Today marks Day 2 of SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing and it’s already off to a worrying start.
When Senator Dianne Feinstein asked the judge whether she thinks same-sex marriage should be protected under the law, Barrett refused to answer the question. Not only that, but she implied being LGBTQ is a choice by repeatedly using the phrase “sexual preference” to describe orientation.
Feinstein asked Barrett specifically about the DOMA and Obergefell rulings, saying: “Both decisions were decided by a 5-4 margin. Justice Ginsburg was in the majority. Justice Scalia dissented in both cases. You said in your acceptance speech for this nomination that Justice Scalia’s philosophy is your philosophy. Do you agree with this particular point of Justice Scalia’s view that the U.S. Constitution does not afford gay people the fundamental right to marry?”
To which Barrett offered a very long-winded response that could have just as easily been summed up with two words: “No comment.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Said Barrett:
If I were confirmed, you would be getting Justice Barrett not Justice Scalia so I don’t think that anybody should assume that just because Justice Scalia decided a decision a certain way that I would too. But I’m not going to express a view on whether I agree or disagree with Justice Scalia for the same reasons that I’ve been giving. Now, Justice Ginsburg, with her characteristic pithiness, used this to describe how a nominee should comport herself at a hearing. No hints, no previews, no forecasts. That had been the practice of nominees before her but everybody calls it the Ginsburg rule because she stated it so concisely and it’s been the practice of every nominee since. So I can’t, and I’m sorry to not be able to embrace or disavow Justice Scalia’s position but I really can’t do that on any point of law.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett: "Justice Ginsburg…used this to describe how a nominee should comport herself at a hearing 'No hints, no previews, no forecasts'…everybody calls it the Ginsburg Rule."
Full video: https://t.co/5Lf1WKq8EI #SCOTUS #SCOTUShearings pic.twitter.com/b9fwTwC4bf
— CSPAN (@cspan) October 13, 2020
Feinstein responded by calling Barrett’s response “too bad” as many Americans would like to know her stance on LGBTQ equality.
“I understand you don’t want to answer these questions directly,” Feinstein continued, “but you identify yourself with a Justice that you, like him, would be a consistent vote to roll back hard fought freedoms and protections for the LGBT community. And what I was hoping that you would say is that this would be a point of difference where those freedoms would be respected and you haven’t said that.”
To which Barrett gave another very long-winded response that ultimately ended up being a whole lot of nothing.
Senator, I have no agenda and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. Like racism, I think discrimination is abhorrent. On the questions of law, however, I just, because I’m a sitting judge and because you can’t answer questions without going through the judicial process, can’t give answers to those very specific questions.
In addition to citing Antonin Scalia as one of her mentors, Barrett has close ties to the antigay hate group Alliance Defending Freedom, where she has given five paid speeches over the past decade. The group’s leader, Michael Farris, attended her nomination ceremony on September 26 that resulted in several members of the White House, including Donald Trump, contracting coronavirus.
Related: WATCH: Mayor Pete destroys Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett in one gay swoop
Mister P
I am sure that alliance that defends freedom is defending the freedom to discriminate.
barryaksarben
The gop has been hammerring about how religious liberty is the first freedom of the constitution but that does not mean their religious freedom takes precendence over gay citizens getting our basic rights tht the constitution gives all CITIZENS. We are citizens no matter what the American Taliban thinks
Bengali
Stupid bitch refused to answer even basic question asking if voter intimidation at the polls in unconstitutional. She refused to answer saying she wasn’t going to hypothesize. What a cun*!!!
Amy Klobuchar educated this monster. She should also have stood up, walked over to her and smacked her with closed fist across the face.
Cam
This is the same game Republicans have been playing for decades. Their nominees lie and refuse to answer questions and everybody acts like this is ok.
She is a bigot, she lied to cover up her association with radical anti-abortion groups, and she belongs to a religious order that states women must submit to their husband’s decisions in EVERYTHING, including work.
Since that is what they espouse, it is a valid question to ask her if her husband will be participating in her decisions.
Republicans don’t freakout and launch preemptive strikes unless they know they have a problem and want to hide it. They’ve been preemptively screaming about her religious freedom for ages. Because they know that her beliefs are a problem for them and they want to scare media from talking about them.
PanzerRider
Does your belief that Catholic women are open to questions pertaining to their husbands influence on them apply to all women of that faith?
If so, we need to ask Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator Maria Cantwell, Senator Patty Murray, and numerous other female Catholics in the House of Representatives about the influence their husbands have on them. I’m sure these independently minded Democrats will enjoy hearing from you.
Kangol2
@Panzer, “Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator Maria Cantwell, Senator Patty Murray, and numerous other female Catholics in the House of Representatives” do not belong to a secretive, far-right Christianist/Dominionist organization like People of Praise, which labels adult women “handmaids,” do they?
Nope. She should answer questions about that organization. Is she going to follow their dictates, as she has in the past and as her mother allegedly did? Or has she resigned from People of Praise? Do you know the answer? Shouldn’t we all? It’s just like if she were a member of Opus Dei, Legionaries of Christ, or any other far-right Catholic organization; the American people should know exactly whom a president who did not win the popular vote, who’s been deeply unpopular his entire term, and who is the most corrupt president in US history, is trying to cram onto the nation’s highest court.
PanzerRider
@Kangol12 So questions as to peoples faith and the impact that faith has on that persons decision making process are acceptable should the person in question belong to an organization/faith this is labeled as secretive/far right? Or in other words, the wrong label means you have to put up with faith questions no one else is subject to.
The issue here is who decides what labels are attached to what religions and faith based organizations? You? Me? The mob? This is a dangerous slippery slope that none of us want to be one. Should Representative Ilhan Omar be forced to answer questions regarding her Muslim faith? A faith that many have labeled extremist, violent, and desirous of enacting Sharia law. Or are these labels of the Muslim faith bigoted and not worthy of response? Again, this speaks to the danger of labels mindlessly applied with no real thought of the consequences of doing such things.
As to your comments about Trump, which shines a great deal of light on your reaction to Judge Barrett there, a few of your statements are both moot and out right misleading. The popular vote comment is moot. We don’t use they popular vote in the US to elect Presidents. He was legally elected and thus gets to appoint Judges to the SC. No caveats exist because one did not carry the popular vote. As to the “deeply unpopular” comment. Yes, a large segment of the population despises him and in my opinion rightfully so. However, he is also “deeply popular” with a huge segment of the population Thus, to infer he is universally despised is intellectually dishonest. As to your comment on his corruption I’d readily agree.
TheAbsoluteTRUTH
No potential jurist would ever offer a opinion on a subject because they are to judge on the merit of the case not personal opinion. We all know she’s a right wing extremist conservative but is supposed to rule on merit and law not feelings
Den
@Panzer:
While the constitution clearly forbids “religious tests” for both appointed and elected officials, those who espouse Dominionist beliefs or belong to Dominionist groups cross a very clear and dangerous line. Dominionists (and there are both Catholic and Protestant adherents) believe that the US is intended to be a “Christian Nation” ruled by “Biblical Law” and that enough of their followers need to seek office so that we can replace secular democracy with Christian theocracy. As such, she needs to be closely questioned more than Pelosi or the others you mention.
Dominionism is an undeniable danger to constitutional democracy.
Prax07
She avoids telling her true views just like any other scumbag republican does in these types of things. She’ll wait until she officially has the job to say that she hates gays. She’s garbage the same as all republicans.
Daggerman
…there are people out there that do not understand what ‘evolve’ means. It means basically to develop slowly, and as a race of animal we develop slowly, why because of the religions and superstitions that make up are minds by ignoring real nature or the human being and it’s sexual behavior. There is only one unity and that must be between a man and a woman?? Total nonsence. Why are so many so ignorant and so scared! What I have just pointed out is the reason. We have so far to go we need to ditch and destroy our out-dated religions and superstitions. Before anyone can be treated equally.
michael_totzke
I’m a Canadian, so some will think this is none of my beeswax – but God forbid this woman should be a member of the highest court in the land !!!
PanzerRider
You have a PM that was busted wearing black face. Don’t get overly sanctimonious on us. lol.
Den
@panzer: There is a huge and very obvious difference between a youthful mistake and a belief that God does not like secular democracy!
