Justice Amy Coney Barrett's own words require her to recuse herself in abortion cases

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

When should a Supreme Court justice's deeply held religious beliefs require recusal - that is, that the justice not participate in a particular case? A difficult question, to be sure, but one that Justice Amy Coney Barrett has already answered for herself. And her answer requires her recusal in abortion cases.

The Supreme Court hears arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Wednesday, which challenges the constitutionality of Mississippi's ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Under current precedent, the law is unconstitutional - as both the district court and the court of appeals held. Both Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, and Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey, decided in 1992, hold that a state cannot ban abortions prior to viability, approximately the 24th week of pregnancy. Mississippi has asked the Supreme Court to overrule those precedents.

To follow her own words in a 1998 law review article, Barrett should have recused herself from deciding this case (and all other abortion cases) if she has any integrity at all.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/justice-amy-coney-barretts-own-words-require-her-to-recuse-herself-in-abortion-cases/ar-AARltdP

[Casady1]

1. No chance

This is her lifelong dream.

[FSogol]

2. "if she has any integrity at all" - therein lies the problem.

[Johonny]

3. She was put on the court to turn the US in 1859 again

[malaise]

4. Integrity?

She accepted that appointment a few weeks before the elections after MoscowMitch refused a hearing for Obama's pick months before an election...and you use the word integrity - she has none.

[MOMFUDSKI]

5. Her advice

to a pregnant woman is to just have that baby and drop it off at your local firehouse. Simple. Trouble is that these same pro-lifers do not care about that baby at that firehouse.

[Crunchy Frog]

8. On the contrary. The baby enters a lucrative market,

especially if it's white and healthy.

[MOMFUDSKI]

9. You are right

regarding the adoption racket. Whole thing is as sad as can be. There are way too many unwanted children being born and soon there will be that many more. That is the bottom line.

[Celerity]

6. she's a christofascist zealot, no chance she recuses on this or upcoming further theocratic rulings

[Crunchy Frog]

7. Who thinks she has any integrity?

[FBaggins]

10. Unfortunately - there is no "require" even if this were a correct reading of her position

And it doesn't appear to be.

There would be no conflict if she believes that both the legal analysis and the moral imperative point in the same direction. It could have been a problem as an appellate judge since she would be obliged to follow SCOTUS precedent (which presumably would conflict with her Catholic position), but not as a SCOTUS justice.

But only the justice herself can decide on what basis to make recusal decisions. A 25-year-old law review article wouldn't "require" anything of her.

And she obviously participated in the oral arguments, so her decision appears to already be made.

[Gore1FL]

11. "Require" is a strong word.

It assumes ethics.