Posted Sep 21, 2020 by Martin Armstrong
Appellate Judge Amy Coney Barrett is at the top of the list for replacements for Justice Ginsberg. Like hydroxychloroquine, simply because Trump nominates her she will be vilified. She is a Catholic and already the Democrats are preparing to tear her apart based on her religions. After graduating from the University of Notre Dame’s law school at the very top of her class. In fact, in 1997, she graduated first in her class, which earned her the Hoynes Prize, the Law School’s highest honor which was very impressive with respect to her thinking process.
Amy then worked as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who was a strict constructionist. It was Scalia who pushed for reform in the way the courts were treating those charged. The jury was not determining every fact, and Scalia saw this as unconstitutional and argued this position until the rest of the court saw his constitutional argument. Finally, in APPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY No. 99—478. Argued March 28, 2000–Decided June 26, 2000, Scalia defended the citizen’s right to a jury trial which had been eroded by the procedure.
In the Spirit Justice Ginsberg, Amy was the only female law clerk in the Supreme Court at that time. Besides being sitting on the court of appeals, she was also a University of Notre Dame law professor. Ironically, because she has been a dedicated mother of seven, her Catholic faith was turned against her by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein who questioned whether or not she could separate her religious faith from her duty as a judge. “The dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said during the confirmation hearing for the Court of Appeals hearing. Barrett insisted that her professional beliefs and her religious beliefs would be kept separate. Ironically, the right to an abortion is deeply entangled with the right to privacy. In the recent case involving the anti-abortion law in Louisiana(1), even conservative Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. struck it down saying that respect for precedent compelled him to do so.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. To understand the foundation of Roe v Wade and why it cannot be overturned without jeopardizing our right to privacy in the face of this contrived pandemic is critical. In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law banning the distribution of birth control to married couples, ruling that the law violated their implied right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution, GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). How do you enforce that a married couple illegally used a condom during sex? Does an FBI agency have to watch? And in 1972, the Supreme Court struck down a law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried adults. Again, there is no way to enforce such laws without a government agent observing every sexual act.
To overturn Roe v Wade, would mean that the government can order you to take vaccines that violate your religion that even alter your DNA. While I would never condone an abortion personally, my personal belief cannot blind me to support overturning Roe v Wade opening the door to absolute tyranny. To do so would allow someone like Bill Gates to bribe politicians to pass laws to compel women to have Chips inserted to prevent pregnancy. It would be just one tiny step to then compel you to obtain permission from the government to have a child. They could just as easily impose an IQ test and determine you are not qualified to have children. Gates has already funded remote control birth-control by implanting chips into women. He is obsessed with population control.
The US Supreme Court actually upheld the eugenics views of the in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), where the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., actually ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, “for the protection and health of the state” did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Supreme Court actually wrote: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” The Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). This case has not been overturned, but if it were challenged, then the same right to privacy from which Roe v Wade stands would come into play. Overturn that case, and a lot more tyranny will follow. The only possible way to overturn Roe v Wade must involve the Due Process Right to life and liberty without somehow overturning the right to privacy. That can be a real Pandora’s Box.
After reading some of her decisions and this article she wrote regarding the Suspension Clause, I believe she would NOT overturn Roe v Wade simply because of her religion. Here she clearly states that she believes that the statutes involved, which have never been activated since the Civil War domestically, delegate too much discretion to the President. Her reasoning falls in line with Strict Construction championed by Scalia, and therefore I would support her. I believe the far more important question turns on her view of the power of government. She is not a rubber stamp and that is vital to our liberty in the future. I will note, for those who will say I support here only because she is a conservative nominated by Trump, I reviewed the decisions of Brett Kavanaugh and stated on this blog that I would have voted against his nomination.
POLITICO, the leftist view, as usual, states: “Barrett has stated that “life begins at conception,” according to a 2013 Notre Dame Magazine article. She also said that justices should not be strictly bound by Supreme Court precedents, a deference known as stare decisis, leaving open the possibility that she could vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if seated on the court.” Their view is to hell with every other issue, it’s all about abortion exclusively.
Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi who is in the House, not the Senate which decides appointments to the Supreme Court, has bluntly stated that she doesn’t rule out impeachment to delay Trump’s picks for the Supreme Court. She is so out of her mind and is clearly engaging in the Obstruction of Justice. She is in the House – not the Senate. The House does not preside of these appointments. As a matter of law, she or any senator is not allowed to ask a judge how they would vote on abortion. The Senate is not permitted to nominate a person based upon a prearranged vote. Chief Justice Roberts, a conservative appointed by President Bush, upheld Obamacare. It is often a matter of constitutional law and trying to guess how Barrett will vote exclusively on abortion is impermissible constitutionally. This assumption is discrimination based upon the fact that she is Catholic and has 7 children, two of whom are adopted from Hati.
Diane Feinstein is running again and she 87 while Nancy Pelosi is 80. These two women liberationists from the 60s no longer represent women today. They are traditionally anti-religion and Feinstein’s question of Barrett before illustrates her hatred of not just religion, but the fact that Barrett even has 7 children which she finds obviously disgusting.
- JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C. ET AL. v. RUSSO