Another Phony Conservative Judge Nominated to the Supreme Court
Evangelicals, conservatives and pro-lifers are dancing with glee over Donald Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the U.S. Supreme Court. They shouldn’t be. Once again, conservatives are being conned.
I keep reminding people that SCOTUS has been dominated by Republican appointments since before the infamous Roe v Wade decision in 1973. We are talking a half-century.
Here is the breakdown of how justices voted on Roe back in 1973. The vote was 7 in support and 2 opposed. The list of the votes of the nine justices on the Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade decision and who appointed them is as follows:
*Harry Blackmun (Richard M. Nixon, R)
*Warren Burger (Richard M. Nixon, R)
*William Douglas (Franklin D. Roosevelt, D)
*William Brennan Jr. (Dwight D. Eisenhower, R)
*Potter Stewart (Dwight D. Eisenhower, R)
*Thurgood Marshall (Lyndon Baines Johnson, D)
*Lewis Powell Jr. (Richard M. Nixon, R)
*Byron White (John F. Kennedy, D)
*William Rehnquist (Richard M. Nixon, R)
As you can see, GOP appointments had a 6 – 3 majority when the Roe decision was decided. Note that 5 of those 6 Republican-appointed justices voted in favor of Roe. They didn’t even need a Democrat-appointed justice to vote for Roe (which 2 did) in order for it to pass. Notice, too, that only one Republican-appointed justice voted against Roe. To put it another way: 66% of the Democrat-appointed justices voted for Roe, while 83% of the Republican-appointed justices voted for Roe.
And, again, remember that the Republican Party has held a majority of the Supreme Court for 50 years, and yet Roe has never been overturned. And Trump’s appointments are going to prove to be no better.
Joel Skousen quotes a source saying:
The recent excitement over a new Supreme Court appointment prompted me to do some research. I was initially very enthused about Amy Coney Barrett. After constitutional attorney Robert Barnes threw cold water on the choice and expressed his support for Judge Lagoa, I did some research and listened to talks and interviews with Judge Barrett.
She impresses me as being somewhat detached and devoid of empathy and warmth. She stressed that a judge may not let “personal preference” color her (emphasis added) decisions. She further went on to include morality under “personal preferences.”
In her Hesburgh Lecture at Jacksonville University in 2016, the impression was communicated that she was more partial to Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. She praised Justice Scalia for siding with a flag burner in a court decision.
An eye opener: with respect to the sentiment “I want to appoint someone pro-life,” she insisted that this is not the correct criteria to apply in selecting someone for the Supreme Court. “We shouldn’t be putting people on the Court who share our policy preferences.” The right to life is a policy preference?
She commented that she didn’t believe the right to abortion would change. She said this dispassionately and offered no hint of disapproval. She implied that stare decisis [litigation according to p
Article from LewRockwell