She wrote that she believed the 7-2 Roe v Wade ruling that established those federal abortion rights had “usurped the will of the American people”
Fuck you Amy. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. But stay the fuck out of other people’s personal decisions.
I feel like making the President above the law was usurping the will of the people but you fucking did it anyway
‘People’ as established by Citizens United.
Mitt? Is that you?
“We’ve got binders full of women!”
If so, tell him to go iron his shirt
Even more strangely, she seems to think that stomping on rights is okay, even if most of the country was against that? The will of the people doesn’t matter now, but it did back then?
Removed by mod
It’s a bit late in the game for that isn’t it?
I mean - she’s right, but the SC has already cast aside law, precedent and the Constitution at this point, and is ruling almost entirely based on opinion. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say, “preference.”
In the book, set for publication on 9 September, Barrett asserted her belief that the June 2022 ruling that struck down abortion rights nationally “respected the choice” of Americans.
Ah… so she’s not just contradicting the plain reality of the current SC, but her own statements.
Or more precisely, just spewing whatever line of bullshit might serve her current purposes.
Which is undoubtedly the reason she was nominated in the first place, and the exact thing she was expected to contribute.
Helluva timeline we’re living in here…
And she’s not even in the top 4 worst justices
This; painfully, this.
>“I want Americans to understand the law – and that it’s not just an opinion poll about whether the supreme court thinks something is good or … bad,” Barrett said. “What the court is trying to do is see what the American people have decided.”
Weird. I thought the court’s job was to determine the constitutionality of laws as accurately as possible.
Ask that bitch her opinion on women having fewer rights than men in this country, then tell her to sit down and shut up like good breeding stock
Removed by mod
Some irrelevant paperwork does not mean men have fewer rights than women.
Removed by mod
Historical inertia. There’s really no other point to it.
Removed by mod
Whooptie shit. You’re blowing that all out of proportion. Just because there’s a whole bunch of penalties attached for historical reasons does not change the fact that it’s irrelevant paperwork.
Until they get pregnant and then women are drafted into the breeding stock army- answer to the state if you don’t take neonatal vitamins, miss doctors appointments, smoke, drink, do anything the state deems risky to it’s prodigy.
Removed by mod
I’m not the one you originally responded to but pregnancy is something that affects many more women than war affects men, at least in the US.
Removed by mod
A vast majority of men keep voting to uphold this. https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/requiring-men-but-not-women-to-register-for-the-draft-is-sex-discrimination
Oh, the fucking irony.
Gotta salvage her cred as a hateful conservative hypocrite.
But it is an opinion poll, just one with a small sample size. Having a law degree may be a factor but it’s still opinion-based.
Yeah because they always write up how the decision came about. The logic and reasoning based on law and precedence. I mean if they did not then it would just be invalid and void.
