- Mar 11, 2015
- 89,471
- 63,372
- 3,645
When you live in a nation that believes a lie about it's history and refuses to accept documented evidence to the extent of state governments censoring textbooks because a certain segment of the population doesn't like to see what they have done, you are not operating in a democracy. When that same group wants to control the law, again, you are not operating in a democracy. Republican conservatives have gone so far as to subvert the constitution to pack the courts in their favor and have the nerve to b---- about democrats potentially adding judges to balance the court to stop the American march backwards.
Will We Choose the Right Side of History?
In Amy Coney Barrett, Republicans are once again backing a Supreme Court nominee who could take us backward.
We sometimes distinguish between “liberal judges” and “conservative judges.” Perhaps the divide instead is between forward-thinking judges and backward-thinking judges.
It was as recent as 2003 that enlightened Supreme Court judges struck down state sodomy laws that could be used to prosecute same-sex lovers. Three backward-thinking justices, including Antonin Scalia, Barrett’s mentor, would have allowed Taliban-style prosecutions of gay people for intimacy in the bedroom. (Barrett refused in the hearing Wednesday to say whether the case was rightly decided.)
That brings us to another historical area where conservatives, Barrett included, have also been on the wrong side of history — access to health care.
Over the last hundred years, advanced countries have, one by one, adopted universal health care systems, with one notable exception: the United States. That’s one reason next month’s election is such a milestone, for one political party in America is trying to join the rest of the civilized world and provide universal health care, and the other is doing its best to take away what we have.
Here’s the fundamental question: Will voters reward the party that is working to provide more health care, or the party that has painstakingly robbed one million children of insurance? Will voters help tug the United States forward, or will they support the backward thinkers who have been on the side of discrimination, racism, bigotry and voter suppression?
At the polls, which side of history will you stand on?
Will We Choose the Right Side of History?
In Amy Coney Barrett, Republicans are once again backing a Supreme Court nominee who could take us backward.
We sometimes distinguish between “liberal judges” and “conservative judges.” Perhaps the divide instead is between forward-thinking judges and backward-thinking judges.
It was as recent as 2003 that enlightened Supreme Court judges struck down state sodomy laws that could be used to prosecute same-sex lovers. Three backward-thinking justices, including Antonin Scalia, Barrett’s mentor, would have allowed Taliban-style prosecutions of gay people for intimacy in the bedroom. (Barrett refused in the hearing Wednesday to say whether the case was rightly decided.)
That brings us to another historical area where conservatives, Barrett included, have also been on the wrong side of history — access to health care.
Over the last hundred years, advanced countries have, one by one, adopted universal health care systems, with one notable exception: the United States. That’s one reason next month’s election is such a milestone, for one political party in America is trying to join the rest of the civilized world and provide universal health care, and the other is doing its best to take away what we have.
Here’s the fundamental question: Will voters reward the party that is working to provide more health care, or the party that has painstakingly robbed one million children of insurance? Will voters help tug the United States forward, or will they support the backward thinkers who have been on the side of discrimination, racism, bigotry and voter suppression?
At the polls, which side of history will you stand on?
Opinion | Will We Choose the Right Side of History? (Published 2020)
In Amy Coney Barrett, Republicans are once again backing a Supreme Court nominee who could take us backward.
www.nytimes.com