Amy Coney Barrett: Questions Unanswered

Welcome to Bad Table Talk I’m your host Oliver Niehaus and this is where we breakdown all of the current news and talk about everything you aren’t supposed to talk about at the dinner table, that being politics, religion, money, and more. My goal with this series is to provide easy to listen, informative segments, addressing the most pressing issues we face, and to start much-needed conversations as a result. As always, thanks go out to my friend Oscar Gregg for providing the music you hear and you should all check out his single Acrobats which will be linked in the podcast notes below. If you enjoy what you hear, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts and leave a rating and review. And feel free to also share your thoughts with me via email which is linked below as well. So sit back and relax while I talk about how utterly f*cked we are as a country. I’m totally kidding (sort of) All joking aside, Regardless of where you stand politically, I hope everyone is motivated by what they hear to research more about these issues and feels ready to contribute to making our nation a better place for everyone. Thank you and please enjoy!

Actually Making America Great podcast
Why voting in the U.S. Election will not be equal - The New York Times

My Youtube Channel
My Instagram
Email: omnbaseball@gmail.com

Transcript

Hello everyone, welcome to Bad Table Talk, I’m your host Oliver Niehaus. The Supreme Court is thought of by many as the impartial arbiter of justice. From protecting individual freedoms to declaring acts of the legislature and the President unconstitutional, the separation of powers seems to be firmly present. Until you realize that the Republicans stonewalled Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee for over 300 days and then rushed their own through with less than 45 days until the election. Separation of Powers? Nowhere to be seen. And with Amy Coney Barrett’s inevitable confirmation in the near future, the partisanship of our Judicial System seems to only be increasing. Through these confirmation hearings, one thing has been made clear about Amy Coney Barrett, she is a tool of the GOP to further their regressive agenda. To illustrate this, let’s play a clip back from 2017 which was an exchange between Former Democratic Senator Al Franken and Barrett when she was in the process of being confirmed to the 7th circuit Court of Appeals, roll the clip.

So if it wasn’t made abundantly clear, Barrett was a paid speaker five times, starting in 2011, at the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, a summer program established to inspire, and I quote “a distinctly Christian worldview in every area of law” as shown in tax filings. It was founded to show students “how God can use them as judges, law professors, and practicing attorneys to help keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel in America.” Amy Coney Barrett is a religious zealot who will strip the rights and protections of LGBTQ Americans away, and that’s not even touching on her refusal to acknowledge the reality of climate change as well as whether a president by law must peacefully transition power. In that same discussion with Senator Franken back in 2017, she responded to the fact that groups that openly advocated for the sterilization of transgender people were funding her by saying, “I was not aware of that” Where else have we heard this similar phrase? Denying any knowledge of something that comes before them instead of condemning it? (Trump audio) We all know this is total bullshit. It’s not that Amy Coney Barrett wasn’t aware that these groups that were funding her were hostile to the LGBTQ community nor was it the case that Donald Trump didn’t know about white supremacy or Qanon. It’s that none of those things actually bother them so instead of outright condemning them, they play stupid. 

So why else is Trump nominating Barrett to the Supreme Court? Well other than to overturn the Affordable Care Act and Roe v. Wade, which actually is interesting when it comes to Roe v. Wade. In his town hall on Thursday, Trump didn’t commit to overturning Roe v. Wade and you’re probably asking, why are you complaining? And the answer is I’m not complaining, I’m actually laughing. I’m laughing because this man doesn’t give a fuck about abortion, let alone human life. Like it’s hilarious watching these evangelicals praise Trump as this savior sent from God, regardless of the fact that he’s thrice-married and cheated on all three of his wives, but regardless, they champion him as this savior sent by God, and he won’t commit to overturning Roe, literally the one issue that unites Evangelicals and is practically a non-negotiable, but Trump won’t commit to it. And it’s because he doesn’t give a shit. Not only about abortion but about Human life, evident when he responded to the US having the highest death rate by population with “it is what it is.” So honestly if I was an evangelical pro-lifer, god imagine, I would be pissed. Because he’s using your passion around the issue of abortion and exploiting it for your vote. Don’t you even doubt for one second that if Trump could gain voters by being pro-choice that he would even hesitate. He used to be outspoken about his pro-choice views. Hell, there are even court documents outlining the fact that after he raped a 13-year-old girl, when she asked him what she should do if she got pregnant, he responded with and I quote, “Get a fucking abortion.” This man doesn’t give a fuck about abortion or even your life. He’s willing to have you, your friends, your loved ones, die if it adds a few points to the stock market and boosts his chance of re-election, which is honestly basically non-existent. 

But besides all that, he still did commit to nominating pro-life justices as well as ones that would overturn the Affordable Care Act. So when Barrett sits in these hearings acting like there’s no partisanship here, she’s just ignoring the fact that this entire process is Partisan. It became partisan when the Republicans stonewalled Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland for nearly 300 days and then rushed theirs through with what looks like, less than a week until Election day. That’s politicizing the court. So when Republicans bitch and moan about Democrats violating the constitution or changing the rules to win by floating the idea of expanding the court, those complaints should fall on deaf ears because one there is nothing in the Constitution specifying the number of justices on the Supreme Court, and two, changing the rules to win is exactly what they did when they blocked Garland, changed the procedure regarding the filibuster to only require 51 votes to block, not the usual 60, and then rushing their nominee through less than a week before the election. So absolutely the Democrats should expand the court. It’s the only way to preserve justice and combat the Republican action that will likely result in 20 million Americans losing their healthcare, women losing reproductive rights, and even LGBTQ people having the right to even marry, as Justices Thomas and Alito recently came out expressing their discontent with the ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, in which Justice Roberts also dissented. So yeah, it’s not just the right thing for Democrats to expand the court, they have an obligation to do so to protect the healthcare, reproductive rights, and simply just equal rights for all Americans. 

So how confident are we that Barrett will rule to overturn Roe v. Wade? Well besides the fact that Trump said he’d only nominate pro-life judges, Senator Josh Hawley supports her nomination. Now you may be wondering who Josh Hawley is or why he’s so important. However, if you’re a loyal listener of my podcast, you’ll remember him as someone who was on Trump’s shortlist to be nominated himself to the Supreme Court, and we briefly touched on his abortion views but let’s discuss why his support for Barrett makes it abundantly clear she will vote to overturn Roe. This is what Hawley had to say about Supreme Court nominees back in July of this year, “I will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided, by explicitly acknowledged, I mean on the record and before they were nominated.” He later added: “I don’t want private assurances from candidates. I don’t want to hear about their personal views, one way or another. I’m not looking for forecasts about how they may vote in the future or predications. I don’t want any of that. I want to see on the record, as part of their record, that they have acknowledged in some forum that Roe v. Wade, as a legal matter, is wrongly decided. “This standard, for me, applies to Supreme Court nominees, whether they’re a sitting judge or whatever,” Hawley said. “If there is no indication in their record that at any time they have acknowledged that Roe was wrong at the time it was decided, then I’m not going to vote for them — and I don’t care who nominates them.” And he supports Barrett’s nomination saying, “There’s plenty of evidence, I think, to demonstrate that she understands that Roe is — in my words — an act of judicial imperialism,” Hawley said last week. “And I feel very comfortable with her on that issue.” He’s willing to throw out his supposed “litmus test.” That says a lot about his confidence that Barrett will rule to overturn Roe.

So what were the questions that she refused to answer? Well, let’s discuss them, some of which aren’t even controversial as she seems to falsely state but I digress.

