Editorial: Amy Coney Barrett is a Woman but That Doesn’t Mean Feminists Must Support Her

Just because Amy Coney Barrett is a woman doesn’t mean she is a champion of women and the laws designed to protect them or their freedoms. Many conservative Republicans, however, take the view that Democrats and feminists should support the Supreme Court justice nomination of judge Amy Coney Barrett, who would fill the vacated seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, simply because she’s a woman.

Donald Trump and the conservatives hold up Amy Coney Barrett, female judge, as if to say, “See? We’re not anti-woman!” similarly to the way they offer up a handful of Black people in a crowd of supporters to say, “See? We’re not racist!” And so, according to some conservatives’ reasoning, If Democrats support women, they have to be behind any woman nominee. Any objection to Barrett is labeled as hypocrisy.

In an opinion piece in The Hill, Katie Pavlich asks, “What Happened to Democrats Supporting Women?”

“After her nomination at the White House over the weekend,” writes Pavlich, “it’s become clearer than ever Democrats are only interested in supporting certain kinds of ambitious and successful women.”

Certain kinds? Well, yes: The kind who stand for the freedom of women to make their own choices and have equal protection under the law. The kind who don’t want to block women’s  rights to health care, reproductive freedom, and personal autonomy. The kind who won’t legislate from the bench. And, yes, the kind who wasn’t nominated with the conservatives’ expectation that she will carry out the will of Donald Trump and the Republican lawmakers when it comes to dismantling the Affordable Care Act, overturning Roe v. Wade, and possibly even presiding over a lawsuit to contest the presidential election, should there be a contested election.

“Judge Barrett isn’t the kind of woman the left tolerates. She’s independent, strong and has rejected the notion that women are still victims in American society,” writes Pavlich, insulting the memory of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as well as “the left” and women who continue to be victims in American society.

“She is too religious, too respectful of her husband, has too many children and loves the United States of America. Not to mention her love for the U.S. Constitution. It’s no wonder the left is trying to destroy her. After all, she stands for everything they stand against: the nuclear family, true tolerance, freedom of religion, the principle that each person, no matter how small, has value, and much more,” writes Pavlich, falling back on the frequently used conservative narrative strategy of accusing “the left” of being anti-family, anti-religion, and generally anti-American.

Democrats don’t want to deny Amy Coney Barrett the freedom to practice her religion. They do fear, however, that her religious beliefs may influence the way she interprets the law and how she rules on cases. Will she be able to be unbiased? She is, we need to remember, the darling of the religious right, and of “pro-life” groups.

It’s unclear, for example, how Barrett would rule in cases concerning the rights of the LGBTQ community. And Coney Barrett’s past decisions have indicated that she would rule to overturn Roe v. Wade, thus removing a woman’s right to reproductive freedom. She has, after all, been nominated by Donald Trump to fill one of the seats Trump promised to fill with “pro-life” judges.

And speaking of bias, would she recuse herself from elections-related cases that go before the Supreme Court, should the 2020 presidential election be contested? Donald Trump clearly wants her participation.

Katie Pavlich wants badly to frame Democrats’ concern over Barrett’s nomination as simply an inability to recognize an outstanding woman if she’s not a Democrat. No one can say (and no one is saying) that Amy Coney Barrett isn’t an intelligent, accomplished, admirable woman. She is a judge, a scholar, a law professor, a wife, and the mother of seven. She clerked with the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

“Judge Barrett is a female inspiration,” writes Pavlich. “It’s too bad Democrats only seem to care about women’s achievement when an individual shares their political preferences.”

No, Katie Pavlich, it’s bigger than that. Not only is there concern that Barrett won’t be able to be an unbiased Justice, her past writing indicates that she would likely rule to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In fact, Trump and the GOP lawmakers have already indicated that they would take this opportunity to appoint a judge who would be with them on overturning the ACA.

In 2016, candidate Trump promised, “If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike Bush’s appointee John Roberts on ObamaCare.”

When he announced Barrett’s nomination, he tied repealing the ACA with her nomination, saying that eliminating it would be “a big win for the USA.”

On November 10, the Supreme Court will hear a lawsuit by the Trump Administration to declare the ACA Unconstitutional, and, if confirmed, Barrett would be one of the judges to hear the case. If Trump wins, millions of Americans will lose their health care. Most insured Americans will face the possibility of higher premiums, fewer covered services, and denial of coverage or price-gouging for pre-existing conditions. Services for women that must now be covered under the ACA, such as maternity care, annual well woman visits, birth control, and other services, will no longer be required to be covered, and women will no longer be protected from paying more for health care simply because they are women.

