Amy Coney Barrett will inspire Americans to get fit?

“To Conservatives, Barrett Has ‘Perfect Combination’ of Attributes for Supreme Court” (NYT):

“Amy Coney Barrett meets Donald Trump’s two main litmus tests: She has made clear she would invalidate the A.C.A. and take health care away from millions of people and undermine a woman’s reproductive freedom,” said Nan Aron, the president of Alliance for Justice, a liberal group.

It is unclear to me why people who live in properly governed “Blue states” worry about health insurance and the availability of abortion (on demand at up to 24 weeks here in Maskachusetts, and, after that, available if a single doctor believes that “continuation of her pregnancy will impose on [the mother] a substantial risk of grave impairment of her physical or mental health.”) A repeal of Roe v. Wade would not prevent a state from offering unlimited free abortions right up to 40 weeks of pregnancy. A repeal of Obamacare would not prevent a state from using state funds to offer unlimited free health insurance to every resident.

What else do we know about this judge?

Judge Barrett and her husband, Jesse Barrett, a former federal prosecutor who is now in private practice, have seven children, all under 20, including two adopted from Haiti and a young son with Down syndrome, whom she would carry downstairs by piggyback in the morning. Judge Barrett is known for volunteering at her children’s grade school, and at age 48, she would be the youngest justice on the bench, poised to shape a generation of American law.

So she’s kind of busy. Does that stop her from working out?

Judge Barrett and other university faculty members have been known to work out together at a CrossFit-type program, sometimes with their former provost.

Seven children and a job as a Federal judge do not stop Amy Coney Barrett from going to the gym. What is stopping the rest of us?

24 thoughts on “Amy Coney Barrett will inspire Americans to get fit?

  1. Fitness won’t matter given the number of stress-induced strokes people have leading up to her confirmation. It’s already begun.

    I’m a pro life conservative and even I think RvW is settled law. This was the same rallying cry about Kavanaugh (among many others – but that was the root cause) and here we are two years later with absolutely no threats to it.

    • Why do you think it’s settled law? I am as pro abortion as they come but I think Roe vs Wade is entirely ridiculous. It’s a pretend right (abortion) based on another pretend right (privacy) nowhere to be found in the constitution.

    • @Toucan – I think this court (and Roberts in particular) have no interest in taking up highly politicized issues as polarizing as this and would prefer Congress to legislate the fix. And I don’t think that adding yet another conservative leaning judge changes that stance. But liberal objections seem to lean 90% plus on this alleged threat.

    • You don’t understand what you are talking about, Tim. Congress cannot “legislate the fix” of Roe v. Wade. Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 established that the Supreme Court not the congress has the last word on interpreting the Constitution. Roe v. Wade held that the Constitution gives a constitutional right to an abortion under certain circumstances, i.e., it is in the Constitution (you wont find it, but Harry Blackmun did). This “right” cannot be limited by Congress or the States. It can only be overruled. For those who are interested read Robert George’s brilliant essay on Harry Blackmun in Conscience and Its Enemies. You will never think about law or the Supreme Court the same way.

  2. I’ve always thought Rehnquist was correct:

    “To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.”

    — Roe, 410 U.S. at 174–76 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).[57][58][59]
    From this historical record, Rehnquist concluded, “There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.” Therefore, in his view, “the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.”[60]

  3. I’m not sure why folks in Blue states get excited about Roe v. Wade being overturned. The same people already talk about splitting the U.S. up so that they don’t have to live with the idiots in the Red states. Since the end of Roe v. Wade wouldn’t force Massachusetts to change its laws (abortion up to 24 weeks on demand; abortion after 24 weeks if a single doctor thinks continued pregnancy might impair the mother’s physical or mental health; see ), why does it matter if Roe v. Wade disappears? Because abortion would become unavailable in some Red state for which the Maskachusetts Righteous have contempt? If Michael Bloomberg can pay for every felon in Florida to vote (see ), why wouldn’t he or someone similar pay for transportation from Red states to Blue states for any man/woman/other who wants an abortion?

    • I basically agree with you. I think the Court should correct the 14th Amendment mistake it made and the states will continue to regulate abortion according to the decisions of their legislatures. I think they get very upset about it because of issues surrounding taxpayer funding at the federal level. They want to make sure that Roe stands because the federal money spigot stays open. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, they will have to adjust to the possibility that federal tax revenue might not be available in the future at the same levels, and I think that’s the real issue.

    • “It is unclear to me why people who live in properly governed “Blue states” worry about health insurance and the availability of abortion”

      It’s unclear to you why someone might care about someone else… sounds about right based on everything else you spout.

    • Baz: But the Blue state excited about the potential for abortion restrictions in Red states plainly don’t care about others. They contribute almost nothing, as a percentage of their income, to charity. Homeless fellow citizens wandering their own neighborhoods does not motivate them to propose higher local taxes to fund the construction of apartment buildings for the poor. Abortion rights per se don’t excite these Blue state righteous. They take no action in response to abortion being illegal in various countries around the world (see ). Plainly they do care about abortion rules in Red states. But they don’t seem to care about much else!

  4. And they can, and do legislate on that matter, in ways that pro-abortion supporters find to be very agreeable, just not everywhere, all the time, under every circumstance. Moreover, the contraceptive options available to both men and women today are light years ahead of what they were in 1973. I think it’s long overdue that the Supreme Court corrected the mistake it made. The argument that it’s “settled law” doesn’t persuade me. It’s like saying: “Well, it was a terrible decision but now we have no choice but to live with it.”

    Of course, there are plenty of people who consider the entire Constitution and all its amendments to be nothing but a long, continuous enshrinement of the patriarchy and utterly invalid for that reason.

  5. And I should add that I’m not opposed to abortion as a medical procedure per se. I’m also not at antipodes of the “Gun Rights/Abortion Rights” diametrical scheme. I don’t think people should be able to buy bazookas, guided missiles and flamethrowers except under very limited and regulated circumstances. I’m not in favor of rescinding the restrictions on fully automatic weapons. And I support the idea that people who want to own firearms should be required to receive some basic training. I’ve never had any real qualms about those things. What I disagree with is the reflexive action – all politics – when some crazy person does something terrible with a gun, that’s already illegal and in most cases could have been prevented, that the legislatures decide to punish all the law-abiding people.

  6. Given that the reversal of Roe v. Wade wouldn’t change anything in states that Democrats consider civilized, it is strange to me that this is the one issue that Nancy Pelosi wanted to talk about (see ), presumably because it rallies the Democrat faithful.

    Americans in general are interested in COVID-19 to the exclusion of almost all else. When they’re not thinking about COVID-19, American Democrats are apparently interested in abortion to the exclusion of almost all else.

  7. Roe vs Wade and repealing Obamacare are just smoke screens that get people lathered up and keep there eyes off the real targets. While this happens the conservative courts are busy easing rules on environmental safety, assaulting worker’s rights like extending the 8-hr. day without overtime, and preventing the right to sue, or to organize, keeping the minimum rage low, breaking unions, removing fines for polluters…and that’s just a start.

Comments are closed.