana, butt not here in America...
Trump Boat Parade
Yet, the damn gop lost the US House of Representatives while suffering their worst popular vote loss in all U S history. The polls now indicate that the damn gop will lose both the US Senate and the Presidency on November 3rd in what will be a historic landslide. Probably losing by over ten million votes. The polls in 2016 predicted Clinton would get 3,000,000 more votes that Trump and Clinton got 3,000,000 more votes than Trump. Trump cannot and will not squeak out an Electoral College win while losing by over 3% in the popular vote. He is down 10-12%...
That is odd since Trump voters tend to be the uneducated lower classes of white people...
Based on memes I see the gop cannot count!
At some point, it will probably become clear that has our population keeps increasing and the number of votes keeps going up, the gross amount of votes will almost always be "record breaking "
2018 was good for the Republicans in the Senate (thanks Kavanaugh!) and suboptimal in the House. But in terms of seats won and loss it's not even close to the worst loss or whatever nonsensical argument is being made.
That's funny! Trump's boat got repossessed...
I wonder how many super yachts you could buy with the $400,000,000 in Trump debt that is about to become due?
But please provide the actual signed notes obligating Trump for any debt. Exactly where are those LEGAL documents? You CAN do that can't you?
Gee, if someone made an untrue claim about me as significant as that, I’d provide the documents to prove otherwise! Oh, but Trump is under an eternal imaginary audit so he can’t divulge anything about his financial status as a bazillionaire. Good thing there are plenty of faithful Trump believers like yourself to swallow that.
Spartacus just said it - "This goose is cooked!"
I am not surprised by such a poll, the hearings have revealed her to be highly competent and grounded IMO.
Suddenly reactionaries believe in polls. What a colossal joke. The people are choosing Biden. Expect to see several appointments to the expanded Supreme Court next year by President Biden.
Sealing Biden's reputation as the worst President in history.
Even Biden, when he had a fully functioning brain packing the courts was boneheaded.
Trump has a lock on worst President in history.
Stacking the Court with hard-core reactionaries makes an expanded Court inevitable. You don't like it? Blame McConnell.
You do have some serious problems, don't you?
That sounds like something from an incel site.
Yeah, but....
the dopey Dem dummies need to start winning elections before they can do anything. I suspect a few Senate Dems who are up for reelection might vote for Barrett.
What are you talking about? The American people are very happy with the Court and oppose packing the Court with left wing partisan hacks. Adding political judges to override court decisions is what tin pot dictators do,
Sean, you can't talk for the American people. Every one of Trump's pick were all partisan picks. So he is doing what "tin pot dictators do".
Except for Merrick Garland's appointment, show me a POTUS who hasn't hand picked their choice that reflected their "vision"
no, but I can read a poll.
Every one of Trump's pick were all partisan picks
every President's picks are partisan picks.
o he is doing what "tin pot dictators do".
Really? He expanded the Court with party loyalists so his favored policies would be found legal? When did that happen? Seems like I recall Trump losing a few cases at the Supreme Court and didn't respond by packing the Court with party loyalists to overturn his administration's losses. But, please, show me where he did that.
Jim,
Merrick Garland was passed over twice by Obama because he was a centrist. He chose him that last time because of that, and he thought it would not be objectionable to Republicans. But their hate for Obama overruled a moderate justice, which is a shame.
So, no, they don't all handpick according to vision. Sometimes they pick by expedience.
Come on now. You are the one always saying that polls are not reliable.
Garland was a centrist.
I was responding to your comment where you said: packing the Court with left wing partisan hacks. What are you even referring to? Our current court? I'm sorry, but I don't see any hacks, right or left, but I do see partisans and this latest pick I opposed deeply, and not because she's a hack, because she is very bright, but because of what her past rulings have looked like and what she has said. Even her own classmates said she should not be picked because of the same reasons.
Mr. Obama's pick was Mr. Obama's pick. That makes it partisan.........centrist or no centrist. Did he ask any Republicans prior to announcing that pick?............he did it for his own benefit as you pointed out above......after two rejections
No, I don't say that. I think polls are usually pretty accurate. So you believe polls are unreliable?
Garland was a centrist
No, he wasn't. He's a liberal who was called a "centrist" when nominated by Democrats in the media just like every other Democratic nominee is. And then they all vote like hard left partisans.
New York Times on Ginsburg in 1993 "resolutely centrist judicial style"
Sotomayor in 2009 "her record is clearly that of a moderate."
