[Texas Eagle]

Barrett has stated that the role of the judiciary is not to achieve moral ends but to enforce the law.

I'm not so sure about that. If that's truly what she believes, then slavery should and would still be legal. After all, it was the law, was it not?

[ClearCase_guy]

We have no more slavery because we are enforcing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

[ScottinVA]

I suspect in her context, the law is the Constitution itself.

[Alberta's Child]

Slavery wasn't outlawed in the U.S. by a Supreme Court decision. It was outlawed under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

Before the 13th Amendment, any legitimate U.S. Supreme Court decision about the legality of slavery would have to recognize that slavery was a legal institution in many states up to that point.

[rlmorel]

I believe there is something more fundamentally unsound with that statement.

The judicial branch (specifically at the upper levels such as the circuit courts and Supreme Court) does not exist to ENFORCE the law, but is there to INTERPRET the law.

[tired&retired]

You need to read about the history of the Supreme Court. How Jackson, the founder and first president of the Democrat party IN THE 1830’s expanded and stacked the Supreme Court.

This led to Taney becoming Chief Justice and the Drew Scott decision that blacks were property and had to be returned to slavery in the south when caught in the north.

History repeats itself. If the Democrats stack the court again, the result will be the same, i.e. civil war II.