It really feels like after today's hearings, it would be ammmmaaaaaazzzzzing if more people brought up that she has seven whole young humans that she's looking after not including the big lug who is the head of her household, making her exactly comfortable in a party of nine (See!) and wouldn't it be boss indeed like hot sauce if we talked some more about the part where the church plays as much a part as her children do in her worldview? (Has she any kitchen table commentary to add, or is this too much?) Gosh, I would love more of this rich discourse about her ID politics.Amy Coney Barrett is the least popular Supreme Court nominee in modern times#ACB https://t.co/BHPrb3zKgB
— Raw Story (@RawStory) October 13, 2020
Oh wait. I would not. See, I already know like anyone else does where this person is on Roe, and I don't trust her re: Obergefell, Griswold, Lawrence v Texas, I think she'd be Shelby all day every day, and I don't even trust her with Brown v BOE.
It really for some reason (my lifelong feminism, probably) annoys me a lot that people are using her being a mom to say she would necessarily support people's rights, etc. All kinds of people have kids. It doesn't require a license or anything. Would we use having fathered many children to be a sign of a man's fitness for a job? (Unless the answer is "sperm donor"--I don't think so.) So why pretend that Barrett's seven children make her less likely to rule against the ACA than Justice Scalia's nine children did?
I'm still hung up on the likelihood of her potential inevitability though, so I agree with Sen. Whitehouse, it would do immeasurable damage to the legitimacy of the court if she did not recuse in the event that Trump takes the election results to court (as did a previous campaigner, George W. Bush--and for that matter, Kavanaugh better abstain as well--or really the whole court should just tell Trump's orange peel ass he's on his own.).
No comments:
Post a Comment