Barrett claims she is not hostile

[Cartaphelius]

to the ACA in her response with Cornyn.

But clearly, she is religiously hostile toward Roe, LGBT and the ACA.

Yet, ignoring the rights of christians and non-christians alike because her
religion and her fellow "christians" demands the exclusion of rights to
the poor above all else to cement power for the future Religious regime.

[agingdem]

1. waiting for a Kavanaugh moment...

I like beer!!!

[FBaggins]

2. Don't hold your breath

She's dramatically more capable at this phase of the game than he was... and isn't likely to have the same kind of allegations raised.

There's a reason they saved her for the Ginsburg seat. I just wish they didn't get the opportunity.

[w100jmi]

3. If you listened closely, earlier when asked about her stance on ACA

She says she doesn't hold an opinion or judgement yet but if you listened, she said "I don't have all the facts and opinions in front of me TO CHANGE MY MIND, so I cannot answer. She contradict herself and that needs to be brought up.

[James4Biden]

4. If she doesn't want to answer questions about her views, she should not have

published opinions of them in the past.

It’s clear Senate Democrats have decided that hammering Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on her stated disdain for the Affordable Care Act is a winning message. They did it all day Monday, mostly to success, and a lot of Tuesday. But Senator Dick Durbin was one of the first to introduce another equally important line of questioning Tuesday: why she thinks felons are entitled to own guns, despite state and federal law to the contrary, but not to vote.

Barrett wrote a stunning 38-page dissent to the 27-page majority opinion in the 2019 Kanter vs. Barr, in which a Wisconsin felon who’d served his time challenged laws prohibiting him from purchasing a gun. I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t vouch for the quality of her legal reasoning. Also, since I’m not a lawyer, I was slightly befuddled by her claim that the distinction was a matter of “individual rights,” which applied to gun ownership, versus “civic rights,” which include voting. It was clear to me her point was that gun rights are more fundamental than voting rights, but I didn’t know how she got there.

Luckily, smarter folks than I have teased it out. My colleague Elie Mystal went appropriately ballistic on Twitter, so I learned from him. Also helpful was this New Republic piece by Matt Ford. True to her self-identification as an “originalist,” hewing closely to what is essentially a subjective view of what the “founders” intended as they wrote the Constitution, Barrett saw a basis for distinguishing between felons who committed violent crimes, and those, like Rickey Kanter, whose crime, multimillion-dollar mail fraud, was nonviolent.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/amy-coney-barrett-voting-rights/