HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Editorials & Other Articles (Forum) » Amy Coney Barrett went to...

Tue Oct 13, 2020, 09:52 PM

Amy Coney Barrett went to my all-girls high school. I hope she's not confirmed.

We didn’t have a mascot at Dominican, only an emblem: veritas. But truth is not monolithic – it is informed by our belief systems

Lisa M O'Neill

Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump’s nominee for the US supreme court, went to my all-girls Catholic high school. We wore the same black-and-white plaid skirts and saddle oxfords and roamed the same halls, although nearly a decade apart. As students at St Mary’s Dominican High School, along with an education rooted in the Catholic faith, we were encouraged to be strong, independent women, future leaders of the world. I would be proud to see a fellow alum serve on our highest court if that person’s presence didn’t threaten to irrevocably harm the lives of millions of Americans.

We didn’t have a mascot at Dominican, only an emblem: Veritas. In Latin, truth. But the truth is not monolithic – it is informed by our belief systems. How we define the truth matters, especially for someone serving on the supreme court.

Barrett’s anti-abortion views have come to bear in public stances. In 2015, she signed a letter to Catholic bishops affirming the value of “life from conception” alongside prominent anti-choice figures such as Marjorie Dannenfeiser, president of anti-choice fundraising organization the Susan B Anthony List. As a law professor at Notre Dame, Barrett was a member of the anti-abortion group University Faculty for Life, and in 2006, she signed a paid ad in a South Bend newspaper that called for “an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v Wade. In 2013, she delivered two talks to anti-abortion student groups at Notre Dame. Barrett has also been critical of the Affordable Care Act guarantee that requires employers to provide birth control to their employees.

Like the late Justice Scalia, for whom she clerked, Barrett is a self-described textualist and originalist; she interprets the US constitution based on its plain language and an attempted understanding of the intent and mindset of the original drafters. Barrett has also written that, in her view, it is appropriate and legitimate for judges to overturn precedents when they conflict with their personal interpretation of the constitution. Obedience to the exact original meaning of the constitution without current context is problematic. These laws were made by white, cisgender men who enslaved other human beings and never intended to include a vast sum of Americans – like women and people of color – in their quest for equal rights.

When one person’s truth, defined by the way they see the world, impacts the lives and liberties of generations of diverse Americans, it has tremendous power.'>>>

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/12/amy-coney-barrett-bad-choice-women?


9 replies, 3202 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply Amy Coney Barrett went to my all-girls high school. I hope she's not confirmed. (Original post)
elleng Oct 13 OP
burrowowl Oct 13 #1
JoeOtterbein Oct 13 #2
KS Toronado Oct 13 #3
notinkansas Oct 13 #4
DallasNE Oct 13 #5
Mister Ed Oct 14 #8
Solly Mack Oct 13 #6
TryLogic Oct 14 #7
ihas2stinkyfeet Oct 14 #9

Response to elleng (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2020, 11:09 PM

1. Kick!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2020, 11:18 PM

2. K n R ! Thanks for posting! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2020, 11:23 PM

3. This line alone should disqualify her...........

Barrett has also written that, in her view, it is appropriate and legitimate for judges to overturn precedents when they conflict with their personal interpretation of the constitution. And this is who the Republicans can find no fault with? She thinks she's God or on a mission for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2020, 11:26 PM

4. Not so much veritas

evident in her response to questions today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2020, 11:28 PM

5. Barrett Is In A Box Canyon With Her Views

"Barrett is a self-described textualist and originalist; she interprets the US constitution based on its plain language and an attempted understanding of the intent and mindset of the original drafters."

"Obedience to the exact original meaning of the constitution without current context is problematic".

I would expand "current context" beyond the fact that these original drafters had a mind set of slave owners and excluded women from the process and lacking a balance that makes it a dubious idea at best. Keep in mind that the "intent and mindset" was changed considerably by the 14th Amendment. Words also change over time. The 4th Amendment plain language talks about protected "papers" and today we say "documents" making papers an obsolete term in the context of the 4th Amendment. But the originalist members of the court forced Congress to pass a law extending that protection beyond paper documents, if you can believe that.

But the funny thing is that they don't believe it themselves. If they did how could the Supreme Court have handed down the Hobby Lobby decision where the owner of the corporation could force his religious values onto his employees when the intent of the 1st Amendment establishment clause if completely clear. They seem to make things situational so when another case comes up they point back to the prior case creating creep in the law. Look how Miranda has been unwound over the years in this manner. There is no way that is strict construction and there is no way you can know original intent because the context has greatly evolved. No place is that more evident than with the 2nd Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 14, 2020, 05:28 AM

8. Yes. Scalia-style "originalism" is a sham.

To these "originalists", the text of the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2020, 11:52 PM

6. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Wed Oct 14, 2020, 12:30 AM

7. In the world of religion, a strict constructionist would be classified as a fundamentalist,

a person who believes that everything written in the Bible or other holy book is literally true, even bizarre unrealistic things. In reality, of course, fundamentalists like everyone else, do a lot of cherry picking. And they survive in the modern world by compartmentalizing. When they do not compartmentalize, they must choose between religious sayings and scientific or demonstrable reality. Trying to use the word "truth" in this type of situation pretty much kills the concept of scientific or demonstrable reality. "My truth" versus your truth is nonsense. It would seem that admitting different versions of truth is the result of compartmentalizing. Those of us who do not need to compartmentalize have only one version of the truth. When there is conflicting evidence, the varying view points are called theories, or perceptions, or suspicions, not my truth versus your truth.

Having a religious fundamentalist as a judge/justice in the court system where they must at times override their religious programming in order to defend the Constitution will be a big problem for someone, either the judge herself or various classes of citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Wed Oct 14, 2020, 09:26 AM

9. went to a dominican hs myself.

 

rosary high. had that emblem everywhere.
we had a blazer for our uniforms w it.

pretty sure this isnt being celebrated there.
i took a comparative religion class as a junior. made me a devout atheist. saw clearly that in all religions, god resembles the believers, not the other way around.

last i heard that nun is still kicking. i bet she is spitting mad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread