She is like Scott Atlas, a person who leverages a prestigious degree to legitimize a nakedly partisan agenda where she ignores precedent to twist the Constitution into knots. At one time, conservatives were against judicial activism, but with Barrett, you have someone who is going to have no qualms about invalidating laws that she disagrees with from a policy perspective.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/who-might-succeed-justice-ginsburg-trumps-short-list-begins-with-these-five-women-and-one-man/ar-BB19c0eP?li=BBnb7Kz
In a 2013 Texas Law Review article exploring when the Supreme Court should overturn past decisions, Barrett wrote that she agrees "with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution, and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.”
She also wrote that the public’s response to controversial cases like Roe v. Wade “reflects public rejection” of the idea that legal precedent “can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle.”
A former member of the University of Notre Dame’s “Faculty for Life,” Barrett signed a 2015 letter to Catholic bishops that affirmed the “teachings of the Church as truth.” Among those teachings: the “value of human life from conception to natural death” and marriage-family values “founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman.”
Barrett wrote in 2017 that Chief Justice John Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning in order to save it. Roberts creatively interpreted as a tax the law’s penalty on those who don’t buy insurance, allowing the court to uphold the constitutionality of the law, she said.
= new reply since forum marked as read