Realistically there is no way to stop the confirmation of Trump’s third nominee to the Supreme Court unless four Republicans defect. So far, only two have shown willingness to dissent.
Sanders Statement on SCOTUS Nomination
BURLINGTON, September 26 — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement on President Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court:
“President Trump and Senate Republicans have badly mismanaged a deadly pandemic for months. Now, in the midst of an unprecedented public health crisis, they are willing to ram through a Supreme Court nominee—within days—who will vote to destroy the Affordable Care Act, kick millions of Americans off their health care, and eliminate protections for millions more who have preexisting conditions. This is an absolute outrage.
“The American people will not stand for this cynical effort to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, just days before an election, with someone who will roll back basic protections for women, workers, voters, people of color, the LGBT community, and our environment. I strongly oppose this nomination and we must fight as hard as we can to ensure that this nominee is not confirmed.”
Those two Republicans are the Lucy holding the football to the Democrat’s Charlie Brown who keeps thinking she won’t pull the ball away. What a joke. CBK
Yes, they know they can object and even vote against her without jeopardizing Barrett’s confirmation.
Here’s what I know about where Amy Coney Barrett comes from, Metairie, LA, where I lived when I went to high school. It’s a haven of racism and righteous intolerance based on the former. It’s the home of Steve Scalise—David Duke without the baggage. It’s the long-time former home David Duke himself, until he moved to the affiliate center of intolerance, the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain. When I moved to the section of Metairie known as Bucktown, on the west side of the infamous 17th St. Canal—made famous in the man-made flooding of post-Katrina—there was a rumor that a black running back drafted by the New Orleans Saints, Chuck Muncie, had done some house-hunting in the area and people were preparing to make sure a niggah (sorry, but the n-word euphemism doesn’t fit here, that’s how people still talk there) didn’t move into the neighborhood. They were happy to cheer him on in the football games, but it was unacceptable to have him as a neighbor. Blacks are not welcome in Metairie, if they want to live in the suburbs, there’s a section in Kenner for them.
I was enticed to join friends at Saturday evening masses, something that intrigued me because I had never seen people going to church in casual clothes and making it a part of their normal Saturday afternoon routine. But I could never get used to the sermons of love and respect for god and then walk out with them as they complained about “niggahs coming in the neighborhood” and prepared to do some hard drinking that evening. I experienced the same in my first day at an all-boys Catholic high school (also Scalise’s al-mama), where I heard the word more on my first day of school than I heard it before in my cumulative lifetime. In fact, because of my dark complexion, they were suspicious of me, some called me a sand niggah—jokingly (of course!).
Barrett attended St. Mary Dominican High School, one of the elite all-girl Catholic high schools in New Orleans, literally next door to the archdiocese complex, which promoted the doctrinaire views of Catholic leadership (incidentally, the same high school from which Ellen Degeneres graduated). While they promoted the idea of teaching girls to become women, the underlying theme was it was OK, but they had to remain subservient to men, something Barrett has been known to promote throughout her adulthood. She went on to an exclusive private college and then Notre Dame law school, also not known for its liberality, despite the Jesuits reputation for open-mindedness. She then became a faculty member and stayed there until the Idiot and Senate Republicans gave her a judgeship. Notre Dame is well known as the reactionary center of Catholicism. Abortion and limiting women’s right to choose is their North Star. Nothing else matters. This is not an anti-Catholic screed. It’s, as Det. Friday would say, just the facts. Amy Coney Barrett is to women’s issues what Clarence Thomas is to issues for the Black community. And they both line up in their contempt for fairness, opportunity, and pluralism.
GregB I for one do NOT think your note is an anti-Catholic screed. Arrogance and hypocrisy, however, . . . especially now . . . are bleeding out of every pore across the land. (Oddly, some of the super-rich among us seem to be changing course?)
Regardless, we should keep up-front for anyone who claims Christianity as the foundation for their lives, and especially Supreme Court judges, that according to that obscure text, the New Testament, Jesus himself was a universal humanitarian and nothing less. CBK
Didn’t Barrett adopt two Black children to live with her in that community?
Mary L I don’t know. Good question, though . . . though nothing will be known until the judgments start coming in from the Court. Not too much trust around these days, and too much hypocrisy and arrogance, to know WHAT to think. CBK
I emphatically oppose Barrett’s nomination to the court. That said, I am sickened by the attacks on her adoption of two kids from Haiti. Such attacks are themselves racist and beyond the pale.
