Hello! I really don't bust this thing out too often, but I have been thinking about the Supreme Court for a week now, and I feel this is the only way I can organize my thoughts a bit better.
First, though, this was originally a knitting blog so I would like to share my new shawl pattern with you. It is easy enough lace where you can try it as a second- or third lace project, and probably not lose your mind. It is also a pretty relaxing pattern, so the f-word should not come flying out of your mouth too often.
Here is the link to it: https://www.ravelry.com/patterns/library/choir-shawl
And here are a couple of photos, if you are not a knitter and want to talk your knitter-friend into making you something for those breezy days of autumn and spring:
Okay so enough of that. Here is my problem.
When Ginsburg was confirmed, the Senate confirmation vote was 96-3, and 41 of those votes were Republican.
This week, various media outlets were reporting that the Senate "had the votes" to confirm a new justice to the Supreme Court before the presidential election in November.
What does that mean, exactly?
Amy Coney Barrett has not had her job interview yet, and the panel is already giving her the thumbs-up. While I think it is clear that I am neither a Supreme Court Justice or a Senator, I have questions about this. Most importantly, I think, is how one can argue that the majority of Senators will vote "yes" for her confirmation based her their political party.
I don't give a hoot if she is anti-abortion. Everyone on the planet, especially people who are pro-choice, are anti-abortion. Nobody wants to make that decision. At all. Ever. Nobody. But knowing that I can talk to my doctor about it in private, without fear of either of us being prosecuted if I need to take that next step and abort a fetus is a bit of a relief. I am 100% anti-abortion; if I were pregnant right now, I would have to abort the fetus or face such dire mental consequences that I could not go on with my life. This includes carrying it to term for adoption or surrogacy. I am positive I could not go through with it and come out okay on the other side, no matter how much therapy or prayer I involved in my daily life. I know this. But I also know that, medically, aborting a fetus is not "killing a baby." Watch your words: when cops shoot at someone, is it murder? When a woman finally ends years of abuse by fighting to almost her last breath and shooting her abusive spouse in the end, is it murder? When a guy tries to steal your car at the gas station and you refuse to get out of the car, so he shoots you and takes your car anyway, is it murder? When you have a medical procedure to clear out cells in your uterus that will drive you to suicide if you don't do this (and every woman will in fact spend at least two seconds exploring other options), is it murder?
Everyone is anti-abortion. But if a woman has one, it is none of my business at all. Just like it is none of my business if they go to a doctor for a drug addiction and seek treatment for it.
I don't care if Amy Coney Barrett is anti-abortion. I care if she will consider using any precedents already set, and interpreting clauses in the constitution that exist (like due process, for instance, and the amendment which states the government can't have a hand in establishing religion), when she hears cases relating to abortion.
If she is going into these hearings already "having the votes," does that mean that she has had such a stellar record that it is obvious to all other lawmakers that upholding the constitution and its original intentions are her intention? Or does it just mean that 51 people out of 100 will be voting "yes" for her because of their political party?
There has been a two-party system in this country for a long, long time. Each party has their own set of extremist talking-heads and talking-memes now (think Breitbart on the right and Occupy Democrats on the left) where there is one teeny piece of truth buried in a giant cloud of overblown crap to get people to feel a certain way, and consequently vote a certain way. It was not always this extreme, and nobody can seem to remember life before this ideology.
I was in college when Ginsburg was confirmed, and if you recall, the press conference where Clinton announced her nomination in the Rose Garden was met by exactly one question (Brit Hume) and zero answers. It was because the question was regarding Clinton's selection process and not Ginsburg's qualifications. Clinton shut it down, walking away from the podium with an entire press corps' worth of hands in the air. Looking back, love him or hate him (and even his most staunch supporters thought Bill was smarmy), it was a feminist move for the ages.
What happened to us? Why is it that, almost thirty years later, high-ranking politicians can only vote their party?
And as long as I am on the subject of philosophy, riddle me this one: what is so intimidating about being liberal? I am a former Republican, currently without party because I now have to spend my whole life fact-checking other people's internet crap before forming an opinion on it. But you can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative at the same time. For instance, did women having their own credit cards cause the ridiculous debt problem we are facing now? Of course not...predatory lenders are not female-prey exclusive. Did women getting protection from employment termination due to pregnancy cause the morals in this country to sink? Of course not.
But do you know what it did do? It helped the economy. It gave women their own buying power. Just like gay marriage becoming law in this country made the wedding industry explode in ways it previously had not. Giving people equal rights and access to knowledge gives them power, money, and a voice.
So the only reason someone would be opposed to "liberal" ideas...meaning everyone has certain basic rights...is if either they do not realize how much less it would cost them in the long run, or they are just closed-minded jerks who thinks human lives do not have equal value.
If you give money to a GoFundMe because a kid (or adult, for that matter) has cancer and can't afford their medical bills, but you think socialized healthcare is evil, ask yourself where you think your GoFundMe money would go if socialized healthcare was introduced.
If you stand outside a Planned Parenthood with an "Abortion Kills" sign for eight hours, looking women in the eye as they go into a clinic for everything from pap smears to prenatal care to abortions to breast exams to cyst monitoring, ask yourself what people see in you when you are in line at the grocery store, buying a six-pack of beer and a box of condoms. Is it possible you already have enough dish soap and food at the house? Of course. But that is not what people see, and your true actions are none of their business. Just like a woman walking into Planned Parenthood is none of your business.
If you were in support of "Whites Only" signs in the 50's and 60's, but you also retort Black Lives Matter with "All lives matter!", is it possible you only mean Republican lives? Your personal life? People's lives above the poverty line? Christian lives? White lives?
Because that is my current concern with the Supreme Court. I want to know why it is news that there is going to be a 6-3 conservative majority when politics should not have that big of a hand in interpreting the Constitution. Unless, of course, you are "liberal" and actually believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should include literally everyone born in this country. But as a lifelong Catholic, I can say with conviction that until our current pope was elected and started using social media to get his Word across, even they did not preach like all lives were equal. They are starting to.
It is an irony of historic proportions when the Catholic church is making humanitarian progress and the Supreme Court, or our three branches of government in general, are not. Please do me a favor: break up with your political party for the next few weeks or months. Ask yourself if the person in your area running for office is has the best interest of as many constituents as possible in mind, no matter their ticket.
Call your Senators and be sure they are voting based on Barrett's interpretation of the constitution, and not because of their political party.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself if you can do better. Most of us can. Let's all try.
