WHAT Exactly Could Amy Coney Barrett 'Do'?

A lot of people are scared of Amy Coney Barrett and the apparent unbreakable 6-3 majority she will create on the court. But I just have to ask, What specifically will she or the new majority do? I guess I can tell you, as I say this, I am specifically thinking of that ‘culture war’ conservatives often refer to.

I mean, how can they change the hearts and minds of the citizens of this country? Will they somehow make the gays all go back into their closets? This is a serious question, I want to know how this could be accomplished.

Also, I have noticed atheists and seculars are particularly alarmed by her appointment. But how could the SCOTUS possibly change their lives, if in any way? Again, this is a serious question.

I do have to tell you, atheists do think Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an ally on the court. So I am guessing there must be something to it. But I do wonder how much power even the high court could yield in a free society.

But these are all serious questions too. If they can fundamentally change our culture, I (and I assume others), want to know.


She can be part of a majority that overturns Roe (legalizing abortion nationwide), Obergefell (legalizing gay marriage nationwide), and could force states to stop counting votes if Trump is in the lead. As a gay person yourself, I would think you’d be terrified that gay marriage could again become illegal. Of course, the election-stealing is the most immediate threat.

It’s possible for LGBT people to have wide cultural acceptance while still not being given
equal rights legally. That would still be bad.

Remember the 2000 election, that was basically a tie? The conservative-leaning Supreme Court gave it to Bush. That’s why Repubs are ramming ACB through to get her on the court before the election.

I don’t understand the OP. Do you not believe there is any different effect depending on the types of cases the Court accepts, and how they decide them?

Just one example, look at the numerous voter restrictions Southern states enacted THE VERY DAY the Court voted down portions of the Voting Rights Act.

Pick an issue: sexual orientation rights; access to abortion; Affordable Care Act; search and seizure; environmental regulation; … You think there is NO DIFFERENCE where the Court comes down on such issues?

I readily admit that as a white, aging, male in a safely blue state, the my personal risk is quite low. Instead, it is more of a “psychic” harm, of being less comfortable with the state and trajectory of my nation, and the discomfort I feel o/b/o others who are less favorably situated than I.

Well, the new & improved Supreme Court could find that fertilized ova are people and citizens and entitled to the protection of the US Constitution and that therefore abortion is murder in every state and many forms of birth control are illegal immediately. Including in blue states of course.

They could rule that the US President has the authority to pardon himself for anything he does. Or that multitudes of his policies and programs violate various principles, also to include those of previous Presidents, such as the Affordable Care Act.

Justices Thomas and Alioto have recently signaled that religious freedom is more important than equal protection under the law (marriage equality):

…Thomas wrote, “In Obergefell v. Hodges… the Court read a right to same-sex marriage into the Fourteenth Amendment, even though that right is found nowhere in the text. Several Members of the Court noted that the Court’s decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman.

ACB has been portrayed as a very religious person, but there is no way to be certain which way she would rule on another, similar case that reached the court. I bet you can estimate with confidence how she would lean, tho.

She isnt a tool of the left wing. What else is there?

With a suitably reactionary court in place you can assume every bit of law and regulation inconvenient to corporate interests would be overturned as being beyond Congress’es constitutional powers to regulate.

E.g. the day after ACB gets on, Exxon + Du Pont file a suit in a favorable jurisdiction that the EPA ought to be illegal; Congress overstepped their bounds in creating it in the first place. The local court promptly finds for the corps, perhaps by summary judgement. It then jumps to the court of appeals who also find for the corps. The Supremes take cert, find for the corps, and the EPA vanishes into thin air.

Lather rinse repeat for any / every decent thing done in the last 100 yeas.

That’s what a reactionary judiciary interpreting an 18th century agrarian constitution can do.


I don’t know. But FWIW I have been thinking about this more. And actually religious zealots do claim to want to indoctrinate our children. They want public school prayer to be mandatory. And religious reeducation would likely soon follow. (Sorry about the terminology I use. But it’s true.)

But their influence wouldn’t be the only one. We have parents, peers–and indeed the internet. OTOH though, U.S. children are very ignorant when it comes to Darwinism, supposedly for this reason. So I just don’t know.

Also, again as I said, I’ve been thinking about this. And couldn’t doing away with the separation of church and state backfire? I mean, what if your child’s teacher is a neo-pagan, and she forces your kids to worship Artemis? Think about it. You don’t just open the door a crack. You open it all the way, or not at all. Am I wrong?

I’m sorry to say you also sound like a zealot.

You make the critical mistake here of assuming a neo-pagan teacher would be hired and any such teacher working today would not be summarily fired explicitly for the reason of being of the wrong religion.

Once there is no separation, fundamentalist Xianism will become the same sort of thing that Party membership was in the Soviet Union. Want a job? Toe the line. Want a role in public? Spout the lines loud and often, and be seen attending the meetings.

How would you like it if ACA were struck down? I can’t find it, but I think she is on record somewhere criticizing the decision to uphold it. Following her logic, Medicare? Social security? Of course, it is not her alone but her along with 4 other troglodyte judges.

Remember when W wanted to abolish, I mean privatize, social security and the political blowback deterred him. Well, SCOTUS doesn’t have to worry about politics and she has gone on record saying that the real world effect of her decision can play no role in them. If she believes that why would it be illegal to yell “fire” in a crowded theater?

I appreciate the sentiment, and I think the possibility for “mischeif” considerable, but I think the authority for the EPA as a whole, under the Commerce Clause, is pretty clear even to the most partisan “originalist.”

Moderating: Don’t be such a jerk. You really cannot imagine there is such a thing as a moderate judge?

Related article.

Yes, I mentioned gay rights in the first reply to this thread. What are your thoughts about the article and about potential effects of the confirmation of Coney Barrett on gay rights?

IMHO the real battlefield will be in overturning laws passed by a Democratic congress. Assuming Biden wins, ACB, along with Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, plus either Gorsuch or Roberts or both, will focus on this. State AGs from red states will file suit against provisions in things like Bidencare, the Green New Deal, the Voting Rights Act of 2021, and whatever other legislation the Democrats pass. SCOTUS will strike them all down, possibly on state rights grounds, and ACB will play a large role in that effort.

Overturn Roe v Wade (1973), so abortion can be made illegal again, and overturn Griswold v Connecticut (1965) contraception can be illegal again. Overturn any kind of equal rights protection, so any minority group and women can lose fundamental rights in practice - note that it was legal for a state to have a law that a man should always have priority over a woman for a position like executor of an estate until 1971, and until the 1974 Equal Credit Act women mostly couldn’t get credit cards in their own name. Overturn all of the useful protection from the Voting Rights Act (1965) and anything related to it - the court has already started work on that one without 6-3. Overturn Obergefell v. Hodges (2013) invalidating gay marriages, and overturn Lawrence v. Texas (2004) allowing laws against gay sexual activity again. Declare that ACA invalid, as well as any replacement. And of course, rule that any election disputes, even those created by Republicans, go in the Republican’s favor, thus handing the election to Trump.