Two weeks ago we told you about Kirstin Sullivan, a teacher of AP European History and AP Government and Politics at Ames High School.
Sullivan tightened up her Facebook page shortly after that article was published, but there is more worth sharing than just her complete disdain for President Donald J. Trump.
But it isn’t just President Trump. Sullivan also despises Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
As you can see, on Sept. 26, Sullivan shared a tweet claiming pro-abortion Ruth Bader Ginsburg was going to be replaced “by a woman who walked through every door that Ginsburg opened for her so she can promptly use her position to shut them all for others behind her.”
Sullivan also targeted Barrett for her religious beliefs.
“This could be your new Supreme Court Justice,” Sullivan wrote. “Her beliefs are her own and she hast he right to have them. But she doesn’t have the right to impose them on others. Get involved. Call your senators. #demandbetter.”
Sullivan referenced Barrett as a concerning “originalist.”
“I am concerned about her ‘originalist’ and seemingly extremist stance on the Constitution,” she wrote. “I appreciate and applaud jurists who consider the original intent of the framers, but the framers were all white men who owned property and their ‘intent’ didn’t include women, black people or poor people.”
Court decisions have helped our country “evolve,” she said.
“I don’t think Barrett has a problem overturning decades of precedent which will, in turn, set women, black people and poor people back a generation,” she added. “I don’t take issue with her religion…My issue is with her extremism and her ability (or inability) to separate her extreme views from her decisions on the bench.”
Appointing Barrett seemed like a “knee-jerk decision” by Trump to encourage the court to overturn ObamaCare and Roe v. Wade.
Sullivan expanded on her criticisms of Barrett’s faith.
“The religious group she is active in is extremist,” she said. “She has the right to be in it and she has the right to practice those beliefs. But I don’t know if she should be in charge of interpreting a document that has separation of church and state at its core.”