Barrett and her husband adopted two children from Haiti, also a mostly Catholic country.
There is a long and ugly history of affluent whites adopting poor children of color under questionable circumstances and for questionable motivations and many so-called “Christian” sects are among the worst offenders. At best, these children are stripped from their native cultures. At worst, they are exploited and abused. There are reasons why so many countries have closed their adoptions to the U.S. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/christian-evangelical-adoption-liberia/
Haiti has been one of the easiest countries to obtain children for adoption, often without any verification that the children are, in fact, adoptable. In the immediate aftermath of the earthquake, Haiti was practically swarmed with groups almost literally picking children off the streets and absconding with them before families even had a chance to regather.
I don’t know if Barrett’s adoptions fall in this category, but it is not “racist” or “beyond the pale” to raise the question given Barrett’s allegiance to what amounts to a religious cult.
Greg, thanks for insight on the systemic racism in the greater New Orleans area. It is amazing that so many people live oblivious to their hypocrisy.
Thanks Greg for your post.
Adding about Barrett’s two adopted children-
Trump opposes immigration from countries like Haiti. Barrett is a hypocrite.
& that would make it45 a hypocrite, too, for picking her.
(Snicker, wink.)
Thanks to Dienne for her added info. and for the link.
It’s distressing that media has focused on Barrett’s ACA and abortion biases but not her predicted opposition to civil rights legislation.
The conservative SCOTUS decision in Biel vs. St. James Catholic school was significant and, it was the tip of the iceberg in the roll back of U.S. progress.
The political machine that is inextricably linked to the Catholic Church hierarchy has operations focused on undermining legitimate criticism of religion’s impact on politicians and policy which we will all witness during Barrett’s confirmation hearings. And, the church will rely on the tribalists from the pews to amplify the distortion, puffing themselves up to indignantly and falsely pronounce Barrett’s questioning as anti-Catholic.
Linda writes: “And, the church will rely on the tribalists from the pews . . . ”
Fortunately, and according to some of the links posted here recently, many in the pews are not “tribalists.” CBK
Dienne-
The Mother Jones article- no mention of Catholic cult involvement.
It’s as if the Catholic religion creates a shield impenetrable by radar.
Linda . . . an “impenetrable shield” because we don’t identify Catholicism as a cult or ourselves as cultists? You are really going off-the-charts here.
Thanks for proving my point about rabid zealotry. CBK
“…we must fight as hard as we can to ensure that this nominee is not confirmed.”
How am I supposed to do that? I am not a billionaire who can buy either of my Senators and tell them how to vote.
Carol, you know, I know, Bernie knows, that the only thing that would stop this nominee is if four Republican senators defected.
So far, no evidence for that hope.
There is little Democrats can do. Politico shows some of the tools Democrats may use to slow down the process, but they are mostly stall tactics.https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/27/democrats-supreme-court-confirmation-421849
McConnell leaves us with no choice. We must expand the court and admit Puerto Rico and Washington, DC to the union as states. Are you listening future President Biden?
If Biden wins, we need to pressure him to expand the court to restore some balance.
Yes we do. But to hell with “restoring balance.” We need to pack it with Democrats in retaliation for what the Republicans did following the deaths of Scalia and Ginsburg. Two can play this game.
Can we assume the Puerto Rico wants to become a state? There use to be a very strong movement against statehood and for status as an independent country. They might be safer as a state since it would be harder for us to rape them with impunity.
A 2017 opinion poll showed a bare majority (52 %) for statehood.
I’d bet a similar poll in 2020 would be a resounding NO!
I think most Americans will see the optics, the facade of ACB. She’s very appealing/wholesome, has a photogenic family of 7 kids, two are adopted from Haiti and one child has Down Syndrome. Ideologically and philosophically she will be a disaster for the SCOTUS and she will probably be on the court for the next 40 years. Geeze Louise, when the hell do we get some good news for the SCOTUS? I’ll be dead and gone whenever the SCOTUS becomes liberal again, if ever.
we must expand the court
Bob Shepherd; What about the idea that I read somewhere to have the Supreme Court Justices serve for 18 years and have each president only be able to appoint two during their terms?