Kagan in 2010 "a pragmatic centrist"
How often are you going to fall for that, "This Democratic nominee really and truly is a centrist line of crap that gets recycled?
packing the Court with left wing partisan hacks
You understand that's the point of adding justices to the Court, right? They aren't being shy about their motives. It's not to add more centrists like Roberts, Kavanaugh or Gorsuch.
ven her own classmates said she should not be picked because of the same reasons.
Please, please show me these classmates. And is that the standard you want to employ for future Democratic nominations? so and So doesn't like them so they can't serve on the Court?
It was a strategic choice by Obama. It was a Republican Senate and Obama was a lame duck president. Obama made Garland a very tempting choice considering that Hillary Clinton was a huge favorite to win the 2016 election and had she won almost certain to nominate another liberal/progressive.
The most strategic choice of all was Amy Coney Barrett. She is probably one of the most qualified individuals ever to be nominated. She was on all of Trump's prior lists. Trump kept her in his pocket in the event Ginsburg's seat ever became available. Just think, but for an odd twist of fate, we might never have had Judge Barrett nominated to the SCOTUS!
Judge Barret at the outset: “I interpret the Constitution as a law. That I interpret its text as text. And I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time, and it isn’t up to me to update or infuse my own policy views into it.”
Not sure. Obviously, in the last election, they were very wrong. I don't know if their way of getting an aggregate is a better approach. I guess we will all find out on election night.
See, this is why independents can't have a talk with a partisan. He was considered a centrist by his peers, not the NYT's. That is all that matters.
Please stop making this personal. I don't fall for any crap. I actually read information from various sources. I knew that Sotomayor and Kagan were liberal appointments. Merrick Garland was not.
You be funny. Roberts is a centrist and I know was a huge disappointment. Gorsuch I'll give you is unpredictable, but Kavanaugh is a dye in the wool conservative as is this new nomination.
I think that when there is such a huge body of classmates and professors coming out against a candidate, it should be taken into consideration.
All I have to say Vic, is that I find her not acceptable, not because I think that she isn't qualified, because she is, but because of her past decisions, which shows that she can't separate her beliefs from the process.
Viewing Roe as without Constitutional foundation is the proper process!
Regardless of how anyone feels about abortion - Roe v Wade was an illegitimate decision.
Sorry to disagree with you, Vic. And her past decisions had nothing to do with the legitimacy of Roe v Wade, but rather her personal views.
I disagree, as does the supreme court, the law and the majority of Americans.
Whether or not you or any other pretend constitutional scholar believe the constitutions right to privacy should apply or not doesn't really matter. The law says it does and the vast majority of Americans support keeping abortion safe and legal.
"As debates over abortion continue in states around the country, a majority of Americans (61%) continue to say that abortion should be legal in all (27%) or most (34%) cases."
Barrett is among the minority who believe her faith and beliefs should trump the constitution and the right to privacy that the Supreme Court ruled does apply in the case of abortion. She is obviously an activist judge who if confirmed will force her personal beliefs on the American people instead of following the law and established precedent.
She and the rest of the anti-choice minority can feel safe that no one is going to force them to have an abortion and that the constitution does guarantee them the right to privacy as well. If you don't like abortion don't get one. Otherwise get your nose out of other peoples business.
And Kagan and Sotomayor's peers would claim they were centrists, too.
avanaugh is a dye in the wool conservative as is this new nomination.
Sure he is..
Kavanaugh agrees with Roberts more than any other any other justice.
So letters from people who don't know her are the new standard?
How many members of the faculty of the ND Law School signed your letter? I see zero , and a whole lot of retired professors.
Breaking news, liberals don't want Barrett or another Justice appointed by a Republican approved. What percentage of the ND faculty will vote for Biden 90%?
Talking about letters, how bout one from lawyers who actually knew her and worked with her?
Every single clerk who worked with her on the Supreme Court signed that letter, including those who clerked for the liberal justices.
but hey, liberals who attended the same school she did at different times don't want her on the Court, so run with that.
If you like abortion feel free to pay for one. Otherwise get your nose out of other peoples business.
Glad you can read her mind. Typical [removed] bias. Rather than see it as a consistent application of her legal philosophy, which it obviously is, you claim it's based on personal views.
cool, show me where in the text it says its a Constitutional right. Otherwise, you are making a political argument.
etend constitutional scholar believe the constitutions right to privacy should apply or not doesn't really matter. The law says i
You know there is no law right? It's supposedly a right that various judges have found hiding in different parts of the Constitution that prevents laws and American voters from addressing it. The drafters kept it really well hid. Took over 100 years for it to be discovered.
e is obviously an activist judge who if confirmed will force her personal beliefs on the American people instead of following the law and established precedent.
