 Well over the weekend Donald Trump named who we all expected him to name to replace justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg He selected Amy Coney Barrett and this individual is the polar opposite of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in every conceivable way They are ideologically on opposite sides of the political spectrum and when it comes to their judicial philosophies She is nothing like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In fact, she Explicitly stated that she is very similar to Justice Scalia in terms of how she interprets the Constitution Don't take it from me take it from her. I clerked for Justice Scalia more than 20 years ago, but the lessons I learned still resonate His judicial philosophy is mine, too Now this is worrying because Justice Scalia was a strict constructionist That's the way that he interpreted the Constitution now at face value you might think well That doesn't necessarily seem that bad aren't strict constructionists just fairly consistent and principled Well, no not necessarily but on top of that This is an antiquated way in my opinion of interpreting the Constitution because it isn't something that You know is conducive to change in a changing society like I mean the Constitution itself They don't see it as a living breathing document and that's problematic like you can disagree with that notion But the problem is that society is constantly in flux and you have to be able to have a judicial system that Changes with the times, but the way that she interprets the Constitution wouldn't allow for that right so what a strict constructionist would believe for example with gay rights is that Well, look if the Constitution doesn't explicitly name gay people and say that they have the right to marry Then they don't have the right to marry according to someone like her to the extent that we have civil rights and civil liberties The Constitution lays it out explicitly it says it literally otherwise it's not there and Congress needs to Pass a constitutional amendment and change it which is super easy of course So, you know, she would disagree with someone like Ruth Bader Ginsburg who believes that there are certain rights that emanate out of the Constitution so the equal protection clause, you know can be extended to members of the LGBTQ plus Community based on legal precedent, but to her she'd say well, it doesn't say gay people So that doesn't extend to gay people That is the type of way that she interprets the Constitution So it's troubling and what's especially alarming is the fact that she is part of I don't want to say a cult but a cult ish branch of Catholicism called people of praise and it is very very evident that this group Influences her judicial views now of all people Joan Walsh actually had a pretty fair breakdown of this in the nation And she explains Barrett's religious views themselves would not be of concern if we didn't have ample evidence that they influence her legal views And it's important to note that people of praise is significantly more restrictive than Catholicism The group has gotten some exaggerated and unfair coverage while it traditionally termed male community leaders heads and their female counterparts Handmaids oh god, it didn't inspire Margaret Atwoods the handmaid's tale though to be safe It changed handmaids to leaders after the Hulu hit debuted cult experts say it's not a cult Press X to doubt if you check out its Facebook page Most posts are inspiring stories of charity and grace also its post COVID events feature people making Distributing and wearing masks. Wow the bar is very low But there's no denying that the group opposes abortion and gay marriage and bars out LGBT people from membership It's South Bend school Trinity where Barrett was on the board for several years teaches male and female students separately and prohibits dating in 2017 the New York Times reported that while group members confirmed that Barrett and her husband were part of people of praise In fact, both their fathers had been leaders She didn't disclose her membership in Senate confirmation documents Meanwhile links that mentioned her in the group's magazine vine and branches some recent according to the Times vanished from its website So she's trying to hide her membership to this group But she is part of this group which you can argue is a cult now I'm no expert so the cult experts say this is an actually a cult But I think you can reasonable reasonably deduce that it's at least cult II right because I mean This is obviously something that is a huge part of her life Of course, it's going to influence her decisions on the Supreme Court Now what's alarming to me is the fact that the media hasn't been properly vetting her now I understand on one hand that you know, she doesn't have an Extensive judicial record, you know, so it's hard to pick it apart if there's not much there there but what we've been seeing from the media is a Little nauseating for example liberal elites like Noah Feldman who write for Bloomberg say that even though they disagree with her on everything Well, you know, she's super nice in real life. So that's enough She should definitely sit on the highest court and Be there for decades and rule against civil rights of liberties and be a good little stooge to corporate America because you know She's nice. Yeah, gonna need more than that. And on top of that, we don't see much resistance from Democrats Because she's a woman So as Jim van de Haia of Axios puts it Democrats privately fear that going too hard on Judge Amy Coney Barrett in her confirmation hearings could wind up backfiring if senators are perceived as Being nasty to an accomplished woman. So in other words, let's not vet her because she is a woman And we don't want to be sexist Isn't it sexist to not treat women the same as men like to not hold them to the same standard as men? I mean, they've drunk in their own Kool-Aid and now it's hurting them But I mean, I don't even think Democrats want to fight. So they're looking for any excuse to just back down from this So basically her confirmation in my mind is a foregone conclusion I would be surprised if she wasn't confirmed quickly now. There's really no way to tell Exactly what we can expect from her. Does this mean that she would certainly vote to repeal Roe v Wade? Not necessarily But is it reasonable to suspect that she would vote against Roe v Wade in the event that came up? Well sure based on the way that she rolled on two other cases related to Abortion in one the full appeals court declined to review a panel decision that blocked from taking effect an Indiana parental consent law from minors seeking abortions the law on this has been fairly clear for decades It is constitutional for states to require that minors seeking abortions obtain parental consent However, such laws must provide what is known as a judicial bypass allowing the minor to Demonstrate that she is mature enough to make the decision on her own or that an abortion would be in her best interest Not withstanding this settled law Indiana enacted a parental consent law that mandated that the parent be informed of the planned Abortion unless the judge further decided that it would not be in the minors best interest District judge blocked the law into three judge appeals court panel agreed the panel splitting two to one noted the serious risk That prior notice instead