A writer for that oh so glorious publication known as Vanity Fair is working hard to try and find something, anything, the radical left can use to slam Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the day she will likely be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Given that she’s a woman of impeccable moral character, the left hasn’t been able to call on their favorite strategy of destruction, the whole “false sexual assault allegations” bit, which they used incessantly on Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.
The writer in question, Beth Levin, has stated she thinks it’s possible ACB might make abortion punishable by death. How did she reach this conclusion? Because ACB refused to answer how she would rule on hypothetical situations, which is exactly what a good, fair judge would do.
Vanity Fair’s Bess Levin called Barrett’s refusal to say how she would rule in hypothetical cases before any slightly similar case came before her a “schtick,” even though just about every previous Supreme Court nominee has said something similar. Barrett even quoted Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings in which she said the same. Kagan’s refusal to answer hypotheticals was based on former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s own statement from her 1993 confirmation hearings, in which she said during her opening statement that a nominee should give “no hints, no previews, no forecasts” about legal issues they might face before the court. Of course, Ginsburg didn’t strictly adhere to that “rule,” offering hints, previews, and forecasts as to how she would rule on numerous hot-button issues including abortion.
Still, the media’s subsequent treatment of nominees who attempt to actually follow Ginsburg’s statement is telling. When Kagan was being questioned by senators, The New York Times headline suggested she “Follows Precedent by Offering Few Opinions.” The headline for Barrett, however, read: “Barrett’s Testimony Is a Deft Mix of Expertise and Evasion.”
It didn’t matter what Barrett said – she was going to be attacked by the Left regardless. Yet, she stuck to a principle of not revealing how she would rule in broadly worded hypothetical cases. For this, she is now being accused of potentially supporting the death penalty for women who get abortions.
The question was originally asked by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse who asked ACB, “Under an originalist theory of interpretation, would there be any constitutional problem with a state making abortion a capital crime, thus subjecting women who get abortions to the death penalty?”
The written answer provided for Whitehouse was to “Please see my answer to Question 100.” She then went on to say, “As a sitting judge and as a judicial nominee, it would not be appropriate for me to offer an opinion on abstract legal issues or hypotheticals.”
If you sniff at the air, you can smell just how desperate these folks are to find something to use against Barrett. That shows you how much of a threat they consider her, which is just one more good reason for the GOP to voter to the bench.