Trump's Supreme Court nominee advocated overturning legalized abortion

 

Judge Amy Coney Barrett meets with Republican Senator from Louisiana Bill Cassidy at the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 1, 2020. Jim Lo Scalzo/Pool via REUTERS

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett in 2006 signed on to an advertisement in an Indiana newspaper calling for the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide to be overturned, a stance certain to be scrutinized during her upcoming Senate confirmation hearings.

 

Her participation in the ad published in the South Bend Tribune, first reported on Thursday by the Guardian, made clear her view on the contentious issue even as Trump seeks to appeal to religious conservatives who make up an important voting bloc for him in the Nov. 3 U.S. presidential election.

 

Barrett and her husband, a former federal prosecutor, both were among those who lent their names to the ad, which called the Roe v. Wade decision "an exercise of raw judicial power."

 

"It's time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade and restore law that protects the lives of unborn children," the advertisement, purchased by an anti-abortion organization called St. Joseph County Right to Life, stated.

 

Barrett, who on Thursday continued with a series of meetings with individual senators ahead of Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings due to start on Oct. 12, declined to answer questions about the ad. Democratic committee members can be expected to press her on the issue.

 

Trump, who in January addressed an anti-abortion rally in Washington and said "unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House," promised during the 2016 presidential race to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

Trump has called on the Senate to confirm Barrett to replace the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a defender of abortion rights, by Election Day.

 

During Tuesday's debate, Trump objected when his Democratic challenger Joe Biden said the fate of Roe V. Wade was "on the ballot" in the election. Trump told Biden, "You don't know her view on Roe v. Wade."

 

A devout Catholic who earned a law degree and taught at the University of Notre Dame, a Catholic institution in South Bend, Barrett is a favorite of religious conservatives. She was a law professor at Notre Dame at the time of the ad.

 

Overturning the ruling has been a longstanding goal of U.S. religious conservatives. The ruling recognized that a constitutional right to personal privacy protects a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. The court in 1992 reaffirmed the ruling and prohibited laws that place an "undue burden" on obtaining an abortion. Conservative opponents of the ruling have argued that the case was wrongly decided.

 

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-10-02

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

Oh that’s not going to sit well with the lady’s and a lot of guys as well with trump tanking everywhere there may be some republicans willing to say no they all see trumps on the way out that also would be a good start in the healing reconciliation unifying process 

Give it up. She will be confirmed. Please vote November 3rd. and let's return America to its normalcy.

 The lady will most certainly be confirmed and Roe v Wade could be in real trouble. 

Good on her. She sounds like a normal human being who wants babies to be born naturally, rather than sucked out using something similar to a vacuum cleaner. Hopefully there's a place in hell waiting for all who harm children.

1 hour ago, Somtamnication said:

Give it up. She will be confirmed. Please vote November 3rd. and let's return America to its normalcy.

The game’s not over until the final whistle blows.

 

She has to be confirmed by the Senate and numerous Republican Senators are now at risk of losing their seats.

 

Trump is at clear risk of losing the WH and his endorsement to Republican Senator’s campaign is less than worthless, damaging.

 

This latest news is all part of the game, don’t be too hasty to call the final result.

I don't know how potent an issue this is going to be. Schumer, who is a smart guy, is pushing the health care angle. Obamacare is now very popular and Barrett has already said she disagreed with Robert's vote to uphold it. That is not going to play well with voters.

1 hour ago, Somtamnication said:

Give it up. She will be confirmed. Please vote November 3rd. and let's return America to its normalcy.

If normalcy means ignoring majority views, okay

Majority want abortion laws to stay on the books as it is

Majority support ACA

Majority want separation of church and state

Majority want new justice named after election by next president

1 minute ago, Emdog said:

If normalcy means ignoring majority views, okay

Majority want abortion laws to stay on the books as it is

Majority support ACA

Majority want separation of church and state

Majority want new justice named after election by next president

I think you're right. But so, most likely, is somtamnification.

52 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

 The lady will most certainly be confirmed and Roe v Wade could be in real trouble. 

You typically post funny sentences. This one is very much sad AND spot on. Add to that the FIRST case on the new Supreme Court's docket is the repeal of Obamacare which will most certainly be passed and millions of people (in the middle of a pandemic) will lose their health care. Ugly times in which we live. ☹️

6 minutes ago, Emdog said:

If normalcy means ignoring majority views, okay

Majority want abortion laws to stay on the books as it is

Majority support ACA

Majority want separation of church and state

Majority want new justice named after election by next president

Since the 1960's, it's not been about the people. The US gubmint has become a front for corporations. Corporations write the laws, lobbyists deliver the law to the gubmint mouthpieces, all of whom are protected by militarized police. "We, The People" are merely sheep to be shorn and no longer represented.

Overturning Roe Vs Wade will not stop abortion. It will be back to seeing shady characters and wire coat-hangers.

Did prohibition stop drinking?

 

It amazes me that the US is still fighting battles that have long been settled in Europe (abortion and health care). Both Italy and Ireland now have abortion as it was the will of their population.

Most US citizens also support abortion (with restrictions), yet, they are slaves to nine people's religious beliefs.
 

Edited October 2, 20205 yr by KarenBravo

1 hour ago, Boon Mee said:

 The lady will most certainly be confirmed and Roe v Wade could be in real trouble. 

Is it not true that even if Roe v Wade is overturned it is up to the states to make their own policy, as it should be? I fail to see why the federal government is involved in something that is not to do with the security of the nation.

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Is it not true that even if Roe v Wade is overturned it is up to the states to make their own policy, as it should be? I fail to see why the federal government is involved in something that is not to do with the security of the nation.

Too many deep red states in the south have already restricted abortion as far as the law allows and nothing good has come from it.

45 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Is it not true that even if Roe v Wade is overturned it is up to the states to make their own policy, as it should be? I fail to see why the federal government is involved in something that is not to do with the security of the nation.

It's a good point you raise that a Supreme Court decision won't outlaw abortion nationwide. On the other hand, the Federal Govt's role in the USA is not just about security.

 In the grand scheme of the SC !She's gonna be the tie breaker #9. 

 2018: "Judge Barrett is a favorite candidate of conservative Christian leaders and has been compared to Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. During a confirmation hearing for her appeals court position last year, she said she would “have no interest in” challenging the Supreme Court precedents for Roe v. Wade".

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/us/politics/supreme-court-contenders-abortion.html

 

Kavanaugh also has said just as much!

Edited October 2, 20205 yr by riclag

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

 In the grand scheme of the SC !She's gonna be the tie breaker #9. 

 2018: "Judge Barrett is a favorite candidate of conservative Christian leaders and has been compared to Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. During a confirmation hearing for her appeals court position last year, she said she would “have no interest in” challenging the Supreme Court precedents for Roe v. Wade".

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/us/politics/supreme-court-contenders-abortion.html

 

Kavanaugh also has said just as much!

Kavanaugh is hoping Trump wins the election otherwise his days on the authority side of the bench are numbered.

 

And with his removal, your arithmetic goes out the window too.

2 hours ago, jesimps said:

Good on her. She sounds like a normal human being who wants babies to be born naturally, rather than sucked out using something similar to a vacuum cleaner. Hopefully there's a place in hell waiting for all who harm children.

 

Oh look, another guy trying to tell women what to do with their bodies.

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Kavanaugh is hoping Trump wins the election otherwise his days on the authority side of the bench are numbered.

 

And with his removal, your arithmetic goes out the window too.

The only way a justice can be removed is impeachment which involves Congress and Senate. 45 or Biden have technically nothing to do with it which is why the Senate race is really the most important one of all. Lindsey is neck and neck, on Fox literally begging for donations, and a number of other Senate races show the Senate is probably going blue. That's what Vegas odds makers predict and I believe them more than any other poll - there's money involved!

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/16/politics/scotus-impeach/index.html

3 minutes ago, J Town said:

The only way a justice can be removed is impeachment which involves Congress and Senate. 45 or Biden have technically nothing to do with it which is why the Senate race is really the most important one of all. Lindsey is neck and neck, on Fox literally begging for donations, and a number of other Senate races show the Senate is probably going blue. That's what Vegas odds makers predict and I believe them more than any other poll - there's money involved!

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/16/politics/scotus-impeach/index.html

Not quite true.

 

A SC Justice can resign, say in the face of criminal indictment.

 

On your other points I agree.