of giving parents an opportunity to offer wise counsel will actually give parents an opportunity to exercise a Practical veto preventing the pregnant minor from actually exercising the constitutional right the juvenile court has allowed her to exercise The full appeals court dividing six to five let that decision stand Barrett and two other Trump nominees joined the dissent which stated the issue as a matter of federalism Preventing a state statute from taking effect is a judicial act of extraordinary gravity in our federal structure The second case involved an even more extreme Indiana law signed by Vice President Mike Pence when he was governor It prohibited abortions performed for reasons related to sex race or disability Specifically a woman who discovered that her fetus had down syndrome would be barred from terminating the pregnancy an appeals court panel Composed of three Republican appointees agreed with the lower court that the law was flatly unconstitutional The non-discrimination provisions clearly violate well established Supreme Court precedent Holding that a woman may terminate her pregnancy prior to viability and that the state may not prohibit a woman from exercising that right for any Reason the court said Indiana didn't ask the appeals court to reconsider that part of the ruling Just a different aspect of the law involving the disposal of fetal remains that didn't stop Barrett from joining a dissent that labeled The law a eugenics statute now. That's basically more information than you need But what it tells us is that when it comes to the issue of abortion? She sided with the justices who opted for more restrictions on abortion That's a big sign. That's a big red flag. Now for these particular cases the reason why there should be a judicial bypass and Maybe why you know a court might want to allow a minor to have an abortion without the consent of her parents Is because she could have abusive parents or parents who are in a group like people of praise Where if she were raped they wouldn't allow for that abortion to take place So we need minors to be at least, you know able to make their case in a court now when it comes to you know The law that Mike Penn signs I don't know how many people are basing their abortions off of sex or race But what a lot of these cases are are Trojan horses what they want to do is try to attack abortion in Whatever way they can to impose more restrictions so those restrictions end up getting Solidified by courts you build on that legal precedent and ultimately you could work its way You know work your way up to the Supreme Court and end up getting Roe v. Wade overturn So that's what I think a lot of these restrictions are about they just want to make this be you know One case that gets us to that point of repealing Roe v. Wade to where for hearing this maybe we're you know Examining whether or not abortion should be legal all together if states are allowed to ban abortions or not, so I mean it's troubling but Abortion and like social issues. That's not the only area which should concern us this individual will be hearing the upcoming ACA lawsuit that will be argued in front of the Supreme Court and so she will likely be a vote To repeal the Affordable Care Act with which means that patients with pre-existing conditions will no longer be protected Which means just like that tens of millions lose their insurance and look I don't defend the ACA very frequently I think it's garbage right wing reform, right? I don't like free market neoliberal health insurance reforms I want you know a single-payer system. I want a national health system but If she gets her way even the shitty law won't stand if she gets on the court I should say but she will get her way Trump will likely get his way now on top of that Trump himself has explained why he wants to Rush this confirmation process and it's because he can anticipate a situation where we're seeing another Bush v. Gore play out And he wants to make sure that he has all the votes on the Supreme Court that he can possibly get in the event These nine unelected justices choose to override the will of the American people once again Well, it's a great question a very fair question. Yes, I think it's very important I think this will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think it's very important that we have nine Justices and I think the system is going to go very quickly But I think it's better if you go before the election because I think this This scam that the Democrats are pulling it's a scam This scam will be before the United States Supreme Court, and I think having a 4-4 Situation is not a good situation if you get that. I don't know that you'd get that I think it should be eight nothing or nine nothing, but just in case it would be More political than it should be I think it's very important to have a ninth just Yeah Now what's startling is that if Trump gets his way? He is confirming someone to the Supreme Court who was actually Involved in the Bush v. Gore decision like Kavanaugh and Roberts So as David Serota explains in an article for Jacob in three years ago Barrett told the Senate judiciary committee that one significant case on which I provided research and briefing assistance Was Bush v. Gore. She said she worked on the case for the law firm Baker bots while it was in Florida courts She declined to detail the scope of her work on the case and for other clients at the firm Saying I no longer have records of matters upon which I worked if Barrett is confirmed She will join two other lawyers from the Republican team that worked on the case that handed the GOP the presidency in 2000 Chief Justice Roberts counseled then Florida Governor Jeb Bush during that election according to emails the Los Angeles Times reported that Roberts traveled to Tallahassee the state capital to dispense legal advice and operated in the shadows at least some of those 37 days That decided the election Roberts has a long record of working to limit voting rights It is a similar story for Justice Brett Kavanaugh The Miami Herald reported that during the floor to stand off Kavanaugh joined Bush's legal team Which was trying to stop the ballot recount in the state? Kavanaugh appeared on national television to push for the ruling that a halt of the statewide recount and handed Bush the presidency So if she Were to be confirmed which is highly likely in my opinion then Trump is nominating someone who is a partisan to the court Regardless if she'll admit that or not. She's a partisan. She's an extremist. She's a far-right Republican And she's not just going to dictate What is legal precedent in the United States for decades to come she's going to play a role potentially in Determining who's president? I mean it doesn't get any more bleak than this folks and it just doesn't seem like Democrats have the will to fight it doesn't seem like the media wants to actually apply even a minimal amount of scrutiny So what we know about her record and there's a lot there to critique even though it's not as much as Kavanaugh and this is just It's bad But you know, it's not surprising because in 2020 America We've come to expect that the worst possible outcome is also the most likely scenario that will play out in reality So nobody's really talking about the threat that she poses But basically expect her to rule in the same way that we'd expect someone like Justice Scalia to rule