The Supreme Court is front and center in the national news.
Democrats are worried about losing several critical cases this term.
And now Democrats are reeling after Amy Coney Barrett dropped this massive truthbomb on the Left.
During a recent speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, left-wing hecklers tried their best to cancel Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett during the middle of her talk.
The left-wing social justice warrior interrupted Barrett’s speech by yelling “enslaver of women,” presumably because this individual thinks Barrett is pro-life and will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
However, Barrett was unfazed by the left-wing snowflake, and responded by making a comparison to children yelling and screaming because they simply don’t know any better.
“As a mother of seven, I am used to distractions — and sometimes even outbursts,” Barrett remarked to the great appreciation of the crowd in attendance.
After that, Barrett discussed upcoming Supreme Court cases, which include Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, a case surrounding Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks, as well as a case potentially expanding the Second Amendment to finally recognize the right to carry a firearm outside one’s home.
Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks is the most serious challenge to Roe v. Wade in the past generation.
Not only that, but based on the oral arguments in the case, the only matter of debate is whether the Justices will severely curtain abortion on demand in America or completely overturn Roe v. Wade.
In anticipation of these important decisions, the Left is attempting to discredit the Court by smearing Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife Ginni over her conservative activism during the past few decades.
Justice Barrett ended by telling the audience to actually read the Court’s upcoming opinions to see that the majority arrived at their conclusion using sound legal logic and reasoning, instead of basing it on partisan politics.
“Does (the decision) read like something that was purely results driven and designed to impose the policy preferences of the majority, or does this read like it actually is an honest effort and persuasive effort, even if one you ultimately don’t agree with, to determine what the Constitution and precedent requires?” Barrett asked the crowd.
Political Animal News will keep you up-to-date on any new developments in this ongoing story.
