Washington’s worst-kept secret went public Saturday, when President Trump appointed Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. America’s first impression of Judge Barrett was that of a genuine and professional woman of consequence. As Trump spoke, she aimed girlish smiles at her family (a big day for the Barretts). At the podium, she spoke charitably of Justice Ginsburg and gratefully of Justice Scalia. Wouldn’t it have been nice to move right into the swearing-in ceremony?
How un-American is it the Barrett children must now see their mom portrayed as someone they know she isn’t? And not just by virtue-signaling liberals. Ardent pro-lifers crow she’s the vote to overturn Roe v. Wade just because she’s a Catholic. That is the same assumption of pro-choice militants (who ignore Biden‘s Catholicism). At home, Amy’s children see a role model for the virtues of hard-work, intelligence, morality, and organization
The political consequence of Barrett is that a 6-3 conservative court will force Democrats to legislate in Congress by consensus, which is what the framers of the constitution intended. Warren courts in the 50s and 60s had a Pavlovian effect on progressives, who viewed the high court as a short cut. Personally, I applaud Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda. Politically, I rue the liberal practice of side-stepping Congress in important matters of the people.
Barrett ensures the paramount conservative ruling; ending the ability of district court judges to issue national injunctions, such as the 2017 decision in San Francisco to block President Trump’s DACA order, when compromise with congressional Democrats was near. In other words, a single judge derailed the fruits of compromise and consensus; thereby encouraging do-nothing ideologues and divisive wars of words. A 6-3 court will limit the scope of district judges.
Why is this important? Primarily because mad-liberal outliers know judges take up matters viewed by legislators as election suicide. This conclusion is nuanced. Loving had to go before a judge because no Dixiecrat would even consider inter-racial marriage, but Democrats in 2017 did not – not when a GOP president was negotiating with them. Once lone-wolf judges can’t issue national injunctions, conservative and liberal extremists will be forced to educate and lobby legislators (as well they should).
Democrats awfulize Republican judicial appointments on the assumption conservatives want to overturn Roe. With the exception of Justice Thomas, conservative jurists (including Barrett) respect the weight of stare decisis (litigation according to precedent) regarding Roe. Legal abortion has existed for almost fifty years. Thus, 66% of Americans, born after the ruling, know it as the law of the land. Conservatives want to tweak Roe – not overturn it – but Democrats won’t hear of it.
The truth of the matter is a 6-3 conservative court will focus on how abortions are funded and kept secret. Must a pro-life woman include abortion in her family-business healthcare plan? Shouldn’t the parents of a pregnant 15-year-old girl be notified? Does a husband have a right to know his wife is aborting their un-born child? Conservatives aren’t sure “my body my choice” entitles a ninth-grader or wife to have a secret life.
My business has paid the price of poorly written and interpreted regulations. A 6-3 conservative court will also advance regulatory clarity and predictability for businesses; nipping some regulations in the bud and stopping judges from deferring to agency interpretations of laws and orders. I’ve seen the positive impact of less regulation since 2016 and know, if Democrats want to lean forward and remain solvent, a 6-3 court will make that economy happen.