She’s asked by Senator Feinstein, don’t even get me started on her but regardless Barrett was asked if she agreed with Justice Antonin Scalia’s view that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. She refused to answer this question. Let’s make her position very clear here. Antonin Scalia was her mentor and she clerked under him for years. Both of them follow the same Judicial Philosophy of originalism and she has said that with regard to Scalia that “his philosophy is mine” This makes it abundantly clear. Not to even mention the serious flaws with originalism, being that interpreting the law how the racist old white men intended would be disastrous, but that her decision-making process would be the same as Scalia, especially on as hot of a topic as Abortion which she already made clear in 2006 when she signed on to an ad that said, “It’s time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v Wade and restore law that protects the lives of unborn children.” There is absolutely no doubt that she is in favor of overturning Roe v Wade and stripping reproductive freedom away from millions of women. She was then asked whether a president can pardon himself of any past or future crimes and also whether a president can unilaterally delay an election both of which she refused to answer. I don’t know if it’s just me but I thought the point of these hearings was for the Senators and the American people to hear the presumptive justice to the Supreme Court answer legal questions regarding how she would rule. She failed to answer questions that were related to her policy positions as well as constitutional questions. By the end of the hearings, I was honestly asking myself if there were any questions she could answer. She was then asked a very good question by Senator Feinstein which was “Do you agree with other originalists that say that Medicare is unconstitutional?” And she refused to answer that as well. I honestly didn’t know you could go into a court hearing and refuse to answer nearly every question asked of you. Maybe this is a strategy you can use when taking a test at school! Test question: Explain the process of cellular respiration, my answer, I’m sorry I don’t feel that’s a question I can answer in the abstract. Absolutely ridiculous. Let’s continue. She’s then is asked whether criminalizing Invitro-fertilization which is the process where an egg and sperm are fertilized outside the womb and put into a woman’s uterus, whether criminalizing that would be constitutional. She yet again declines to answer. In that same vein, she is asked again if she agrees with Justice Antonin Scalia who said that the case Griswold v Connecticut which prevented states from banning contraception was wrongly decided. She declines to answer. She is asked whether it’s wrong to separate children from their parents to deter immigrants from coming to the United States. You’d think a mother of seven would immediately disavow this practice as utterly inhumane. But to no one’s surprise, she declined to answer stating that this was a matter of policy debate. It’s fucking not. Separating children from their parents at the border who are trying to seek asylum, which is legal, so before you try to hit me with that illegal bullshit which is irrelevant anyway, but these are people following the rules and declaring asylum at a legal port of entry, and then their children are ripped away from them. Like what the literal fuck? If you think that’s just a matter of “contentious policy debate” then you’re a terrible human being. So much for being pro-life when you have no problem ripping literal infants from their parents. By refusing to condemn that practice, you’re endorsing it. The same way failing to condemn white supremacy or pedophilia is an endorsement, refusing to condemn the separation of families seeking asylum means you endorse it. That is not someone who should be anywhere near the courtroom other than being prosecuted themselves. Then she, oh you thought we were over? Oh, no no no we are just getting started. Isn’t that the scary part. She then is asked if absentee and mail-in ballots are good for voters to use especially in the middle of a pandemic that would help reduce the spread of the virus. And she once again refuses to comment, declaring it to be a “political issue.” So like who wants to tell her that all something being political means is that there is debate surrounding it. There are people who believe in Qanon, even members of congress. Does that mean it’s not completely false? NO!!! This is why I hate the word politics. It is used to encompass any issue that is discussed ever and then somehow justifies not having to get involved. Like people who say, “Oh I don’t do politics.” So on the topic of mail-in balloting, the only reason it’s political is that one they are, ballots but also the President is spewing nonsense about fraud. From 2000-2014 there were 31 credible instances of voter fraud out of over 1 billion votes cast. That is so fucking negligible. And these are the same people who claim that Covid isn’t that deadly because it has a 97% survival rate. Ok, buddy, ballots are 99.9999% legitimate so shut up. Mail-in balloting isn’t fraudulent. It’s just a tactic by Trump to de-legitimize our election process because he knows he can’t win fair and square. It’s that simple. And he literally said he wants Barrett on the Court before the election so she could help settle any election disputes. Yeah, he said the silent part out loud, kind of like when Lindsey Graham said “the good ole-days of segregation.” Go figure. And the story wouldn’t be complete if she didn’t acknowledge that climate change is real right? Well of course not and she said just that. When asked if climate change is happening and is threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink, she declined to answer, pulling her oh so famous line of “that is a hot topic of political debate that I don’t feel that I can answer.” Honestly, I think that’s going to be my go-to line whenever I’m asked a question I don’t want to answer. Maybe somebody will ask me out on a date or something and I’ll be put in an awkward situation, but thanks to Amy Coney Barrett, I’ll have this to answer them, “Sorry that is a hot topic of political debate that I don’t feel I can answer.” Amy Coney Barrett is a climate denier. As I said, the same way failing to