This would require amending the Constitution. Not likely to happen.
I just read that some Catholic humanists are objecting to Barrett’s appointment based on her record. https://networklobby.org/news/catholic-lobby-rejects-the-nomination-of-amy-coney-barrett/
retired teacher: Opps. This is the message that I got. Couldn’t access that link.
502 Bad Gateway
Link works now.
Here’s a summary of the main idea. “Sister Simone Campbell, SSS, Executive Director of NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice said:
“As a Catholic Sister who tries to follow the teachings of Pope Francis, I cannot support Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court. I know that Judge Barrett shares my faith, but her past words and actions prove that she does not hold all life to be sacred. As a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett voted to allow employment discriminations against the elderly, attacked the protections of the Affordable Care Act, and even tried to uphold the wrongful conviction of a man based on faulty evidence. Shockingly, she does not hold the basic principle of stare decisis that provides for continuity in our Constitutional system. These are not the opinions of a nominee worthy of a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.
retired teacher: I sent that email to my brother [“Trump is the best president this country has ever had.” and a certified Trump lover who gets her news from far R media such as Breaking Christian News, Patriotic Times and PatriotPulse.
Didn’t hear back from either of them.
I like to send them Christian news that tells of more than blind obedience to Trump.
After noting that most of the signees to a letter opposing Bishop Dolan’s praise for Trump were women, I checked out the board of the Network …Social Justice. Seventeen board members, 4 of them men.
I was surprised at info. about two board members, One is the business director for Colorado High School Charter, “one of the very first charter schools in Denver…surging enrollment in 2016 led to a 2nd school opening.” But, there is also a board member who is an intern with Pastors for Texas Children.
Odd that, Catholics in favor of social justice who belong to a church that won’t allow women to hold positions in the church hierarchy- Bishop Anthony, who is black, opposed Trump’s photo op at the Pope John Paul II shrine and Sister Campbell leads the Network Lobby for Social Justice.
Linda writes: “Odd that, Catholics in favor of social justice who belong to a church that won’t allow women to hold positions in the church hierarchy–. . . ”
It only looks “odd” to people who think Catholics have no brains that they call their own; and to people who cannot or will not understand that you can love your Church, like we love anyone in our family, while still able and willing to critique the Church doctrine and hierarchy in order to help transcend their faults.
These are not “toxic idealists” who see one fault, quit, and get on their arrogant high horse. CBK
I love Bernie Sanders but he is pushing the wrong panic button.
My take in Trump’s nominating Amy Coney Barrett is to win over Catholic votes but if Trump thinks he will be able to control her, he is badly mistaken. What ever the law is, Amy C Barrett will defend – not change. Any die hard Catholic will not work “to destroy the Affordable Care Act, kick millions of Americans off their health care, and eliminate protections for millions more who have preexisting conditions.” Amy C. Barrett will not work to roll back basic protections for women, workers, voters, people of color, the LGBT community, and our environment.
Summarize the Commandments to two: Love God and your neighbor as yourself. Anyone who doesn’t take these two Commandments to heart is not Catholic.
I hope you are right. Remember how Ike regretted appointing Earl Warren to the SCOTUS because he turned out not to be so conservative after all. Roberts gave some blow back to Trump and the righties on a few occasions. Maybe ACB will respect the law and not be a total obsequious toady to Trump? Make no mistake, Roberts and ACB are very conservative but there is a slim possibility that they will not always please Inglorious Misleader. This is pathetic, that’s the best we can wish for in 2020. We need more RBGs on the court, only a Biden victory and a Democratic Senate will make that possible.
All three judges named by Trump were vetted by the far-right Federalist Society to make sure that no “moderate” like Earl Warren or David Souter slipped through.
Please let us know what drugs you are taking. They seem like fabulous psychedelics!
Greg-
Note below that my troll (2:13) gave you and others a pass on your Barrett criticism.
Linda As I have said many times before, I have no problem with criticizing the Church or any other religious organizations. What I object to is AGAIN what you seem to overlook in my criticism of your posts: the constant barrage and OVER-FOCUS on Catholicism.
I don’t think GregB is the rabid anti-Catholic/anti-religion zealot that you have proven yourself to be. You’ve missed the point again.