So no justice can vote to overturn heller, Citizens United, Janus etc or they are forcing their personal beliefs on the American people.
you don't like abortion don't get one.
That's the equivalent of saying if you don't like slavery, don't buy one. Abortion and slavery defenders make the same arguments.
The Hatch act prevents any tax funding for abortions unless it was deemed medically necessary to save the life of the mother. So now you don't have to worry your spotless conscience with any thoughts of supporting abortion. Don't want one, don't get one.
Wow Sean, I can't believe you went there. That makes this discussion personal, nasty and plain wrong. Do you think that Catholics are the only people who believe abortion is wrong? I didn't have to read her mind. I based my opinion on what she actually has said.
She published her personal views, so yes I have grounds to believe that is what she thinks. As to what she does, she has decided 3 roe cases and decided against all 3. Her record speaks to her actions.
It's the Hyde Amendment and Democrats and flip flip Biden now wants it repealed.
Of course, we've been subsiding abortions through corporate welfare to the billion dollar Planned Parenthood corporation for decades, so it won't change a lot.. Just more corporate welfare for abortion factories and fewer minority babies, controlling in the words of Justice ginsburg "populations we don't want to have too much of."
Of course not. But originalism explains her judicial philosophy across subject areas, to claim it doesn't explain her position on abortion doesn't make sense. It's the dogma lies in within her crap.
As to what she does, she has decided 3 roe cases and decided against all 3.
No she didn't.
Merely your opinion. All Roe did was deem anti-abortion laws unconstitutional, as is the SCOTUS' responsibility. It helped expand individual rights, which I'd say is a good thing.
Total nonsense. A fertilized egg, zygote or fetus that hasn't reached viability is not a person. The law defines when a fetus become a person and just because you don't like it doesn't mean the law is wrong. And while many religious conservatives once claimed that blacks weren't "people" so that they could justify owning them, they were obviously living, born human beings which is a far cry from the fertilized egg or even the kidney bean sized zygote that 92% of abortions that occur at or before 12 weeks involve. Claiming an equivalency between abortion and slavery is beyond dishonest and betrays ones mindless religious zealotry over reason and logic.
Total bullshit. We've been funding low income women and men who get health services, annual checkups, cancer screenings and more which are the majority of the services provided by Planned Parenthood. Only complete dumb shits who have never been in a Planned Parenthood believe the horse shit lies about Planned Parenthood being nothing but an abortion factory.
It's perfectly legal to abort viable babies.
Laws change. They are not divine edicts. Americans should have the right to determine what laws govern them. To take an issue from the people based on the personal morals of Supreme Court justices who had to resort to inventing a right is an assault on her liberty.
st and betrays ones mindless religious zealotry over reason and logic.
My position has nothing to do with religion. I'm an atheist. Unlike many on this site, I'm not a zealot who is so emotionally invested din the issue that they see everything through that prism. . I think it's wrong to take innocent life. That's what "reason and logic" have taught me.
Only Complete dumb shits shill for corporations that hide their books from the taxpayers that fund them. A majority of their non tax payer revenue comes from abortion. I can't say how much exactly, because, you know, they hide their numbers.
[DELETED]
That was President Obama. He is now Former President Obama.
Boy Howdy!
Lol! Think that through.
Being an originalist only explains part of her decisions. What she has written in the past also plays into this.
In Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc., Barrett joined dissenters arguing in favor of an Indiana law that would have required doctors to notify the parents of a minor seeking an abortion. Unlike parental notification laws in other states, Indiana's didn't include a judicial bypass provision, an exception to the law for minors able to prove to a judge they have the maturity to make the decision of their own and that notifying their parents would not be in their best interest.
Barrett also joined dissenters in another abortion case from Indiana, Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. Barrett favored a rehearing of two state laws: one that regulated the fetal remains from abortion procedures and another that would have banned abortions for reasons related to sex, race or disability, including life-threatening conditions.
The majority, which struck down the so-called "reason ban," found that the restriction limited a patient's ability to receive an abortion prior to fetal viability, and thus was in violation of Roe v. Wade.
And you have a problem with that.........as a mother of two girls?
