Published under license
Politics & Finance Writer
Vanity Fair
Since Amy Coney Barrett was nominated to the Supreme Court, Republicans have suggested that one of the reasons she should be given a lifetime appointment on the highest court of the land is that she has seven kids. Barrett is “a remarkable mother” with “seven beautiful children,” Senator Thom Tillis said during the first day of her confirmation hearing. She’s a “tireless mother of seven,” Senator Chuck Grassley told the room. “She and her husband have seven children,” Senator Lindsey Graham said in his opening remarks, in case anyone hadn’t heard, before giving her two more. “She and her husband have seven children. Two adopted. Nine seems to be a good number,” he said. Obviously, constantly bringing up this part of Barrett’s biography is part of an attempt on Republicans’ part to (1) draw a distinction between Barrett and what they view as childless heathen Democrats, (2) claim that any opposition to her confirmation is anti-mom, and (3) suggest that since she’s a mother, she must be a good person who couldn’t possibly issue rulings that would hurt millions of people.
But, surprise! Despite being a mother, Barrett is expected to help overturn the Affordable Care Act. (After she was asked about this possibility, which would strip health insurance from millions, Grassley raged at his Democratic colleagues that “As a mother of seven, Judge Barrett clearly understands the importance of health care.”) She will also very likely go after Roe v. Wade, if given the chance, which some mothers would point out prevents their daughters—or even women they didn’t give birth to!— from being forced into back alley abortions. And even though she’s a mom of seven children, she apparently thinks the jury is still out on whether or not it’s bad to separate small children from their parents, if they happen to be from another country: . . . .
***********************
Read the rest of Bess’s article and the latest from The Levin Report at the above link.
Just for the record, the Trump DOJ conceded before U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw (a GOP appointee) that intentional child separation is a violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process.
They also declined to appeal Judge Sabraw’s order to that effect – unusual for a regime that usually pushes the most frivolous, clearly illegal, and unethical positions for as long as possible to the highest levels of the judiciary (knowing that the “Roberts” Five” believes that ethical requirements and disciplinary procedures don’t apply to the Trump legal team assembled on your taxpayer dollars).
Wonder what would happen if we had a more honest and realistic confirmation system that allowed nominees to actually answer truthfully, rather than disingenuously claiming under oath that after a lifetime of intense public involvement in the law, politics, and public policy, they had no real views on anything of any importance whatsoever?
I actually doubt that an honest answer to this question, either way, would have cost Coney Barrett her politically-assured confirmation, nor would it have required recusal in any litigation likely to reach the Supremes’ merits docket. So, Coney Barrett thinks we’re dumb enough to believe that after several days of her GOP sponsors touting the wonderfulness of her bold embrace of their far-right agenda — the first overtly “pro-life woman Justice” — that they are badly mistaken and, in fact, she has no views or opinions on anything.
It kind of reminds me of the “super-disclaimer” I used to give on those occasions when my “EOIR handlers” let me speak in public: “Nothing that I say today represents my view on any case that I decided in the past, is pending before me, or might come before me in the future.”
On the bright side, Coney Barrett was able to (sort of) answer the question of Sen. John “I’m Not JFK” Kennedy (R-LA) about who does the laundry at her home (supposed to be her kids, but apparently they haven’t completely gotten the message. Now, if ACB were before me in Immigration Court, this is the point when I would have turned to the kids and said “Come on kids, Mom’s doing it all for you and others, I want you to give her and your Dad a hand.”)
Seriously, though, Dems, here’s the definition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett: “It’s what you get when lose elections for the White House and the Senate.” If you really want the next woman Justice to be a worthy progressive successor to the legacy of RBG and a “soul mate” for Justice Sonia Sotomayor, then go out and win the elections necessary to make that happen!
Another huge plus: If we Dems could figure out how to translate our national political majority into control of all three political arms, we could shore up health care, address COVID in a rational way, help Americans who have lost livelihoods and confidence because of COVID, and create educational opportunities and jobs that will be durable and serve us well in the Post-COVID world. We could also address the deficit by undoing the revenue shortage resulting from unwarranted tax giveaways to the wealthy, and get “more bang for our tax dollars” by running government wisely, prudently, and efficiently, for the overall public good rather than for the benefit of grifters and their selfish, anti-democracy far-right agenda.
Then, we could see whether Justice Barrett will stick to her word and urge her colleagues to “let the political branches of Government make policy.” That’s something that has been a challenge for past right-wing jurists, including the late Justice Scalia. But, if it actually happened, it would make the issue of “enhancing” the Supremes with progressive Justices largely moot.
Which is probably why Joe & Kamala have wisely refused to “take the GOP bait” on how they might specifically solve a problem that might or might not exist in the future. I do know one thing, however. As reflective, reasonable, and thoughtful public officials who listen to expert advice, they will promote the best possible solution for all Americans under the circumstances. That’s certainly a “quantum leap” over where we are today!
PWS
10-15-20
PWS
10-14-20
