Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,608
- 910
The spurious charges Democratic senators leveled at Barrett last Wednesday came straight from a report the Alliance for Justice submitted to the Judiciary Committee. Notre Dame Law School professor Amy Coney Barrett graciously suffered many indignities during a Senate hearing last week concerning her nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, including a gamut of questions about her religious convictions. But the case marshaled against her does not necessarily derive from explicitly anti-catholic bigotry, as its critics on the right have been quick to claim. Rather, it is rooted in a concerted campaign of partisan posturing which reveals the pernicious influence of outside groups on the judicial-confirmation process. Barrett was made to defend herself against many lines of inquiry during the hearing, including charges that she would elevate personal religious conviction over established case law where the two conflict, that she believes Roe v. Wade does not enjoy so-called super-precedent status, and that in her view women do not have significant reliance interests in continued access to abortion. (In this context, “reliance interest” refers to the fact that women organize their social relations around the availability of abortion, and to the proposition that courts should respect said fact.)
Read more at: How a Progressive Interest Group Used Fake News to Hijack Amy Barrett’s Judicial-Confirmation Hearing
What's interesting is the reliance on an article that does not support what they want it to support.
Read more at: How a Progressive Interest Group Used Fake News to Hijack Amy Barrett’s Judicial-Confirmation Hearing
What's interesting is the reliance on an article that does not support what they want it to support.