Amy Coney Barrett wants us to believe the Supreme Court isn't partisan. Good luck with that

[LetMyPeopleVote]

This "lady" is a partisan religious nut case hack

Link to tweet

Even worse is that the ruling was made on a procedural question without the court even hearing argument on the merits of the Texas law. In a rare public comment, Breyer — one of the four justices who voted to block the Texas law at least temporarily — called the ruling “very, very, very wrong.” And Breyer is very, very, very right to be upset, because even if the ruling is technically just about procedure, it has concrete and dramatic impact on any Texas woman who is or becomes pregnant and doesn’t want to be. Moreover, other states with Republican-controlled state legislatures are rushing to draft copycat laws. If the Supreme Court wants to let states ban abortion, it should just go ahead and reverse Roe v. Wade.

I see no reason to believe the court’s conservative majority will stop short of doing just that. Thomas and Alito have long made clear that they are raring to do just that. And while the three justices appointed by former president Donald Trump — Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett — all claimed deep respect for precedent at their confirmation hearings, their votes to let the Texas law go into effect say otherwise.

The conservative Federalist Society, which has become a crucial gatekeeper on the right and vetted a list of acceptable Supreme Court candidates for Trump to choose from, did its job well. The result is a solid five-vote and sometimes six-vote majority that opposes abortion, supports gun rights, questions affirmative action, doubts existing federal protection of voting rights, doesn’t see the influence of big money in politics as a problem... in short, a majority that agrees with the Republican Party’s position on issues the party most cares about.

What can Democrats and progressives do about all the terrible, reactionary, wrongheaded decisions that look likely to come in the next months and years? On voting rights, they could pass strong new federal legislation, like the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act or the For the People Act. On other issues, they should prepare to battle at the state level — and to bring the same legislative creativity and tenacity that Texas conservatives brought to bear on the abortion law.

And they should ignore Barrett and others who claim this court’s decisions are nonpartisan — at least until and unless we see evidence to the contrary.

[WHITT]

1. Keep It Up

When FDR and the Dem congress initially passed what we now know as the "New Deal", the RightWing dominated SCOTUS struck it all down. FDR then started publicly talking-up the idea of adding more justices to the court, and wadda ya know, when they again passed what is now known as the "New Deal", the SCOTUS left it alone.

The fact that Barrett is squealin' like a stuck pig means we need to double-down.

[JHB]

12. That was without a deliberately politicized court.

Conservatives have made making the courts conservative/right-wing for over 40 years now, and that effort is bearing more fruit than ever.

Threatening to thwart them by expanding g the court won't stop them. Only actually doing it will, and we don't (yet) have a solid-enough majority to pull that off and de-politicize the courts.

[WHITT]

13. If They Weren't Concerned

they wouldn't have sent the hopefully more sympathetic female out there to publicly complain. It didn't work.

[lagomorph777]

17. Definitely keep up the pressure. Screw their whining; expand SCROTUS to 13.

These hyper-partisan Injustices need to be taken down a couple of notches.

[madamesilverspurs]

2. Did her husband direct her to say that?

Yup, that was my first thought.


.

[brush]

3. Obvious conscioness of guilty by a walking oxymoron.

And what I mean by that is how the hell is a woman justice an originalist? Does her husband tell her now to rule or she just sticks with Scalia's teachings?

[SergeStorms]

4. I read her ridiculous screed yesterday....

and it made me want to vomit. Mitch McConnell stole two Supreme Court nominees, and rushed them through confirmation. One was a rapist and a beer swilling drunk, the other a totally unqualified religious fanatic who won't even wear makeup because she believes she's tempting men with evil thoughts. Neither of these people should have been considered for the highest court in the land, but they were young, would be on the bench for decades to come, and would promise to do almost anything for that opportunity. Overturning Roe v Wade was one of those things.

So for her lie, AGAIN, and say the Supreme Court shouldn't be considered partisan is total horseshit.

I'm really, really starting to hate this lying witch.

[Hekate]

5. She wants us to understand she is quite concerned about that perception. So concerned.

Your description of Dear Amy is as accurate as hell.

[brer cat]

6. K&R

[Buckeyeblue]

7. She should prove it by stepping down

She should say that being on the SC is a lifelong dream come true but the circumstances under which she was put on the court are not conducive to judicial unity (whatever that means).

She should say that she would love to be nominated again when circumstances were different.

Otherwise, she should just shut the fuck up. She's the problem.

[The Unmitigated Gall]

8. She accepted the nomination to replace a justice

Who was her polar opposite in judicial philosophy. The time to express her concerns was then, by refusing the nomination and speaking out for balance on the court. Now, it’s a sick joke. Coney Barret is a sick joke.

[Tommymac]

9. Right now, Dems could ADD 3 Justices. THAT is the real solution.

The rest is just noise.

That is all.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

10. For this thread

[Mad_Machine76]

11. Sure, Jan

Whatever.

We were robbed during the Trump years. They were able to stall out Garland for the last year of Obama's Presidency using a made up "rule" that we shouldn't fill a seat during an Election year, then Trump won and got to fill Scalia's vacancy with Gorsuch right off the bat, somebody somehow engineered a Kennedy resignation in the middle of Trump's term, and we got Kavanaugh on the Court (which has a whole host of issues in and of itself), and the final insult was RGB dying right before Election 2020 and Republicans rushing to fill her seat with Barrett in complete reversal of their earlier "rule" about filling a seat during an Election year-right before Trump lost the election no less.

And I'm mad all over again.

[LT Barclay]

15. I still believe Obama should have issued an executive order stating that the Garland seat

Was his to fill even if it took 10 years or more to come to a vote.
At the time the SCOTUS was 4/4 and there was a good shot it would stand.

[LT Barclay]

16. I still believe Obama should have issued an executive order stating that the Garland seat

Was his to fill even if it took 10 years or more to come to a vote.
At the time the SCOTUS was 4/4 and there was a good shot it would stand.

[Mad_Machine76]

18. IANAL

but I'm not sure how that would have worked?

[WHITT]

14. She Also Complained

that the media is lying about their extremist RightWing rulings.

Just can't handle the truth.

[bucolic_frolic]

19. She's the KellyAnne of the judiciary

She's no Sandra Day O'Connor