A Supreme Court Selection

Leslie Marshall thinks Judge Amy Coney Barrett ought not be confirmed—ought not even be considered—as a Supreme Court Justice.

She’s wrong.

Barrett could also cast a key vote on cases involving the upcoming presidential election….

That’s part of the point of getting a ninth Justice quickly confirmed—to avoid the possibility of tie votes on such important decisions.

…she has little in common with Ginsburg.

Nor is she required to have; she’d be her own Justice, just like the other eight each are their own Justice. Contrary to Marshall’s apparent belief, the vacant seat isn’t Ginsburg’s seat, nor is it a liberal’s seat. It’s the people’s seat on We the People’s Supreme Court.

Replacing a white Jewish woman with a white Catholic woman on the Supreme Court does not bring more diversity to the court.

This is wholly irrelevant. The role of Supreme Court Justices—of all judges in the American legal system—is to rule on what our Constitution and the statute before them say, not on what the Justices think those items should say. Diversity for diversity’s sake has no place on a court—especially on a court, where consistency in the application of law is a Critical Item.

Senate Republicans now suddenly have no problem with the idea of a rushed confirmation of a justice….

What rush? Prompt isn’t the same as rushed. And unprecedented, as she also suggested? This is plain nonsense. The precedent is the Constitution with its stated obligation for the President to nominate to fill a vacancy and for the Senate to advise and consent or withhold consent. Full stop.

A big fear is that she will vote to overturn Roe v Wade….

What Marshall is carefully ignoring in her worry that Barrett adheres too closely with Scalia is the latter’s respect for and adherence to precedent and his belief that once a precedent has been accepted by the people, it’s a legitimate law whatever anyone might think of that precedent.

Barrett is unlikely to overrule Roe unless there’s clear reason.

Her rulings as a judge have been very pro-gun rights and she has made decisions unfavorable to undocumented immigrants nearly 100% of the time.

A judge and a potential Justice obeying her oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution and ruling on the basis of what the text of our Constitution and the text of a statute actually say instead of what she might wish either to say—imagine that.

Threaten the rights of millions of Americans? On the contrary: a Justice who applies our Constitution and the statute before her as they are written would preserve the rights of all Americans, the rights acknowledged in our founding principles statement as being endowed in all men by our Creator and as laid out in our blueprint that tightly circumscribes our government in order to keep the men–of any generation–who populate that government from altering them, weakening them, eroding them into oblivion.

Marshall’s piece is just another hysteria-mongering article of nonsense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *