Mother of 7 Has No Opinion Of Caging Children

Pro-Life Republicans

Amy Coney Barret
(Undated File Photo)

And if you had 7 children, cages might be an valid option, I would suggest finding another hobby. But I digest.

The WaPo:

In one of the only discussions of immigration to arise during the confirmation hearings, Barrett declined to say whether she thought it was wrong to separate migrant children from their parents to deter immigration to the United States. “That’s a matter of hot political debate in which I can’t express a view or be drawn into as a judge,” Barrett said in response to a question from Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.). Booker said he respected her position but asked again: “Do you think it’s wrong to separate a child from their parent, not for the safety of the child or parent but to send a message. As a human being, do you believe that that’s wrong?”

Barrett told Booker she felt as if he was trying to engage her on the Trump administration’s border separation policy. Under the policy, immigration officials applied a “zero-tolerance” approach to undocumented immigration and separated families crossing the border through Mexico. “I can’t express a view on that,” Barrett said. “I’m not expressing assent or dissent with the morality of that position—I just can’t be drawn into a debate about the administration’s immigration policy.”

Sen. Booker said his question was about “basic questions of human rights, human decency, and human dignity,” and I guess we now know she has none.

As we’ve said before, to a Republican, the Right To Life ends at birth.

This entry was posted in Justice Amy Coathanger Barrett, supreme court. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Mother of 7 Has No Opinion Of Caging Children

  1. lofgren says:

    I understand why Supreme Court nominees are cagey about their legal positions. They’re right to be concerned about being hemmed in or biased by staking their name to a position. (This is obviously a less credible excuse when somebody has spent years staking themselves to a position, then suddenly has no opinion on it when they get nominated.) However, this makes it all the more important to understand what the fundamental values that they will be ruling from are. When someone demurs on questions that are not about laws but about morality, it is very bad sign.

    Liked by 5 people

    • sos says:

      I would have hoped that gross child abuse would be a safe topic to oppose.

      Liked by 3 people

      • beckymaenot says:

        You’d think it would be easy to say child abuse is wrong- but then again… look at who we are talking about. These are the people that are perfectly fine with letting hundreds of thousands of Americans die, so, why would they care about some brown kids?


      • sos says:

        But Becky … these are proper right-to-life people! They love fetuses, embryos, and zygotes because jeebus told them so.


  2. Dennis Cole says:

    She sounds like a 33 1/3 LP being played at 45. And apparently she won’t be voting or adjudging based on her conscience, or her religion, or using her moral compass, all her scrutiny and thus her conclusions will be based solely on her knowledge and strict interpretation of the Constitution. As it was originally written. Oh, and then amended, as if someone changed their mind a time or two, but supposedly she has some secret time-bending mind-reading capability, that gives her the Power to know what’s behind it all.

    Why not just feed it (the Constitution) into a computer, and have a robot on The Bench?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Ten Bears says:

    Speaking of strict interpretation: if we run with (((Teh Founders))) intent, put to paper two hundred and thirty years ago, given the times Amy “she’s got Charlie Manson’s eyes!” Covid Barrett would not have this opportunity, would not have a vote or even an education. She would be home … bare foot and pregnant.


  4. buckobear says:

    Abortion: the only word that can make followers of Jesus vote against everything Jesus ever talked about because of one issue that Jesus never talked about.

    Liked by 2 people

    • beckymaenot says:

      ^^^ this is why I think one issue voters are idiots, or COVIDIOTS as it seems today…

      Liked by 1 person

    • Bruce388 says:

      Some guy on our just posted a rant saying Catholics, Evangelicals, and Christians in general are disgracing their religion with their Biden/Harris signs. This is because the Catholic Church teaches that abortion’s a sin.

      Funny thing, because I like to ask those people who support the Covidiot how they reconcile their religion with their politics.

      The post appears to have been taken down. I liked the part about the Biden/Harris signs.


  5. Dennis Cole says:

    If you study the OT, you might be surprised that Dog Almighty Hisself kinda favored abortion, and even practiced and condoned doing so post partum.

    Just as a way to smite his enemies, so yeah, justifiable infanticide.


  6. laura says:

    She’s proving herself to be a banal monster to get that job. No way in hell she’s going to cross trump who’d pull her nomination in an instant if he didn’t think/know she’d be loyal to trump.


Comments are closed.