Trump's Supreme Court Pick Has A Problem With The Constitution
Amy Coney Barrett Sees the Law as a Cruel, Harsh Master of the Individual
By Terry H. Schwadron, DCReport Opinion Editor
Nomination of conservative Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court makes us think about the role of government in our lives and the Republican majority view of winning vs. fairness.
That her lifetime confirmation will change the direction of the Supreme Court for many years is a given, and, as it happens a sop toward Donald Trumps re-election efforts.
But what is there to learn here?
Heres the good news about nominee Barrett: There will be no nonsense about a woman as the nominee, and minimal attention on her choices about religion, lifestyle and what she wears. She will get the same black robe as the rest.
https://www.dcreport.org/2020/09/27/trumps-supreme-court-pick-has-a-problem-with-the-constitution/
-snip-
My question for Barrett is this: We get the originalism idea, but how does that concept allow us to pick and choose its way about protection of the individual?
I want to know how she matches the specifics of the law and its legal precedents with the realities we face in our country.
Do we believe in justice that advances individual rights? If so, why is religion a shield, and consumerist legislation not? Why is legislation that enables government to decide what constitutes marriage OK, and individual rights to health treatments not OK? Why are Americans to be afforded the right to assault weapons but not clean air? What is the role of actions to balance centuries of racial unfairness?
There is a certain sense that the approach is more important than a sense of justice. These confirmation hearings always are a bit of a crapshoot since the judges wont really talk about their views. But an examination of their records should tell us about how they approach the job.
There will be attempts to ask about her affiliation with People of Praise, a religious group that until recently referred to its female leaders as handmaids ― evoking comparisons to Margaret Atwoods dystopian novel The Handmaids Tale. I hope they are set aside quickly other than establishing that personal beliefs are no substitute for creating a legal precedent.
The Court is about to launch a revolution in exact opposition to the majority of its citizenry. We need to understand how we deal with that.