Barrett Won’t Say If Rulings Decriminalizing Gay Sex, Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Were Rightly Decided

Barrett Won’t Say If Rulings Decriminalizing Gay Sex, Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Were Rightly Decided

The Washington Post reports:

Barrett said Wednesday that she believed two Supreme Court decisions outlawing racial discrimination were correctly decided but declined to say the same for other landmark opinions involving gay rights and access to contraceptives. Those responses came under questioning from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who asked her whether Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed the “separate but equal” doctrine, and Loving v. Virginia, which legalized interracial marriage, were correctly decided.

Then Blumenthal pressed Barrett on Griswold v. Connecticut, which allowed married couples to use birth control, as well as Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated sodomy laws, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage. “Again, I’ve said throughout the hearing, I can’t grade precedent,” Barrett said. “I can’t give a yes or a no, and my declining to give an answer doesn’t suggest disagreement or an agreement.”

More at the link above. Hugs

Barrett confirmation hearing day three: Barrett declines to say whether it’s wrong to separate migrant children from parents

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/14/amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-hearing-live-updates/

In her testimony, the conservative jurist declined to share her legal views on abortion rights, voting rights and the Affordable Care Act, seeking to separate her academic writings from how she might rule if confirmed.

She also declined to say whether she thought it was wrong to separate migrant children from their parents to deter immigration to the United States. “That’s a matter of hot political debate in which I can’t express a view or be drawn into as a judge,” Barrett said in response to a question from Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.).

Barrett said Wednesday that she believed two Supreme Court decisions outlawing racial discrimination were correctly decided but declined to say the same for other landmark opinions involving gay rights and access to contraceptives.

Those responses came under questioning from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who asked her whether Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed the “separate but equal” doctrine, and Loving v. Virginia, which legalized interracial marriage, were correctly decided.

Brown, in 1954, was “correctly decided, yes, I’ve said that,” Barrett said. As for Loving, that 1967 decision “follows directly from Brown, and Brown was correctly decided. Loving, as well.”

Then Blumenthal pressed Barrett on Griswold v. Connecticut, which allowed married couples to use birth control, as well as Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated sodomy laws, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage.

“Again, I’ve said throughout the hearing, I can’t grade precedent,” Barrett said. “I can’t give a yes or a no, and my declining to give an answer doesn’t suggest disagreement or an agreement.”

She added: “You’re pushing me to try to violate the judicial canon of ethics … and I won’t do that.”

Blumenthal appeared frustrated at Barrett’s non-answers, noting that her predecessors, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., were able to say in their confirmation hearings that Griswold was correctly decided.

But as Blumenthal painted a portrait of America where people could face discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation, Barrett pushed back.

“To suggest that’s the kind of America that I want to create” is not based on any facts in her record, Barrett said.

There is no doubt if she could give her opinion on a race issue decided by the court, she could have given her opinion on same gender marriage issues the court ruled on.    But she wouldn’t.   It has become clear she is going to decide cases not on the law but on her religious biases.   She belongs to a cult that wants the US returned to the 1850’s as far as minority rights are concerned.    She has made it clear her religion is paramount in her views, and she has said she can not and shouldn’t separate her faith from her decisions.    She belongs to a cult that feels some people have the right to tell other people how to live and what to do including personal choices in life.  The higher levels of the cult assigns people to tell their adult charges what do to.   WTF.   She is clearly OK with telling consensual adults what sex they can have or not have.   She is OK with denying two same gender people the right to have consensual sexual relationships, she would vote to make it illegal.  She like the entire Republican party is a journey backward, to the past, regressive and restrictive.   Hugs  

7 thoughts on “Barrett Won’t Say If Rulings Decriminalizing Gay Sex, Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Were Rightly Decided

    • Nan October 15, 2020 / 11:39

      Oh my! You’re for “stacking” the courts??!?! Horrors! Didn’t you know that’s Democrat talk? Far better, doncha’ know, to have a 5 to 2 conservative majority so we can take this country back to the “good ole’ days.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scottie October 16, 2020 / 12:49

        Hello Nan. Yes I have noticed that conservative stands for regression, while liberal seems to stand for progression. So as a country do we want to go back or go forward. I prefer to have progress. Hugs

        Liked by 1 person

    • Scottie October 16, 2020 / 12:45

      Hello inspiredbythedivine1. The SCOTUS needs to be expanded to at least 13 justices if not the full 15. I am not sure of the other fixes I have heard like rotating the judges on and off the court, changing the constitution to add term or age limits, and a few other things suggested. Hugs

      Like

  1. Keith October 15, 2020 / 11:42

    Judges are taught to emulate Sgt. Shultz from “Hogan’s Heroes” at hearings. “I know nothing.” Keith

    Liked by 1 person

    • Scottie October 16, 2020 / 12:53

      Hello Keith. Yes these hearings are a joke now. The whole thing has become so partisan and so much an attempt to hide the truth of what a judge believes or will rule. It is a joke she is even being considered, she has been a judge for only three years. This is an entirely political exercise to cement the rule of a minority party that is losing members every day. It really is anti-democracy. Hugs

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.