Justice Amy Coney Barrett defends overturning Roe v. Wade and reveals Supreme Court dynamics in new book
Source: CNN
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a new memoir defends her vote reversing a half century of national abortion rights, declaring that Roe v. Wade usurped the will of the American people and came at a cost.
(T)he Courts role is to respect the choices that the people have agreed upon, not to tell them what they should agree to, Barrett writes in Listening to the Law, set to be published on September 9.
CNN obtained access to Barretts memoir, in which the justice also takes on religious bias and details her decision-making process, revealing that her chambers once celebrated with champagne when other justices joined a particularly tricky opinion of hers.
Barrett, President Donald Trumps third appointee to the high court, has emerged as a crucial justice on the nine-member bench, shaping the contours of oral arguments and often providing a key vote for the decision in a case.
Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/exclusive-justice-amy-coney-barrett-080005700.html
Roe v. Wade usurped the will of the American people? You need to step out of your bubble.

Midnight Writer
(24,709 posts)Polls show Americans strongly support abortion rights. Why does she disrespect that choice?
She is writing about respecting people's choices while defending her ruling to deprive people of their choices.
That is some Grade A Bullshit right there.
mdbl
(7,362 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,482 posts)She is the negative reflection of the cestpool school from Indiana.
And again, I will NEVER step into a Roman Church!
hamsterjill
(16,542 posts)Writing a book must be some kind of confession?? I don't know.
All I know is that I won't be buying the book, or spend the time reading even a free copy. She's the stereotypical crazy Evangelical. She would be perfectly happy back in heels and pearls with twenty kids, cooking and cleaning all day.
Women like her need to get the fuck out of the way and let the strong ones take control.
2na fisherman
(90 posts)How is she supporting all the unwanted neglected children? She should have many adopted children. Since she participated in the ban on abortions on moral grounds to protect the unborn, what happens to them after they are born seems to be of no concern to her. Forcing mothers to bear babies they cannot afford comes at a cost. And all her pandering to religion does not begin to pay it.
jgmiller
(641 posts)Because she equates voting in Trump and/or the GOP to control congress as the will of the people. Which is true in a very limited, technical view. That lets her ignore polls that show 70% (or whatever the number is) of the people support something.
In other words it's not "the will of the people" she supports it's the "will of the winner"
NewHendoLib
(61,327 posts)rubbersole
(10,535 posts)mountain grammy
(28,205 posts)"Roe v. Wade usurped the will of the American people? You need to step out of your bubble."
lark
(25,447 posts)means more to her than the law.
bluestarone
(20,287 posts)We get super religious assholes that will NEVER vote anti their beliefs. (THIS is a big NO NO especially on the supreme court, because their vote is the FINAL VOTE!
IbogaProject
(4,976 posts)Restricting individual choice some how overturned an oppressive law? If you are opposed to abortion don't have any, and endeavor to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. But some pregnancies become life threatening and often when the fetus isn't viable.
Mr.Bee
(1,215 posts)
Jean Genie
(522 posts)Thanks for your "words of wisdumb," Hunny-Bunny Barret. Because YOU are the definitive word on women's rights, and whether women do or do not want those hard fought reproductive rights that you and the Old White (mostly) Boys' Club took from us. May your new book be a mega (maga) flop!
calimary
(87,834 posts)ananda
(33,157 posts)Always horrible.
kkmarie
(322 posts)They rule based on laws and the Constitution. RoevWade was decided based on the Constitution it was overturned based on the will of the alt-right. If the Supreme Court decided based on the will of the people the justices should then be elected officials not appointments.
What utter bullshit!
RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES NOW
#EpsteinFiles
JT45242
(3,626 posts)Seriously, when she makes the 5-4 vote that saves pick one...gay marriage, ending gerrymandered districts, gun control, protecting birth control, then I might believe it
70sEraVet
(4,887 posts)I've been trying to wrap my head around her vision of the role of the Supreme Court. Certainly, interpreting the Constitution as it applies to a modern society would require taking into consideration the views of the members society. But it's NOT based on a popularity contest! The Constitution does serve to protect the rights of minorities, regardless whether or not it is the 'popular' thing to do.
RobinA
(10,419 posts)When I was in school the role of the Supreme Court was to interpret the law. It had nothing to do with any "will of the people." If people vote by a landslide that it's OK to make a law that says you can execute someone for calling the President a moron, that doesn't give the Court the okey dokey to approve such a law. Their guidance is the Constitution, not public opinion. Every single Con Law teacher/professor I ever had made that point repeatedly.
pansypoo53219
(22,589 posts)Marie Marie
(10,539 posts)"justices" to be writing books about the court and their recent decisions? Shouldn't they be focused on upholding the Constitution and not trying to justify.or explain their biased decisions. Just seems wrong to me somehow. Right or wrong - screw her and her religious beliefs/