The $64,000 Question (a 1955-58 TV game show Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_$64,000_Question) since Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Court evoked a fierce and controversial debate about what the course of Supreme Court jurisprudence will be once she is confirmed by the U. S. Senate.
Sheldon Whitehouse, a RI Senator, forcefully argued during the Senate confirmation hearings that powerful and wealthy dark money interests expect a Justice Barrett to join conservative justices to create a six-justice majority which will strike down precedents favoring social justice interests:
What might a 6-3 court promise? Rulings that boost corporate and special interest power: limits on worker protection and the right to organize for fairer pay and wages; limits on Americans’ ability to sue companies when they’ve been harmed; limits on effective environmental and health protections; and new restrictions on minority voting — all while protecting unlimited corporate dark money in politics.
Chris Matthews writes in MarketWatch: ‘A Barrett court would continue Trump’s deregulatory agenda long after he’s left the White House’:
“Barrett is likely to be a pro-business justice, to restrict the ability of government to adopt some economic regulations and would likely vote to expand the constitutional rights of business,” said Adam Winkler, constitutional law professor at UCLA and author of the book “We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights.”
That could be good news for stock-market investors, as analysts have long pointed to the Trump Administration’s efforts to roll back Obama-era regulations and slow the implementation of new rules as a major driver of recent stock-market gains.
Erika Bachiochi, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a senior fellow at the Abigail Adams Institute, writes in POLITICO: ‘Amy Coney Barrett: A New Feminist Icon’:
Barrett embodies a new kind of feminism, a feminism that builds upon the praiseworthy antidiscrimination work of Ginsburg but then goes further. It insists not just on the equal rights of men and women, but also on their common responsibilities, particularly in the realm of family life.
In this new feminism, sexual equality is found not in imitating men’s capacity to walk away from an unexpected pregnancy through abortion, but rather in asking men to meet women at a high standard of mutual responsibility, reciprocity and care.
Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, in an interview with DemocracyNow.org, states:
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, conducted a thorough examination of her record, at least the record that has been made public. We looked at her speeches during her time of Notre Dame, her writings, and her opinions during her short tenure on the 7th Circuit.
We found that she failed the second prong of our standard, which looks to determine whether or not the nominee is someone who will bring an exceptional commitment to enforcement of our federal civil rights laws and the Constitution.
And what was really striking this week was to see Judge Barrett go to great lengths to distance herself from the reality of voting discrimination that we face in our country.
Observation: So what can we as the American people reasonably expect?
We’ll know better after she is seated on the Court.