Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Given her activities on campus on the abortion issue and her commentary on Justice Roberts and the affordable care act, it's evident that Barrett is a politically active judge. When she does that, she can expect to answer to and receive the kind of criticism that has been leveled against her in this thread. 

Hey Jim, if the initial post in this thread bothers you, let's try one with a narrower focus:
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/522674-amy-coney-barrett-should-step-aside-if-she-cant-be-impartial

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Rod:

I read your link.  The author is no doubt a good doctor who highly values a right to choose.  Her perspective is, in my opinion, incorrect in two important ways:

1.  The author says, "Then it hit me, why is a federal policy threatened by a religious belief, one that is not shared by all religions?"  This is an extreme mistake that gives insight into the author's mindset.  For starters there is no federal policy regarding abortion.  Medical policy should be reserved to the states.  More importantly, Roe v. Wade is not a policy.  It is a case from the Supreme Court that limits certain state policies concerning abortion.  I understand that this author believes that the Supreme Court actually does set policy.  Lot's of folks feel that way.  This is clearly why they are so upset that ACB is going to be confirmed to the Supreme court, because they doubt she favors the policies they favor.  ACB knows of course that her job is not to set policy.  This is one reason predicting the outcome of many SC cases is so difficult.  The lodestar applied by the Supreme Court should not be and typically is not "what policy do I favor."  I think the author revealed a profound misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court does and does not do.  This is probably why doctors should avoid writing about legal matters.

2.  The Author concludes as follows:

"We need to continue to separate church and state and not consider imposing a religious view of some, to all — especially not in the Supreme Court and especially not for women in a time of crisis. I respect the faith of Amy Coney Barrett, but she cannot be neutral on issues of reproductive choice as her previous writings confirm."  I'll leave alone the fact that this author can not comprehend that there are compelling legal reasons for overturning Roe, reasons which have nothing to do with religion.  I think it is telling that the author states outright that the only "neutral" position is pro-choice.  Legally the neutral position is to leave the abortion issue up to the States, most of which would allow abortion.

At least this author did not suggest that ACB as a woman was unable to think for herself and would be a pawn of evil white male masterminds!

Jim 

I agree with you that Roe vs Wade is not a policy. It is the law of the land and one that the states do not subvert by writing their own policies, procedures and laws in order to obviate it. It's evident based upon Barrett's personal beliefs on where she stands on the issue of abortion. The question is whether or not she'll recuse herself or be able to set aside her beliefs if and when the case is heard. I believe she'll do neither... 

Originally Posted by James Brown

She should not and will not recuse herself.  Do you also think Sotomayor and Kagan should recuse themselves from 2nd Amendment cases?  Of course not!  

If the issue of Roe comes squarely before the Court, ACB will carefully listen to arguments and she will carefully read the briefs as she carefully considers the important legal question of:

Does respect for long-standing precedent such as Roe (stare decisis) outweigh the argument that Roe was incorrectly decided in the first place?

No one can predict for sure how any justice will decide that legal question.  ACB is trained to put her personal beliefs aside as she considers the above legal question.  It is a difficult legal question, as should be acknowledged by any objective person whether he or she is pro-choice or pro-life.  Even so, I am not naïve enough to think that John and Jane Public can ever acknowledge the difficult underlying legal question.  The merits of abortion are too polarizing.  But I have a lot of confidence in the Supreme Court, including ACB.

Jim  

First, Roe Vs Wade was correctly decided. The argument to the contrary is simply fodder for those who oppose it.
Second, there's no mystery on how Barret will "carefully consider it". She'll do so in the same manner that Clarence does...