It really doesn’t matter how much of a “female inspiration” Judge Amy Coney Barrett is. And her political and religious preferences are secondary. What matters is whether she is interested in upholding equal protection under the law for all Americans, including women and marginalized communities; whether she would legislate from the bench by ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade; and whether she is ok with eliminating health care for millions of Americans without a replacement plan.

We can only hope that if confirmed, Amy Coney Barrett will not allow bias to influence her decisions as a Supreme Court Justice, and that she will not take us backward. Donald Trump and the Republican lawmakers who are eager to rush through Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation are banking that she will do both.

WATCH: Democrats respond to the first day of Supreme Court confirmation hearings | PBS NewsHour [2020-10-12]

Kamala Harris: Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy is in jeopardy | CNN
[2020-10-12]

Editorial: Trump’s Behavior Prompts Proposal for New Panel under 25th Amendment

Many Americans have questioned Donald Trump’s fitness to serve as President of the United States since before he took office, but even with that aside, his recent hospitalization for COVID-19 (and his subsequent antics) have prompted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.) to draft legislation under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, establishing a commission that would allow Congress to intervene to relieve an unfit president of his or her duties.

Last week, President Trump was diagnosed with COVID-19, briefly hospitalized, and given a series of experimental treatments that are understood to be reserved for seriously ill patients. While he was in the hospital, he remained on the job with no provision for Vice President Pence to assume even temporary executive duty. The 25th Amendment lays out the process for a president to voluntarily transfer executive authority to the vice president during times when the president is unable to carry out his or her duties, including during a medical event or procedure.

The aim of the 25th Amendment is to ensure continuity of power, should a president die, become unable to perform his or her duties, or resign. In addition to a president’s voluntary transfer of authority, the 25th Amendment provides that, by joint agreement between the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet, “or of such other body as Congress,” a sitting president could be declared “disabled,” and removed from office involuntarily.

The 25th Amendment limits the power of Congress in such situations, and the legislation put forth by Pelosi and Raskin would create a commission to determine whether Donald Trump is fit to carry out his duties as president, or should be removed from office.

Though they may be difficult to distinguish from Trump’s usual behavior and lack of impulse control, Trump’s recent barrage of angry and unstable-sounding tweets, self-aggrandizing and confusing video messages, and reckless behavior during his illness while still contagious, have concerned even many of his staff members.

Among Trump’s recent erratic video messages was one resembling an infomercial, touting the antibody treatment Regeneron. “We have hundreds of thousands of doses, and they’re just about ready,” Trump said, promising that the treatment would be free to all who need it.

Trump tweeted an abrupt halt to talks underway between Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin about a coronavirus relief package, then partially reversed the halt. He also announced that he would not be participating in the upcoming debate with Joe Biden after learning that the debate would be held virtually.

The president, scoffing at public health guidelines from his own administration, has returned to the Oval Office, placing the entire White House staff in danger of contracting the potentially deadly virus from their boss. As of Friday morning, at least “34 White House staffers and other contacts” have tested positive for COVID-19, according to a memo from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Yet Trump refuses to wear a mask, and says he plans to return to the campaign trail as early as this weekend.

Nancy Pelosi has expressed concern that Trump is experiencing a “disassociation from reality.” Others have questioned whether Trump is suffering “roid rage” as a result of his COVID-19 treatments, which includes Dexamethasone, a steroid.

“Trump is, shall we say, in an altered state right now,” said Pelosi. “The disassociation from reality would be funny if it weren’t so deadly.”

The legislation that Pelosi and Raskin are introducing, the Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of Office Act, would “enable Congress to help ensure effective and uninterrupted leadership in the highest office in the Executive Branch of government,” according to the office of Pelosi.

The reality, however, is that, though Pelosi and Raskin could create a commission to examine the health of the president, and his fitness for office, the House of Representatives would need the agreement of not only the vice president, but also members of the cabinet. Pelosi knows that this is not likely, at least not before the election.

“I don’t think it would work for this president — this presidency,” said Pelosi.

Still, passage of the Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of Office Act, even if only by the House of Representatives, would be a first step that needs to be taken at this time to protect the office of the presidency. Amid a sea of complicit and enabling GOP lawmakers who will likely continue to disregard the 25th Amendment, even as the president’s instability glares at them, this legislation is a statement that Donald Trump’s actions are placing the U.S. in jeopardy, and we need a plan.

Nancy Pelosi suggests future 25th Amendment discussion on Donald Trump’s fitness for office | Guardian News [2020-10-08]

What The 25th Amendment Says If The President Cannot Serve | NBC News NOW | [2020-10-02]