Bad Judgment

General consensus has been that Amy Coney Barrett is well-qualified. It's only the the process and the rank hypocrisy of Mitch McConnell (and herself) that's all wrong. I am among the radicals who disagree.

During hearings for her confirmation Senator Kamala Harris asked Barrett's opinion on climate change. She replied that it was disputed.

If you feel weak and are losing weight and suffering chronic pain, you might (if you can afford it) go see a doctor. Let's say the doctor says you have cancer; you would be reasonable to want a second opinion. The second opinion might be the same, so you try again. Let's say you belong to the wealthy class of Americans who can afford to get the opinions of 50 doctors. One of those doctors tells you that everything is fine and you should go home, get some rest, and quit worrying. The other 49 agree that you have cancer, even though some disagree on the specific type or cause.

If you stop seeking medical advice or treatment based on the opinion of the one doctor with good news, you could be accused of terrible judgment. If you decide that the cancer diagnosis is disputed, you might be technically correct, but if you choose to do nothing more, you'd still have terrible judgment. If it were one of your seven children suffering the symptoms and you chose not to care, you would be a negligent parent who deserves to have her children taken away by Child Protective Services.

If a concerned friend researches the optimistic doctor and finds that his practice was flawed, but you refuse to listen, I would challenge any sane person to vouch for your judgment.

Some of Barrett's fellow Catholics have said this is worse than bad judgment, it is moral relativism. Ms Barrett knows better, but it is pragmatic to pretend that there is no problem. Caring would be counter-productive. Better to risk widespread human catastrophe than jeopardize a dream job where she can promote the interests of the organizations that have promoted her career.

Supreme Court justices have sometimes surprised us. I see no likely surprises here. Just bad judgment.

The Judge

Some have said all of Trump's immoral behavior is worth it, because he nominates conservative judges.

Many Evangelicals and other Christians hope conservative judges will overturn Roe v. Wade. It could happen, but some conservatives doubt it. I doubt it, because the issue has been such a motivator for the conservative vote. Would Republicans want to get rid of this incentive? Some would, but not the crafty ones.

Conservative judges also fairly consistently vote in favor of providing influence for the rich, while ruling against the disenfranchised. I'm thinking, for example, of Citizens United and the travel ban. Perhaps you have better examples. Let's agree, at least, that conservative courts tend to be business friendly, and businesses with the most influence are the largest, most profitable ones.

Another side of conservatism has been to reduce funding for the poor. In this case I'm not talking about courts and judges so much as conservative politics in general and the Republican Party. The right also votes against concerns for the environment in favor of business, and the effects of an unhealthy environment take a greater toll on the poor than on the rich.

The persistent favoring of rich over poor has put me off from the Republican Party for some time. Because I felt strongly about abortion, I still often voted Republican. Until I concluded that I was being manipulated.

Many conservatives decry sex education and impede the provision of contraceptives. In the US, we don't offer much in the way of health care for mothers. We require them to get a job to qualify for assistance, and then don't provide child care. The primary reason given for having an abortion is that the mother or family cannot afford to have the child. Sex ed, child care, better health care, and contraceptives could reduce the incidence of abortion, but more and more we simply blame the poor for being poor and pregnant and convince ourselves that a little cruelty will teach them their much-needed lessons.

There is much talk about the evils of abortion with very little effort to do much about it.

Nonsense, you say, we support laws against it.

But where do those laws get us? Abortion is illegal in Argentina, yet the rate of abortion there is much higher than here. Simply having laws won't cut it. Laws do achieve stigmatization, and I suspect that is the goal. To criminalize women in rocky straits, we cheer for a president who has defrauded thousands of people, abused women, lied without ceasing, and boasted about all of these as accomplishments.

Let's suppose Roe v. Wade is overturned. What then? Those who want an abortion may have to travel to another state. If abortion were banned nationwide, they might have to go to another country. That would reduce abortion—for poor people. People of means could travel for the procedure; only the poor could not.

Which, come to think of it, makes an abortion ban the perfect Republican solution: only the poor are affected.

I guess a conservative judge would help ensure that poor people had fewer rights and rich people had more opportunity. So, if one believes that this is the divine order, then one might do just about anything to get such a judge.

Is this our witness? Don't expect it to appeal to those who labor and are heavy laden.