Are you really unable to see that?
plazaro1
She’s a homophobe,
cuteguy
I hope if the Democrats win, they pack the Supreme Court. When they go low we go high
PrinceofPrussia
She should be disqualified solely on her repeated use of the archaic expression, “Sexual Preference.” Dear God, it’s 2020! Kick this relic to the curb, already!
Wolfwalk
As I recall Coathanger Amy has said in effect that since they were “settled law” that she didn’t believe that Roe v Wade or Obergefell would be overturned. However, her rulings, speeches and writings of the past 20 years indicate she would be more than willing to vote against abortion rights and any civil right for the LGBTQ community when such cases come before the SCOTUS. During her hearing today, she called homosexuality a “sexual preference,” so it’s clear she’s not on the side of our community. She has consistently ruled against abortion rights as a judge.
fur_hunter
When this Bigoted C UNT is seated, you will see Same-Sex Marriage overturned down the road. WAIT AND SEE!!!!!! NO ONE understands the founding principle of…..Separation of church and State.
TheBigOne
It’ll go down like this:
Repeal ObamaCare
Repeal Roe v. Wade
Repeal Same Sex Marriage
Just we wait and see.
James
I HATE HER. ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM HAG…… NOTHING BUT AN ANTI GAY HATE GROUP.
Marlowe
There is a big stink about mentioning Judge Barrett’s “religious preference” and I have no real problem with her subscribing to whatever it is that she does. The problem is that she belongs to these cults that get equal protection under the law because they claim to be Christian. The fact that these cults discriminate and cause harm should disqualify these groups from immunity and by association should disqualify Judge Barrett from consideration as a justice of the Supreme Court.
ffmikey
Why are GAY liberals so misinformed? Reinstate “The Separation of Church and State.” Reinstate it where? It can not be found in any part of the Constitution although many misinformed liberals believe it is. The separation of church and state was a personal view of Jefferson. If applied as it existed in England, yes, there should be a separation. At the time of the founding of our great nation The Church of England was a critical part of their government with a say as to what laws should be enacted. The First Amendment guarantees the government shall not interfere with the free exercise of religion be it christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. Unless a new case concerning Gay rights comes before the Court, prior decision as to Marriage, or any other right , can not be again judged. So if judge Barrett is confirmed she will have no say as to prior decisions. And it will be pretty difficult to find someone who has “Standing” concerning Gay Marriage. Let us not forget it was the conservative Supreme Court and a Conservative Gay Organization that got Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell declared unconstitutional. Only after the court decision did the Obama Administration and Congress act on DADT which resulted in DADT’s being abolished delayed by one year. I am a Viet Nam veteran. From Basic Training to where I was stationed there were openly gay service members that included privates to officers. Stop listening to the lying liberals and instead look to their actions. Look what our clown governor in California is doing to the gay community.
amanwithanedge
you’re just another self hating repuke.
Den
OK, I’ll bite what has our “clown governor” done to the Gay Community?
We’ll wait …
DK
Total bs from another self-loathing house gay Rethuglikkklan. DADT was a progressive measure enacted by President Clinton in response to Republican attempts to ban gays from the military entirely. The 2011 bill that allowed gays to serve openly was an act of a Democratic congress, written by Democrats, and signed by a Democratic president. It had nothing whatsoever to do with any conservative and SCOTUS never weighed in on it, a total lie.
Maybe you should turn off Fox News propagangda, stop listening to pathological lying birther bigot Trump, and stop deluding yourself about Republican hatred of gays. Opposition to gay marriage and conversion therapy are in the Republican platform, Karen. Denying it and lying to yourself about it won’t change that.
We *are* looking at what Republicans are doing: nominating judges like Amy Coney Barrett who refuse to commit to equal protection under the law for gays. Going to court to argue that businesses should be able to discriminate against gays and fire gays for being gay. And supporting Trump, a thug who tweeted a White Power video on June 28 2020. But of course for white gay Rethuglikkklans, it’s white supremacy first and always and that’s really what’s behind your Guncle Tom Syndrome.