condemn white supremacy makes you a racist, refusing to acknowledge as the existential threat that it is, makes you a climate denier. There isn’t just a friendly middle ground when it comes to equal rights for LQBTQ people or the separation of children from their parents at the border or the severity of climate change. You’re either for or against it. You either believe in it or you don’t. Climate change isn’t a matter of public policy it’s a fact and her refusal to acknowledge its existence is alone enough to disqualify her from the court. Tired yet? I sure am, but we aren’t even close to finished discussing the questions she avoided. So grab a snack, maybe some tissues because this is pretty fucking sad. Alright, let’s continue. She is then asked if she will recuse herself involving any election disputes. Gee, it’s not like there could be a conflict of interest involving the president who just appointed a Justice and then that Justice rules in his favor in an election dispute and it’s not like that Judge worked on George Bush’s legal team regarding the 2000 election where it went to the Supreme Court and it’s not like the President of the United States explicitly stated that he was nominating that Judge to resolve any election disputes that may arise. Oh wait, that’s all true. This is the biggest conflict of interest there could possibly be and the fact that Barrett refused to commit to recusing herself from any election disputes further proves how this entire process is just a power grab by Donald Trump and the Republican Party to steal this election. On the topic of recusal, she’s also asked if she would recuse herself from the upcoming case California v. Texas which involves the Affordable Care Act which the court will hear right after the election. And considering Donald Trump stated that he’s only nominating Justices that would overturn the Affordable Care Act and that Barrett has criticized it in the past, that it seems only fair that she should recuse herself. But of course not because obviously, the Republicans don’t care about fairness or honesty, because if they did, they wouldn’t block a Supreme Court nominee for over 9 months and then turn around and put a Justice on the court less than a week before the election. If they cared about honesty or keeping their word, this nomination wouldn’t be happening in the first place. On the topic of LGBTQ rights and protections, her mentor Antonin Scalia wasn’t too fond of them. She’s asked whether she agrees with Justice Scalia’s view, may I remind you was her mentor, and whose philosophy she follows, but she’s asked whether she agrees with Scalia’s view that the constitution does not afford gay people the fundamental right to marry. And she dodges. She literally can’t even answer whether gay people should have equal protection under the law. She seriously doesn’t know the 14th amendment for being a judge but yet again she couldn’t recite the First Amendment so why would we expect her to know the 14th. She’s asked whether or not she agrees with Chief Justice Roberts’s assessment that voting discrimination exists. She refuses to answer. This isn’t a belief, it’s a fact that voting discrimination exists. Let’s compare two counties in Texas. Loving County which is majority white and has a population of 169 people, has one ballot drop-off location. Seems reasonable. But moving to Harris County which is majority Black and Latino, there is a population of 4.6 million people. Wanna guess how many ballot drop off locations there are? One. Let’s look at something as recent as 2016 when a North Carolina Voter ID law was struck down because it, and I quote, “Targeted African Americans with surgical precision.” The state legislature literally looked up which IDs African Americans were most likely to have and prohibited the usage of those as valid forms of ID to vote. What about in Florida where they mandated that prisoners pay off all court fees before they could vote. That is the definition of a modern-day poll tax. And that’s only a glimpse of the voter discrimination that is present. I’ll link down below a New York Times video that discusses more about voter discrimination and goes into much more detail. But yes voter discrimination exists and the fact that she refuses to answer is once again just showing how she is an absolute pawn for the Republican Party. Justice Scalia also stated that the Voting Rights Act is a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” She is asked if she agrees with him and like clockwork, she refuses to answer. Imagine thinking that demanding equal voting rights is entitlement. I mean he is correct that everyone is entitled to the right to vote but to insinuate that this is somehow a bad thing is just racist. The fact that she admires Scalia, a man who opposed LGBTQ rights and Voting Rights for African Americans is just disgusting. She is then asked if she was aware prior to her nomination of President Trump’s commitment to appointing justices that would overturn the Affordable Care Act. Yes finally a question not related to policy or law, which is odd to say considering this is a confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court Justice but maybe that means she’ll actually answer this one. I got my hopes up too early because she avoided this one as well and actually ended up clarifying that she wanted to be careful because she was under oath. Imagine having to go through a hearing worrying about perjuring yourself. Is it that hard to answer the question honestly? Like she literally pulled the whole “I don’t recall” bullshit. It’s obvious she knew President Trump’s stance on the Affordable Care Act and that he committed to appointing justices who will overturn the ACA. And on the topic of President Trump, she refused to answer whether she believed that every president should make a commitment, unequivocally and resolutely, to the peaceful transfer of power. She responds by saying she wants to stay out of the political conflict going on right now. That has been confusing me the whole time. Does she think that once you shut the door to the courtroom that politics aren’t at play? Absolutely not. Everything is political and for her to say she wants to avoid it proves she isn’t fit to serve as a Supreme Court justice. This avoidance is exactly what we want to avoid when picking people to serve a life term on the court. 

