GrandAdmiral
Well-known member
Offline
Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.
ETA: Reported on CNN.
ETA: Reported on CNN.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
the expected is official
bye bye healthcare... I hope they hammer this point home in the campaign's stretch run. Not get caught up in the morass of moralizing that won't be practically useful in either the short- or long-term
Where do you get that from?however, we do already know that she favors stripping the right to vote for life from any convicted felons
Admittedly, I did not watch this entire video, but I watched long enough that I am somewhat less disturbed by Barrett's appointment. If she adheres to her message of "duty, not politics," she may turn out to be someone less inclined to fall in line with expected outcomes.
There is no way I can be as optimistic. Also people can say empty words all the time, and once she is appointed to a position (for life) we could very well be set back decades because of it.
(taken from an article)
On abortion, she will be a reliable vote to allow all sorts of abortion restrictions. Based on how she has voted in cases as a judge and how she has criticized Roe v. Wade and called abortion “always immoral,” there is no doubt that when the issue is squarely before her, she will be a resounding vote in favor of overturning Roe. With four Justices on the Court now who expressed serious skepticism (or worse) about Roe just this summer, she would provide the fifth vote to overturn the case and get rid of nationwide abortion rights in this country.
On healthcare, she will vote to overturn the Affordable Care Act and get rid of all its protections. She has already said that she did not agree with the Court’s upholding of the law in 2012. And with the law coming back to the court this November, if she is on the bench by the time it hears the case, it won’t matter that Chief Justice Roberts votes for the law because she will have four other conservatives joining her to strike it down.
On guns, she will vote to expand the rights of gun owners and limit the ability of states to restrict guns. She has already voted to allow felons to possess guns (dissenting in a case that upheld the restriction), so we know how she feels about the issue. The court has so far been reluctant to expand gun rights beyond basic ownership of a handgun, but with Justice Barrett seated, a fifth vote to allow for unfettered gun ownership is likely.
Where do you get that from?
I understand she may have made a comment or, perhaps used voting rights to contrast with 2d amendment rights - but I don't think she advocated being for denying those rights.
Big difference between arguing government has the power to do something and advocating or being for the exercise of that power.
It would require a specific case to be brought before the Court with a specific reason for them to take it up and I tend to believe that they are unlikely to do that. They will continue to refer issues back to lower courts for resolution until there is a case that gives them no choice but to revisit the decision.
Do you support an amendment declaring that, to protect human life, a right to abortion and the funding of abortion shall not be found in the Louisiana Constitution?
...I believe the administration's case is a loser and the Roberts will be able to maintain the majority in upholding the law.
And to be clear, looking at that language, she would deny abortion to any woman, no matter what? That is what it looks like to me. No exceptions for rape, incest, danger to the life of the woman?
Compared to where the majority of people in this country are with their beliefs, this is a radical view.
What language are we talking about? The language in the law review article? I do not see anything about abortion, but I skimmed it.As I read it, she says that abortion is "absolutely prohibited" under church teachings that she is bound to follow. I don't see how that leaves any exceptions.
But that's just from this text, I think she has spoken or written about it elsewhere (including in 7th Circuit opinions, I believe). So her current views might not be as absolute, I'm not sure.
What language are we talking about? The language in the law review article? I do not see anything about abortion, but I skimmed it.
If the idea is to equate capital punishment and abortion - in terms of Catholic teachings: I think both are prohibited, then concerns with her position as expressed in the law review article should be laid to rest. A quick search shows that she voted, twice (once in the original order, and again on the panel), to overturn a stay of carrying out a death sentence.