Here's what's coming up on Amy's agenda:
1. Trump's tax case. Guess who decided in the minority opinion to side with Trump's lawyers on the first go round? Any mystery on that one?
2. Pennsylvania Ballot Extensions: "Republicans in Pennsylvania asked the Supreme Court on Friday to block a ballot receipt extension that would allow them to be counted if they are received within three days of Election Day -- even if they do not have a legible postmark.
The lawyers acknowledged in the brief that the Supreme Court was divided 4-4 on an emergency stay request on the issue last week, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the liberals to allow the extension. It takes five justices to grant the Republicans' request, making Barrett's vote critical in the new request."
3. "Wisconsin ballot counting and requests: Three Wisconsin petitions before the court concern Democrats who are asking the justices to allow the counting of ballots six days after the election and whether Covid-19 vulnerable voters and others in the state can secure replacement mail-in ballots by email."
4"North Carolina ballot counting extension
Republicans in North Carolina are asking the Supreme Court to block a nine-day extension of the counting of ballots if they are received by Election Day and reinstate a three-day extension established by the legislature last June.
A federal appeals court had allowed the nine-day extension that was set by the State Board of Elections amid the pandemic, as part of a legal settlement.
"The extension simply makes it easier for more people to vote absentee in the middle of a global pandemic that has killed over 200,000 Americans," the appeals court ruled."

5."Minnesota congressional election date" A Republican candidate for Minnesota's 2nd Congressional District is asking the justices to intervene in a case concerning whether his election takes place on November 3 or on February 9, 2021, after the recent death of Legal Marijuana Now Party candidate Adam Weeks caused the contest to be moved to next year as required by state law."
6. "Mississippi abortion case
As abortion rights backers and opponents spar over whether Barrett's confirmation would mean the end of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark Supreme Court decision, the justices will consider Friday to consider whether or not to hear a case that could directly consider the precedent.
The case pertains to Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban, which Republican Gov. Phil Bryant signed into law in 2018. The law made exceptions only for medical emergencies or cases in which there's a "severe fetal abnormality," but not for incidents of rape or incest. A federal judge in Mississippi struck down the law in November 2018, and the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling late last year."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/26/politics/taxes-election-abortion-amy-coney-barrett/index.html

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Really?  Says who, you?  

The guy who is ready to assist in aborting babies?

You're that sick in the head.  

I'll keep reminding people here your statement from years back.

"Give me a pair of forceps and a vacuum extractor and I'm there".  

Then you put a smiley face after your posting.

YOU are one sick twisted freak.  

Roe vs Wade has been decided by the Supreme court. It doesn't need to be decided again.
And here's what happens if we go back to the days when twisted freaks like you had their way:
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/522635-i-know-what-illegal-abortion-looks-like-does-amy-coney-barrett

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Only a sick, demented freak would laugh about killing babies, and would volunteer to do it with glee.

You are one sick, twisted, demented idiot.

Legal abortions aren't killing babies. dip----.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Let's just talk about the fantasy, hyped up lies that have been promoted throughout the decades by ignoramuses like yourself who claimed that 1000s of illegal back alley abortions occurred in those days.

The Reality is that VERY FEW occurred, most likely far less than 1000s.

It may have been in the dozens to possibly a hundred in the USA per year.  

So what is the answer by the left?

Allow 50 MILLION babies to be aborted every year, the vast majority of which are blacks and other minorities.  

Hmm....... using the left's logic, one might be apt to call those abortion cheerleaders like yourself, racist.

What do you think?

Does that label fit you?  

Since it was illegal at the time, because of ignoramuses like yourself, there's no way in hell you can know what the figures were.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Hey coward, do you want to comment on what those photos I posted are, or are you too big a f'in pussy to look at them?

Does it look like a Ficus plant?  

While I doubt the veracity of your pictures based upon previous ones posted in this forum by you, and I was wondering when you we're going to trot them out again for display purposes, it doesn't matter. What does matter is the viability outside the womb. Roe Vs Wade has already answered it...

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

It doesn't matter?  That statement right there belies the stupidity of the average leftist Democrat like yourself.

You should just get a tattoo on your forehead saying "Don't confuse me with the facts about abortion, I've already made up my mind".

You really do represent the dumbest of Americans.

These were supposed to be real, too:
https://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/issues-in-depth/truth-about-anti-abortion-pictures