The governor of California has limited coronavirus, unlike the Republican governors of Texas, Florida and the other dozen Republican states that now lead the country in coronavirus cases per million. You’d rather have mask-denying fool Trump as governor of California? 250,000 dead Americans due to his nonstop barrage of lies and you’re still sucking up to him and his party of climate change denying racists. Pathetic!
DK
And by the way: Justices Alito and Thomas just literally signaled that if a county clerk like Kim Davis were to come before the court claiming a religious burden against signing gay marriage certificates, that case could be used to overturn marriage equality. Alito is, like Barret, a self-professed acolyte of notorious gay hating Republican Justice Scalia.
But I’m sure you and the rest of the house gays will find some way to deny, deflect, and delude yourself to defend Thomas and Alito too, then Barret when she inevitably sides with them against gays, so you can quickly pivot to attacking the party that is actually fighting for your whites. Anything in defense of President Superspreader White Power tweet huh?
What the heck is wromg with you house gays? Are you really that desperate for daddy’s approval that you’ll vote for a party that has opposition to gay marriage written into its platform? Sad.
masterwill7
I can’t understand how you Americans are going to let this happen? All you gays. Why can’t you come up with a proces or a idea to postpone her being a judge??? These asshole republicans find a way for every situation to stop or postpone everything? Find something to stop this, find a way to postpone this for after the power switch and elections, just stop her from being a judge for life with all the non violent options you have!
TheAbsoluteTRUTH
There used to be a way to stop it but thanks to the Democrats they eliminated the procedure too do so and now are suffering the consequences
michel_banen
If she’s Trump’s top choice we know she’ll be a homophobic, religious white supremacist. Ring all the alarms… this is not good for our community…..
AxelDC
This means her answer would disqualify her in the views of most Americans, so she’s unfit to sit as a Federal judge.
Bengali
I hope all of us who have embraced the laws of LGBTQ+ community protecting our right to marry are prepared to demonstrate en masse if Supreme Court takes those rights away. We will have nothing to lose by protesting. I’d rather fight than cave and say, “it is what it is” Major disruption of our country’s way of life will need to happen so everyone can see what happens when you piss us off.
Jon in Canada
The Handmaid’s Tale become manifest.
Gilead is rising.
ChristopherEK
MUST stop confirmation.
armandov
This woman is evil. I think she is on an equal level w/ Trump as far as being dangerous to society.
rallidriver
She answered both appropriately and accordingly. This is a soon to be Supreme Court Judge, I’m happy to hear she will approach everything on the merits before her. Not sure what you other ding dongs were hoping to hear.
phillycap
She hasn’t spoken to Donald Trump specifically about the ACA because she didn’t HAVE to. She was vetted by the Federalist Society and she wouldn’t have been moved forward had she not told them that she would rule in favor of overturning the ACA. As Michael Cohen said, Donald Trump doesn’t tell people expressly what to do. They KNOW what the boss wants. So she’s playing the usual dishonest cha-cha-cha. And Susan Collins will vote for her and when she overturns it she will express shock and disappointment — that’s if she is lucky enough to con enough voters in Maine that she’s a centrist.
Josh447
Susan Collins is a hiccup with a mushy spine. She’s paid to look on the edge while history shows she’s far from it.
Pete56
So what? Joe Biden refuses to answer questions about packing the court. If you want answers from all people in politics, let’s ask for transparency on both sides of the aisle. This woman answers are appropriate for the questioning thrown at her.
DarkZephyr
“So what”
So apparently you don’t give a fig about LGBT equality.
trojanboy
She shouldn’t be allowed to exist, let alone be in a position of judicial authority. Her voice makes my ears bleed.
Josh447
Agreed. That scratchy voice. Nails on a chalkboard….
GayEGO
Amy Croney Barrett is the one who can be chosen not to be nominated. We have a mess going on with this buffoon in the White House and we do not want our progress rolled backward. Refuse to nominate her!
Marlowe
She must be all torn up inside like she masturbated 30 years ago and still feels guilty. She looks like an exorcism is in order.
If she had any sense or humanity she would back out, find a place where there is no birth control or sex toy nobody uses alcohol or tobacco and nobody has sex before marriage and that is reserved for a woman and a man of the same race. Sex is passionless and quick! I’m sure her god will guide her! Glory be!