Judge Barret and the Conservative Agenda

There are several issues where the Conservatives have already shown
their interests and their approach to getting what they want. They are,
abortions, voting, guns, government regulation of commerce.


On abortions and voting rights they have attempted to whittle them away
to nothing. In both cases they have begun in only a few states (Texas,
Georgia, Kansas, and perhaps a few others) to simply take away the usual
availability of abortions and voting by closing clinics and polling
places. They cut back on early voting in many states and they've erased
names from the polls in many. This approach doesn't directly challenge
the RIGHTS, but eases people into a 1950s mind-set where they accept Jim
Crow without realizing what they've lost. Judge Barret should be asked
how many and what kind of practical limitations, obstacles, or other
problems the Conservatives will put in place while continuing to say the
RIGHTs haven't been eliminated. Their hypocrisy is plain on these issues
to anyone who has looked at them. Don't ask if she believes that's the
plan or if she believes in this approach. She'll just hedge, dodge, and
try to avoid it or just say it isn't so. But, directly ask what limits
and obstacles they WILL put in place, so the public will know what the
Republican senators are foisting on everyone.


On gun rights the Conservatives have been very touchy for a very long
time. Ask Judge Barret which limitations on gun possession for personal
protection is specified in the Constitution. It isn't there. The idea of
a "militia" isn't just private citizens getting together and calling
themselves a "militia" or claiming they have some legal rights. So, ask
about the recent attempt by a rag-tag "militia" to kidnap the governor
of Michigan. Did they have the right to own guns for that purpose? What
limits should be placed on gun possession to avoid that kind of event in
the future. Watch her say "NO LIMITATIONs" would be allowed, in order to
protect the 2nd Amendment. Then ask, why does the 2nd Amendment and this
strange interpretation of it to imply personal rights to possess guns
for "personal protection" should be protected so strongly while a
woman's right to privacy of healthcare or the right to vote should be so
easily whittled away to nothing.


On reducing government regulation of commerce, ask Judge Barret where
"free markets" devolve to chaos and simple criminal behavior and where
government regulation is necessary to maintain order. Where would "free
markets" be if there was no commercial law and where would worker,
community or public safety be without government regulation. She will
claim they aren't removing those, but she will say they want to limit
those only to what is necessary. Where exactly is the dividing line
between necessity and chaos? Ask her who should decide that issue? Is it
for the Court or the elected politicians who legislate? Ask her how much
of our current regulation the Conservatives intend to whittle to nothing
to please the rich and corporations. Where is that magical dividing line
the Conservatives consider necessary and why should the Court enshrine
that into law rather than letting Congress decide?

--
Mark Hathaway