Warm Southern Breeze

"… there is no such thing as nothing."

Why Amy Coney Barrett Is Unqualified

Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Thursday, October 8, 2020

True to form, radicalized, far right-wing political extremists are portraying Judge A.C. Barrett as a victim. The “poor, pitiful me” routine has taken hold in the GOP, Tea Party and other such ilk. Self loathing has never been more popular, it seems. But it does seem rather peculiar that it should find residence in the right, when for years we’ve been told that it is the political left who are such whiners and crybabies.

Aaaah… the political hypocrisy! You can smell the stench of its cooking all the way from the banks of the Potomac in Washington, D.C.

And the blindly vicious ambition! Its unmitigated violence permeates the miasmatic ether surrounding the city, all the way to the Chesapeake Bay, and beyond.

They’re both forms of pollution which Congress continues to ignore, and which are far more damaging than even dirty water, or air. For their poison, while not permanent like PFOS or PFAS, the man-made “forever chemicals” used in making non-stick coatings which are found even in newborns’ blood, there are few, if any, filters to remove such contaminants from the necessary processes we employ to govern ourselves.

While “organic,” such contaminants are far from resembling a healthy backyard compost pile where grass clippings, leaves, eggshells, coffee grounds, vegetable peelings, and other such items begin their transformation process to become rich humus, fertile soil for vegetable and plant growth. Their forms, while neither ephemeral, nor impermanent, per se, are causative of other illnesses and diseases transmitted even to the 3rd and 4th generations, and beyond – all preventable – and must be guarded against by every generation.

The only difference being, is that disorders caused by those infections are preventable by conscience, not by manufacture. And the inoculation against such infection and affliction is love.

“Contrary to the impression many have of Barrett, what is most striking about her record is not the looming specter of theocracy, but her enduring opposition to what many Christians believe justice and mercy demand, presented under the aspect of originalism — an ersatz catechism, written in the pages of her judicial opinions, that fuses the political aims of the religious right with the constitutional theories of the late Antonin Scalia.”

There is NO “war” against religious faith in this nation, nor has there ever been. Neither has there ever been any alleged “war against Christmas” by our government, nor by its elected officials and administrators… like Federal judges, and other lifetime appointees. Although, it is curious how an officially non-sectarian, non-religious government sponsors a Federal holiday acknowledging a deity, thereby giving deference, homage and support to the same.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Rather, our Founders, not all of whom were religious-minded, were cognizant of others’ desires to express themselves through the practice of a privately-held conviction of faith – if they so chose – collectively and individually, according to the dictates of their conscience, and allowed to the greatest extent possible the practice of the same, without impingement upon the practices of government, and without obtruding upon others, who might, or not, agree with them. The Founders thought that aspect of individual liberty was so inherent, so inviolable, so sacrosanct to the public good, that they ensconced it, along with a few others, and made it and them First, and foremost among all others which followed.

Our fundamental foundational governing document, the Constitution, ensures and guarantees rights to The People, and protects individuals from abuse by collaborative, collective, and individual forces, regardless their origin. It not only provides The People assurances of the liberty, the ability, and freedom to exercise those rights as they see fit – or not – but it enforces them as well, giving venue to claimants who assert they have been denied such ability, or opportunity, directly or not, whether blatant or oblique, by infringement, or deliberately manifest and conspicuous denial. Though a part of the whole, the individual is a minority. As such, the individual, even as part of a group may be, and frequently is, a minority. And though the majority rule concept is fundamental to our national existence, just as much as the exercise of individual rights, so too is the ensconcing, guarantee, and enforcement of those rights to minority groups.

While there is no denying that our nation was birthed from the struggle for individual freedom, the tragic irony of the denial of such individual freedoms through slavery and indentured servitude – although nurtured in the sweet bosom of freedom, and embedded within the foundation our Constitution – cannot be escaped. It is as much a paradox, as it is a grotesquely permanent stain on our national moral character, a hideously perpetual reminder from which we have not yet fully escaped, overcome, or outgrown, socially or politically. It is every bit as real as the macabre maxim in George Owell’s Animal Farm novel, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Though fictional, and meant allegorically, its reality, as the bitter sting of truth, rings true. The addition of the 13th Constitutional amendment neither fully outlawed the practice, and instead, carved out a limiting niche by writing “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.”

Over time, the meanings and usage of words often change. “People” has been transmuted, and now includes “businesses” and “corporations” as a legally-defined and lawfully protected artificial personhood due the same rights as a natural person. That concept was reinforced by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a 2010 Supreme Court decision which stated as much when it ruled that the enjoyment and protection of First Amendment rights were due also to businesses and corporations.

Nowhere was that more succinctly stated, and perfectly illustrated, than at a 2012 Iowa State Fair early in the election season, when as presidential candidate stumping for the party’s nomination, Mitt Romney defensively responded to the irate outcry of attendees that, “Corporations are people, my friend.”

A mere 2 years later, as a natural consequence, the nation’s highest court again ruled in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, another artificiality case, that money was a form of free speech, and as such, protected by the First Amendment, the contribution of which could not be limited in elections.

“In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The justices who voted with the majority assumed that independent spending cannot be corrupt and that the spending would be transparent, but both assumptions have proven to be incorrect.

“With its decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that date back more than 100 years. Previously, the court had upheld certain spending restrictions, arguing that the government had a role in preventing corruption. But in Citizens United, a bare majority of the justices held that “independent political spending” did not present a substantive threat of corruption, provided it was not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.

“As a result, corporations can now spend unlimited funds on campaign advertising if they are not formally “coordinating” with a candidate or political party.”

Of course, it didn’t occur to the majority of gauche, black-robed jurists that if money was free speech, then the poor man has none, and our laws were written for all equally – without regard to any other factor – and that such a ruling itself violated the Constitutional provisions of due process and equal protection under law ensconced in the 5th and 14th amendments.

To some, it should probably come as no surprise that a third Supreme Court decision, Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, which essentially gutted the law protecting and guaranteeing equal voting rights to minorities, by removing two of the law’s most important provisions – Sections 4(b) and 5, the law’s “heart and lungs” – were from the Deep South, and that two of those three cases were from the Heart of Dixie, where Ku Klux Klan domestic terrorists bombed a Birmingham church one Sunday morning, in September 1963 simply because minority people attended it. Sweet Home Alabama is only a song by a rock band whose members died in a fiery plane crash shortly after take-off, when they began enjoying widespread popularity – much like freedoms for minorities. The parallels are eerie, and George Wallace’s ghost still haunts the land.

But, Amy Coney Barrett… who typecasts herself in the image of late SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she briefly clerked from 1998-99. Her adherence to “originalism” and “textualism” are fatally flawed because times change, inventions are made, concepts are developed, science is advanced… and those men who wrote the Constitution are dead, and they gave it to us, complete with instructions on how to change it, if we so desired. Ben Franklin couldn’t conceive of TikTok, James Madison couldn’t conceive of the International Space Station, and George Washington couldn’t have dreamt of the A-10 Warthog – a lethal flying machine gun jet that provides close air support for ground troops. So how are we supposed to imagine buggy whips and black powder muskets apply to satellite phones and DNA splicing? The preposterous absurdity is overwhelming.

Moreover, while her honor, Judge A.C. Barrett may have – and does have – a respectable legal pedigree, it’s inconceivable that she would continue to stoop to allow herself to be used as a political pawn. And that’s exactly what she’s doing. In rather plain-spoken parlance, she’s being pimped out by Trump, McConnell and the GOP to get what they want – a conservative tilt to the Supreme Court – and she doesn’t care that she’s being so used. Or rather, abused.

The blatant statement by the President that he intends to use the Supreme Court in some extent on the heels of the November General Election is well known. And for that reason, he wants someone whom he hopes, or thinks, would participate in a ruling FOR him.

However, I hasten to remind readers that in the case decided July 24, 1974, United States v. Nixon, then-Associate SCOTUS Justice William Rehnquist recused himself because not only had he had previously served in the Nixon administration as Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel in 1969, but Nixon had nominated him to fill the seat on the court vacated by Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan II’s retirement in 1971. Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.

The question remains: Would Judge Barrett, if confirmed to the SCOTUS in a ramrod-through fashion, recuse herself in any decision involving the President? The President clearly does NOT want her to recuse herself. If she did not, that could very well be seen as a serious miscarriage of justice, and perhaps even grounds for her impeachment, based upon a blatantly obvious conflict of interest.

And that is her blindly vicious ambition, to get on the court by hook, or by crook.

Opposition to her nomination should not be made based upon conjecture or speculation about any possible future ruling she may make, neither should the fact of her adherence to any religion – regardless how far-fetched its ideas may seem – factor into the calculus. After all, our Constitution has a “no religious test clause,” which states explicitly that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” But rather, it is her blindly vicious ambition cloaked in the guise of soft femininity which is most dangerous to the American people, and to the republic.

Her acceptance of the nomination, combined with the fact that she is making no effort to request a delay of the process, or to refuse the nomination and its process on the precipice of an election, with Early Voting having already started, is prima facie evidence of her poor ethics.

And those are two very fine reasons to reject her nomination.

One Response to “Why Amy Coney Barrett Is Unqualified”

  1. […] Why Amy Coney Barrett Is Unqualified – October 6 […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: