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?
= new reply since forum marked as read
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.
