Amy Coney Barrett, the last time she helped effectively outlaw abortion in Texas, says judges can’t let “personal biases” affect rulings

Despite having spent his entire confirmation hearing in the Senate stating that he could not express any opinion on anything, Amy Coney BarrettOpinions about abortion are too clear. As we learned last fall, how Mitch McConnell after her appointment to the Supreme Court, the devout Catholic signed a letter calling for an end to the “barbarian” Roe vs. Wade; wrote in a court opinion that abortion is “always immoral”; they joined the dissidents Table v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc., argue in favor of an Indiana law that would have required doctors to notify the parents of a minor requesting medical procedure; and dissident in the case of Indiana State Department of Health Commissioner v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc., arguing in favor of a law that would have required fetal remains to be buried or cremated. Perhaps most disturbingly he refused to answer a follow-up question from the senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Who he asked“According to an originalist theory of interpretation, would there be any constitutional problem with a state that would make abortion a capital crime, thus subjecting women who abort to the death penalty?” Instead, he stated that it would not be “appropriate … to offer an opinion on abstract or hypothetical legal issues,” meaning that yes, he sees a scenario in which the state could sentence a woman to death for having an abortion. .

Viously, obviously, it was precisely these conservative and other views that moved Republicans to grant Barrett a lifelong appointment to the country’s highest court, and why Mitch McConnell, who refused to hold a only sight Merrick Garlandthe nomination because it was “an election year,” Barrett spent less than two months until voters went to the polls in 2020. That’s why it’s more than a little annoying to hear Barrett, whose seat is thank you to partisan politics, and whose personal biases undoubtedly influenced her decision to allow a radical abortion law to pass in Texas earlier this month, she and her fellow court ideologues claim. they are so above politics that they consider it a dirty word.

Speaking at an event held by a center named after Mitch McConnell, also known as the most important partisan pirate of the 21st century, Barrett stated that the court “is not made up of a bunch of partisan pirates” and that, although it rules from a way Republicans love, “Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties.” Aunt Lydia, of the Supreme Court, added that judges should be “hyper-vigilant to make sure they don’t let personal prejudice get in the way of their decisions,” which, again, is funny. since he has personally called for an end to the “barbarian” Roe against Wade and recently helped effectively ban abortion at six weeks in Texas. And if your eyes get rolled up in your head over Barrett’s remarks, you’re not alone!

Per He Guardian:

Barrett’s statements met with widespread skepticism. The veteran TV news Dan Rather dit on Twitter: “Apparently, we’re playing the“ Things You Can’t Invent ”game this morning, so Supreme Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett (speaking at a center named after Mitch McConnell, introduced by Senator McConnell ), worries that the court will be seen as “a bunch of partisan pirates.” Scott Shapiro, law professor at Yale, dit Barrett had “expressed on Sunday his concern over the death of irony.” Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democratic senator from Rhode Island, he wrote: “Aren’t they ‘partisan pirates’? Then explain the 80-0 5-4 party record for big donors. And explain the conservative principles judicially to achieve those victories for the donors who put you in court.”

Meanwhile, reproductive rights advocates fear the Supreme Court is a few months away from revocation Eggs with the help of Barrett. Per The Washington Post:

Abortion providers told the Supreme Court on Monday that passing a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks “would remove a half-century precedent and invite states to ban abortion altogether.” They said in their brief that Mississippi’s request that the court overturn its 1973 decision Roe against Wade it was based on the state’s hope that a “modified composition” of the court would reject years of legal precedents.

The Mississippi Court’s review of the law, which bans almost all abortions after 15 weeks of gestation, has become even more important since the Supreme Court earlier this month released a more restrictive Texas law. . The court said it was not ruling on the constitutionality of this law, which authorizes private citizens to sue those who help or encourage abortion after six weeks, only if the appellants had conducted a proper procedure. [argument] showing it must be stopped before it takes effect. Still, the 5-4 decision indicated that the increasingly conservative court is more open to altering decades of Supreme Court precedents.

When they do, keep in mind that Barrett states, probably as a guest of honor at Mitch McConnell’s birthday party, that decisions have nothing to do with politics or personal bias.

Bigger stories of Vanity Fair

– As a fatal accident revalidated South Dakota policy
– Matt Gaetz tries to change the narrative with a MAGIC romance
– Sebastian Junger on How the US Corrupted Afghanistan
– Rudy Giuliani is a week away from shaving his back with a green candy
– New York prosecutors are completely overthrown to overthrow the Trump organization
– How the turf wars ended with the departure of the United States from Afghanistan
– Biden’s COVID-19 source report leaves the lab leak on the table
– Governor Kristi Noem joins fellow Republicans in seeking to kill constituents
– From the archive: the man at the window
– Not a subscriber? Join Vanity Fair to now receive full access to and the full online file.

Credit –