Judge Barrett showed she was learned in the law; that’s not enough

From Discourse DB
Revision as of 23:35, October 26, 2020 by Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Item |author=Los Angeles Times editorial board |source=Los Angeles Times |date=October 16, 2020 |url=https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-10-16/editorial-amy-coney-bar...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an opinion item.

Author(s) Los Angeles Times editorial board
Source Los Angeles Times
Date October 16, 2020
URL https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-10-16/editorial-amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-hearings-qualifications
Quote
Quotes-start.png In another universe, her qualifications might incline us to support her nomination despite our concerns that she might vote to undermine the right to abortion or make it harder for Congress and the states to deal with the proliferation of firearms. But the circumstances in which Barrett has been nominated by President Trump make discussion of her credentials or her judicial philosophy irrelevant. Confirming her now could politicize the Supreme Court beyond the possibility of repair. Quotes-end.png


Add or change this opinion item's references


This item argues against the position Barrett should be confirmed on the topic Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination.