John—
Millions of voters have already cast their ballots. Any attempt to confirm a justice to a lifetime appointment on our highest court needs to be called out for what it is: a shameless, disgusting, illegitimate power grab by a desperate Republican Party.
If you’re ready to message your senators and let them know that rushing ahead with the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice is irresponsible and undemocratic, go ahead and do so now. Tell your senators now that there should be no consideration of a new Supreme Court justice until after Inauguration Day.
But there’s even more going on here. Amy Coney Barrett is a deeply partisan, right-wing judge.
To disguise that, she tries to hide her extremism in “legalese” — or “lawyer speak” — to make it hard for non-lawyers like most of us to understand exactly how outrageous her views are.
And I’m not a lawyer — but I do work with some of the best there are. That’s why I asked my colleagues on the government relations team here at NARAL to translate some of the obscure, lawyered-up language we think she’ll fall back on when she’s pressed about her extreme, anti-choice, hyper-partisan views.
So this week, as Barrett testifies in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, keep an ear out for things like this. She’s trying to hide her true intentions.
| When she says something like... |
What she means is: |
| The Supreme Court’s long standing approach to stare decisis carries a strong presumption of continuity but permits overruling in limited and exceptional circumstances. |
If confirmed, I will try to further gut or overturn Roe v. Wade. |
| The Supreme Court has repeatedly applied the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and related statutes to protect conscience rights and if confirmed I will faithfully follow that precedent. |
I think your boss should be able to decide whether or not your insurance covers your birth control.1 |
| I greatly admire Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom I clerked, for his careful attention to statutory and constitutional text. The basic insight of originalism is that the Constitution is a law and should be interpreted like one. Thus, where the meaning of text is ascertainable, a judge must apply it. |
Just like extremely conservative former Justice Antonin Scalia, I think there is no constitutional right to abortion. |
| In my writings and speeches, I have merely described Casey's modification of Roe as described in Casey itself. |
I think anti-choice lawmakers in your state have the right to interfere in personal decisions about pregnancy. |
| This is a political issue about which I cannot ethically opine. OR This question appears to ask me to weigh in on issues that are or could be the subject of litigation, and thus upon which I cannot comment. |
I am trying to hide my deeply unpopular approach to our fundamental rights and freedoms — an approach that is out of step with the American people. |
Republicans have been trying to downplay the threat Barrett represents to Roe v. Wade and reproductive freedom, but Donald Trump promised to only nominate judges who would “automatically” overturn Roe v. Wade. And Barrett’s record confirms that he’s made good on that promise. Anti-choice politicians and right-wing groups have been celebrating Barrett’s nomination since Trump’s announcement. We know what’s at stake. Lives are on the line.
Message your senators now. Tell them that Amy Coney Barrett is an existential threat to our reproductive freedom and there should be no consideration of a new Supreme Court justice until after Inauguration Day.
Together,
Kate Ryan
Government Relations Director, NARAL Pro-Choice America
|
With the support of people like you, we can make sure that freedom is for every body.
|