So we’ve covered in-depth, the policy or rather lack thereof, but what is another reason Trump nominated Barrett? Well simply put it was to help his re-election chances. Suburban white women are fleeing the Republican party in droves and Trump hopes he can win them over by nominating Barrett who is just that. Polling so far shows this has had minimal if any effect. Apparently failing to handle a global pandemic can’t just be brushed off by nominating a woman to the court. Who knew? But that hasn’t stopped the Republicans from emphasizing the fact that she is a mother of 7. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis called her “a remarkable mother” on Monday, noting that “she has seven beautiful children.” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) called her “a tireless mother of seven.” Sen. Joni Ernst praised her for being a working mom, stating that many of her studies and work were probably done with a child in her arms. At one point Republican Senator John Kennedy said this (Play Clip) the Republicans constantly blame the left for making everything about race and gender yet the first thing they do is make this about the fact that she is a woman, assuming that she still has to do the laundry despite being a successful judge. It just shows that the sexism of republicans is Present within their own party. 

So who is Amy Coney Barrett? Well to put it simply she’s a religious zealot who wants to strip away women’s reproductive freedom and healthcare from 20 million Americans including those with pre-existing conditions, doesn’t mind that families are being separated at the border, refuses to acknowledge the existence of climate change, refuses to say that the president can’t delay an election or even whether it’s important to have a peaceful transition of power, which is the bare fucking minimum. It’s absolutely ridiculous that this is all happening right before the election considering republicans back in 2016 said that 9 months was too close to an election but confirming someone with less than a week until election day isn’t. Regardless thank you very much for listening to this I look forward to seeing how this plays out it will definitely be interesting. There’s no doubt Barrett will get on the court I mean Republicans have the votes to do it but the real question is whether or not Democrats have the balls to actually fight back and expand the court or even possibly, and this was an idea that was floated around, just pull an Andrew Jackson in Worcester v Georgia and ignore Supreme Court Decisions. Basically, the Judicial Branch relies on the executive branch for enforcement so if Democrats control both houses of Congress and the White House, they could technically just not enforce Judicial decisions but there’s no way that happens considering they probably won’t even expand the court but anyway, a man can dream. So thank you very much for taking time out of your day to listen and please leave a rating in Apple Podcasts if you enjoyed it. Regardless, hope you all take care. Thanks.