The push is on for President Trump to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court seat vacancy left by the imminent retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, and war has been declared by the party of abortion already.
According to The Hill:
Three conservative groups — American Family Association, American Principles Project and Judicial Action Group — this morning will urge the president to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett, 46 (she’s on Trump’s list of candidates). … The groups, in a letter, describe the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge as “tested” and “confirmable,” and say she has a “compelling story that preempts the liberal playbook.”
The momentum building for Barrett’s nomination triggered Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to issue a thread on Twitter attacking Barrett even before her prospective nomination. In the thread, Schumer’s arguments represent a perfect perspective on why conservatives should be delighted if Barrett gets on the court:
Judicial Action Group compared the supposed two leading candidates for the nomination, Barrett and Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and concluded that Barrett was clearly the superior choice, noting:
The Obama administration’s briefs to the Supreme Court defending Obamacare relied heavily on an opinion of Kavanaugh, who had previously claimed that Obamacare was a “tax.” … Barrett disagreed with Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion (and implicitly the opinion of Kavanaugh), which claimed that the Obamacare penalty was a tax.
Barrett said Roberts:
... pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did – as a penalty – he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress’s commerce power … [A] judge who adopts an interpretation inconsistent with the text fails to enforce the statute that commanded majority support. If the majority did not enact a "tax," interpreting the statute to impose a tax lacks democratic legitimacy … it is illegitimate for the Court to distort either the Constitution or a statute to achieve what it deems a preferable result.
Judicial Action Group also had trouble with Kavanaugh regarding religious freedom, noting that in a case in which a faith-based nonprofit and other religious ministries were forced by Obamacare to facilitate access to contraception and abortifacients for their employees, Kavanaugh ruled for the nonprofit, but wrote, “[i]t is not difficult to comprehend why a majority of the Justices in Hobby Lobby [Justice Kennedy plus four liberal dissenters: Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan] would suggest that the government has a compelling interest in facilitating women’s access to contraception.”