So now the left is attempting to place the bigot card on the right as the vote for the new Supreme Court Justice, Amy Barrett, is about to take place. Here’s the article, (H/T to my friend vjack). Of course now they are saying that there’s anti-catholic bigotry in Trumps base when it’s clear, historically, it’s Democrats that have been religious bigots. Who is it that spews more anti-semitism or religious hatred in general? It’s not the right, but the left.
Just perform a Google search. Anti-semitism? Look at all the articles written about anti-se,mitism on college campuses. It comes from the left. Religious bigotry? The same. Are there right-wing people that are bigots as well? I’m certain bigotry isn’t ideological and we can all find examples of what we’re searching for to make our point but what I’m referring to here are published reports, by the news media. Now, we may not necessarily believe what we read, or hear, but note that most of the media lean precipitously to the left and I don’t believe they’d be publishing these stories if they weren’t true.
I have no idea why Democrats fear any SCOTUS candidate proposed by a Republican President. Well, that’s a lie, I do: They believe that given a majority of conservative appointees, the court will overturn Roe v Wade. That’s their only litmus test. They could care less about civil rights, workers rights, all of the mundane cases (for the public) that the court hears every session. It’s all about abortion. As a human being I am generally against abortion but I do believe that it is not a decision that should be decided by a government decree. I have no idea of what anyone’s personal situation is and for me to say that any woman that becomes pregnant must carry that pregnancy to term, is hubris.
Being a conservative doesn’t mean I cannot be pro-choice. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion, as some of my fellows out there would like everyone to believe; simply that it’s the woman’s right to choose whether or not to carry to term. That’s it. I reject the idea that women, even families, cannot make these choices without government interference. I truly believe that if the Framers were alive today, they’d side, mostly, with me.
Coming back to Judge Barrett: our Constitution forbids any religious test for any public office. This is why we can say in the U.S. that our government is not based, nor is it subject to, any religious belief. Even though Judge Barrett has been described as a faithful Catholic, there’s nothing in her background, notably as an appellate Judge to show that her personal religious belief would affect her decisions in any case brought before the court. None. Even the court that voted in favor of Roe v Wade, several were Catholic. At least one was Southern Baptist.
It would be great if we could appoint Judges and Justices that were atheist, but, at least in my lifetime, and I would expect a few more generations to follow, that’s probably not going to happen. Out of the current eight on the court, five are Roman Catholic, two are Jewish, and one is Episcopalian. Of the described liberals on the court: two are Jewish, one is Roman Catholic.
So tell me, how a Justice’s religious belief is important to how they would vote on any particular case brought before the court? Do we have any evidence that this has happened, at the Supreme Court? I went back a looked. Even though I disagree with the decision in Row v Wade, no. What the justices did there was create an new right that doesn’t exist in the Constitution: The Right to Privacy. No matter how much we want to believe this, do a word search online in the U.S. Constitution. The word “privacy” or any etymological ju-jitsu of that word is not found.
You want to overturn Roe v Wade, it can be done by that alone. The justices on a 7 (liberal) to 2 vote invented a right that’s never delineated within the Constitution. A better argument? The 13th Amendment, Look it up. This is the amendment that forbids slavery and if you read it carefully, even though its only a sentence, could be applied to abortion:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
”Involuntary servitude”. That’s the key. The government forcing anyone to do anything with their bodies is what? Pretty easy. So I don’t believe that the future Justice Barrett will overturn Roe v Wade, unless, it’s brought as a strictly Constitutional challenge. Again, those Justices, in 1973, created a new category of rights which are non-existent in the Constitution.
That no case brought before the court since 1973 has changed the outcome of Row v Wade, I feel confident that Judge Barrett will follow precedent To me, it’s a shame that we have to have a group of anonymous people deciding on our rights. I know my rights as scripted in our Constitution. Judges should not be ascribing rights outside that document, no matter who it favors or disfavors.