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: Putin Offered Bounties on American Troops; Trump Did Nothing

This weekend, the world learned that a Russian intelligence unit was offering Taliban militants bounties on coalition troops, including Americans, in Afghanistan. We also learned that the Trump administration knew about it as early as January of 2019. The White House is scrambling to create its narrative around why no one in the Trump administration considered this intel to be grave enough to warrant further action by America’s Commander-in-Chief.

After the story broke in the New York Times, Trump did not address the information immediately, but instead went golfing.

On Sunday, he took to Twitter in an effort to slither out from under any personal responsibility, claiming he hadn’t previously been briefed on the information.

“Nobody briefed or told me, @VP Pence, or Chief of Staff @MarkMeadows about the so-called attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians, as reported through an ‘anonymous source’ by the Fake News @nytimes,” Trump tweeted on Sunday morning.

On Sunday evening, Trump tweeted, “Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or @VP. Possibly another fabricated Russia Hoax, maybe by the Fake News @nytimesbooks, wanting to make Republicans look bad!!!”

Trump didn’t ask why no one had briefed him. He didn’t express outrage that rewards had been offered for special attacks on American soldiers; he didn’t denounce Russian president Putin; he didn’t try to verify the information or proclaim that he wanted to get to the bottom of this piece of news that would be upsetting to the loved ones of soldiers stationed in Afghanistan; he didn’t show any concern for the safety of American troops.

As with his response to the coronavirus pandemic, Donald Trump is not concerned about the lives of Americans that have been lost or that may be currently in danger; he’s concerned with how the news makes him look. This, to him, is nothing more than another plot to make him look bad. And Trump looks very bad.

Most parents wouldn’t let their teenager use “I didn’t know about it, so don’t blame me,” as a valid excuse to avoid consequences; it’s never an acceptable device for a president of the United States. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) in a floor speech on the topic on Monday said that in this case, “ignorance isn’t exculpatory.”

“’No one told me’ is not an excuse for a commender in chief. It is in fact a confession of incompetence.”

On Monday, in response to questions about why, if it was true that the president hadn’t known about the bounty plot against American soldiers, no one had briefed him, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany responded that the intelligence hadn’t been verified, and so was not included in a presidential briefing.

“There is no consensus within the intelligence community on these allegations,” McEnany said, adding there were “dissenting opinions” on the intelligence assessment.

Typically, a president of the United States is immediately notified of any possible threat to US troops. If what Kayleigh McEnany said were true, it would mean that White House officials were mulling over this urgent piece of intelligence for months. They took no action.

Perhaps White House officials didn’t trust the president with the information. Some reports say that senior White House officials saw Trump as a danger to national security. Perhaps they feared that Trump would tell Putin, Putin would deny it, and Trump would double down on his pandering to Putin. Or perhaps they were afraid to brief Trump because of their experience with his unhinged responses to other situations that might cast him in an unfavorable light.

According to political columnist David Ignatius, who did further research that confirmed the claims in the New York Times’ story, “(The Pentagon was) pounding on the door of the White House NSC operation, urging that the White House address the intelligence surrounding Putin’s bounty plot. But, says Ignatius, “One of the things I’ve watched with this administration is a growing fear of telling the boss the truth. Because the boss will go nuts, and he’ll be angry at you, or he’ll fire you…We saw this again and again in his interventions in military issues. …The president goes ballistic if he gets news he doesn’t want to hear.”

On Monday, it was confirmed that the intel about the plot had been included in the president’s daily briefing, at least once. He may just not have bothered to read it. While Donald Trump was praising Putin and encouraging him to rejoin the G7, Putin was offering money to the Taliban to kill American soldiers.

This year alone, our president has ducked leadership as the coronavirus has become a pandemic. He can’t be bothered to sort out opportunistic “thugs” from peaceful demonstrators (or acknowledge the systemic racism they’re protesting). It’s simply too much to ask, then, that we should expect Trump to show up in any way for American soldiers or for our national security, though he does manage to show up for the world’s despots.

If Donald Trump just didn’t read the briefing about Putin’s bounty plot and was consequently unaware, he is incompetent. If senior officials avoided orally briefing him out of fear of his response, it demonstrates Trump’s instability, indicates the depth of dysfunction of this administration, and makes a frightening statement about the tenuous state of our nation’s security. If he knew, and did nothing, it means he made the conscious choice to allow the lives of U.S. service members to be at risk. None of these options indicates a president who is in any way fit for office.

Trump denies knowledge of Russia bounty plot  |  Reuters [2020-06-29]

Outrage grows over Russian bounties  |  ABC News [2020-06-28]