Edited October 2, 20205 yr by Chomper Higgot

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Not quite true.

 

A SC Justice can resign, say in the face of criminal indictment.

Of course, that's a given.

 

 

Edited October 2, 20205 yr by J Town
speling [sic]

49 minutes ago, mthomsen111 said:

It's a good point you raise that a Supreme Court decision won't outlaw abortion nationwide. On the other hand, the Federal Govt's role in the USA is not just about security.

I think that the bigger point is that the headline is a lie. 
 

Making it a state issue is not the same as making it illegal, but being on the left means never having to tell the truth.

1 hour ago, J Town said:

Since the 1960's, it's not been about the people. The US gubmint has become a front for corporations. Corporations write the laws, lobbyists deliver the law to the gubmint mouthpieces, all of whom are protected by militarized police. "We, The People" are merely sheep to be shorn and no longer represented.

 

More or less sums up the state of all "Western democracies".

 

All politicians and big business now see themselves as the rulers rather than the servants of their electorates/customers.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Kavanaugh is hoping Trump wins the election otherwise his days on the authority side of the bench are numbered.

 

And with his removal, your arithmetic goes out the window too.

 

On what grounds do you believe Justice Kavanaugh would be impeached? 

 

More suspiciously is the refusal of Biden on the Presidential Debate to commentate on the notion the Democrats would increase the number of SCJ's and pack it with democrats. He absolutely refused to answer or comment on that. Harris did much the same when subsequently interviewed. That would set a very dangerous precedent.

2 hours ago, mthomsen111 said:

I don't know how potent an issue this is going to be. Schumer, who is a smart guy, is pushing the health care angle. Obamacare is now very popular and Barrett has already said she disagreed with Robert's vote to uphold it. That is not going to play well with voters.

mythomsen111

Now "very popular"  Obamacare succeeded in making healthcare so expensive because of its mandates that many employers dumped their employer paid for health care opting to throw their employees on the public Obamacare plans. 

Perhaps your view of "very popular" but when only 42% of Americans supposedly favor Obamacare I hardly call that overwhelming popularity.  Note that the survey which of course is suspect because it is NBC says that it is as popular as it has ever been.  That pretty well demonstrates that it was even less popular before. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

On what grounds do you believe Justice Kavanaugh would be impeached? 

 

More suspiciously is the refusal of Biden on the Presidential Debate to commentate on the notion the Democrats would increase the number of SCJ's and pack it with democrats. He absolutely refused to answer or comment on that. Harris did much the same when subsequently interviewed. That would set a very dangerous precedent.

 

How is this a 'dangerous' precedent? Is it more 'dangerous' than confirming a SC justice weeks before the election?

29 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

How is this a 'dangerous' precedent? Is it more 'dangerous' than confirming a SC justice weeks before the election?

It is not a dangerous precedent any more that The SCJ nomination. 
 

Nothing new about politicians waffling on controversial issues or nominating SCJs.

35 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

On what grounds do you believe Justice Kavanaugh would be impeached? 

 

More suspiciously is the refusal of Biden on the Presidential Debate to commentate on the notion the Democrats would increase the number of SCJ's and pack it with democrats. He absolutely refused to answer or comment on that. Harris did much the same when subsequently interviewed. That would set a very dangerous precedent.

1. Grounds - Kavanaugh did some extremely shady stuff that would have disqualified him if he were a Democrat.

 

2. Packing the Supreme Court - I am NOT saying it's right. I will say ALL politicians dodge answers. Trump refuses to say the words "I denounce white supremacists" cuz that would offend his base and he knows it. Should Biden/Harris announce their plans? Yes.

 

That's politics in this wretched age.

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

I think that the bigger point is that the headline is a lie. 
 

Making it a state issue is not the same as making it illegal, but being on the left means never having to tell the truth.

Really? How about "Being the president means never having to tell the truth (so far 20,000+ lies told already)". And being in the present Senate, the majority party never has to call out the president on his lies.

Edited October 2, 20205 yr by KarenBravo

3 hours ago, jesimps said:

Good on her. She sounds like a normal human being who wants babies to be born naturally, rather than sucked out using something similar to a vacuum cleaner. Hopefully there's a place in hell waiting for all who harm children.

.....and you