Which also recognizes cases of incest and girls who live in abusive homes who have reason to believe that they could be physically and/or mentally harmed.
It is a very complex issue. I feel that the parents should be informed, but that the girl should have the ultimate decision. Here's why.
Let's say the girl got raped and didn't want the pregnancy, but her parents were felt that abortion was against their faith, the girl is forced to carry the pregnancy because of her parent's faith, which may not be hers.
btw, my girls were raised knowing that I believed in choice. When they were teens we discussed such matters. The only thing I made clear, was that I was not going to be raising any child they had. At that time, one daughter was fine with an early abortion and the other one was not. I would have followed their wishes. Not all families have these discussions or even feel free enough to have them. I am sure no daughter of this judge would even ask if they felt differently than their mom.
I will put it into a different light.
Jehovah's witnesses do not allow blood transfusions. An older child/teen gets injured and needs blood, and wants it, but their parent says no. Should the parent's wishes overrule the child's? Should that be allowed?
Exactly, which is a huge issue for me.
As it should be for everyone.
Well, I posted an article with a totally different opinion, but mine discussed his actual rulings record.
And the closest thing we have as a centrist on the court right now is Roberts.
A fifth grader in my hometown in Oklahoma was impregnated by her father. The parents, being devout (urp) Christians, would never consent to a termination. So, the little girl was forced to deliver her son/brother to be raised by her parents whom she still lives with!
The father slash grandfather was not even charged since the local authorities decided that it was in everyone's best interests to keep the family intact and together...
They all veer hard left once confirmed
First, of course, she has never ruled to overturn Casey (the actual controlling case). In one case, she simply supported a petition for a full hearing on the issue of whether a Court can prevent a state from enforcing a statute that had not gone into effect. The other case you mention that actually addressed Casey was about whether it was permissible to abort babies on the basis of race or gender. Since Casey (the actual case that controls) theoretically allows some restrictions on abortion, the case explored the bounds of permissible regulation. Of course, zealots like Ginsburg never have found a single restriction they would allow and everything that stands in the way of abortion on demand until birth (or shortly thereafter) is an "attack on Roe." Unlike Ginsburg, some judges like ACB try and follow precedent.
So those two cases show, at most, that she doesn't believe the Casey requires on abortion on demand and that some restrictions are permissible.
I notice you ignored Price v City of Chicago for some reason. It's the third abortion related case she's ruled on yet somehow you missed it. Is it because she upheld the City Ordinance
Your argument seems to be that since she allowed states to place arguable restrictions on abortion in one case, and no restrictions on abortion should be allowed, (even though Casey claims it allows some restrictions), she's
you originally claimed three cases and then listed two. I assume because in the third case, Price V City of Chicago upheld a bubble around abortion centers that restricted pro-life protesters first amendment rights. She followed precedent, even though the decision was pro abortion and makes accessing abortion clinics easier.
So in the three cases that touch upon abortion, two went for the pro life side and one for the pro choice. Hardly the record of someone imposing their personal views on the matter.
Sean, you told me that she never ruled on any abortion cases, remember?
And now get a full retort. So all along you knew she had ruled on abortion in previous cases. I never said she ruled on Casey so it is irrelevant to this discussion. And it is also irrelevant how you think "zelots" like RBG would have ruled. Now tell me, if I had used the word zelot on Barrett, would you have called me anti-catholic again? And please show me where RBG believed in abortion on demand until birth (or shortly thereafter). Please show me where she believed that?
Second I counted Indiana State Department of Health v. Planned Parenthood as two, since one had to do with Fetal tissue, and the other that would have banned abortions for reasons related to sex, race or disability, including life-threatening conditions. Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. makes 3.
I never mentioned Price V City of Chicago, because the "bubble rule" is not about abortion, but freedom of speech.
Yes, had you read the thread, it was about a court case regarding an underaged girl's right to not inform her parents.
The ironic thing about conservatives false assumptions about RBG is that she fought just as hard for a woman's right not to be forced to have an abortion.
Don't believe this poll for one minute.
Lol .... yes, liberals don't believe this poll but believe all the polls showing Biden with big double digit point leads ....... hilarious!
The YUGE irony of your statement is that the poll cited by the seed shows that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have higher approval ratings AND are more trusted.
You just rested his case for him...............I'm curious. Where in the seeded article did it say anything about approval ratings for Harris/Biden/Harris?
Follow the thread Jim. My comment was in reply to Sparty's. Try to keep up.