Of course, Barrett’s or anyone’s religious background will come to the fore as an issue now because of our present situation. This means A FIELD DAY for rabid dogmatic anti-religious zealots. CBK
Read the link from retired teacher. She has already shown that she wants to destroy ACA.
speduktr This is where I guess (but do not know) the residue of a racist and truly elitist (money/fake class) born-in background comes in.
Neo-liberalism is oh-so against anything Christian, if we mean by that: what is so evident in the New Testament. There is such a terrible contrast there.
I think for some it’s conscious, for some it’s not . . . but rather is “just the way things are” which is another way of saying: “I’m working out of an old neurosis that I’m not aware of.” CBK
Mary D,
Are you saying that William Barr is a great Attorney General who “can’t be controlled” because he is Catholic?
What is your point? That William Barr will not work to destroy the Affordable Care Act or roll back basic protections because William Barr is a Catholic?
Your logic defies me. Let’s all agree that Amy C. Barrett will be exactly like William Barr. If that pleases you, that reveals a lot.
Evidently, Mary D’s training manual didn’t cover Steve Bannon nor,
Bishop Tobin (Providence) who tweets in the vein that Democrats are not Catholic.
The Russian troll operation hires pretenders who pose as Bernie supporters (likely with the GOP’s knowledge) in order to achieve their goals. It’s an ongoing campaign.
I guess (with tongue in cheek) we should be glad Barrett is not a TV pillow-salesperson. Phyllis Schlafly would probably have liked her, however. CBK
Mary D is spewing propaganda from the libertarian right.
The propaganda for Trump, like Trump himself, lies.
Amy Barrett, when she says she follows the law, means she will make decisions based on a Constitution that predates the rights of women and people of color. For verification, a person needs to look no further than the statistic, 13 GOP women in the U.S. House and 186 GOP men, none of color.
Linda How do you know that’s what Barrett thinks or means by what she says?
I’m not defending her or her record by any means; but I think the change from lower judge-ships to the Supreme Court has its differences in method and emphases, not to mention other law besides what’s written in the Constitution.
Also interesting is that R. G. Bader supported her.
It’s also dogmatic to make such claims, even if they happen to play out rightly later. We don’t know what we don’t know, and to think we know when we don’t is by definition dogmatism in act–and whether its coming from a religious or atheistic position. Dogmatism is dogmatism in any case.
Also, ditto for this case where a complete pessimism is not warranted either. CBK
CBK, you say “Also interesting is that R. G. Bader supported her.”
It is worrisome that you are saying Justice Ginsburg supported Barrett. Where are you getting that from?
This letter from a rabidly pro-Barnett source says that Ginsburg’s “clerks who served with her” supported her. Unless you know differently, this is exactly how the right wing has taken over this country. They are awful and also incompetent in many ways, but the one thing they are superb at is pushing false narratives and getting those false narratives so ingrained that people treat them as fact.
“Al Gore said he invented the internet”.
“Justice Ginsburg supported Amy Coney Barrett”.
I know the first was always a lie, and I suspect the second isn’t true, either.
I have a lot of respect for you, which is why I am worried if you believe something that isn’t true that makes Barrett seem like a perfectly reasonable pick.
NYCParent You caught me in an error:
Thank you. Here’s where that statement came from, however. In a note on THIS thread, Sept. 27 at 5:36 from Mary D. I misstated what Mary said . . . she was drawing from a Washington Post article which she linked in her post: Here’s that paragraph:
“When she was nominated to be a judge on the 7th Circuit, every law clerk who had served with her at the Supreme Court, including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s clerks, supported her nomination. ‘This view is unanimous,’ they said: She ‘is a woman of remarkable intellect and character.’”
Thanks for catching my error in misreading that quote, CBK
My source:
“I taught and worked with Amy Coney Barrett. Here’s what people get wrong about her faith.”
Opinion by John Garvey in The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/25/i-taught-worked-with-amy-coney-barrett-heres-what-people-get-wrong-about-her-faith/
Correction: Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s clerk
If you read Washington Post’s article too quickly you may miss that point also.
“When she was nominated to be a judge on the 7th Circuit, every law clerk who had served with her at the Supreme Court, including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s clerks, supported her nomination. “This view is unanimous,” they said: She “is a woman of remarkable intellect and character.”
Big difference from Justice Ginsburg to “clerks that served at the very same time that Amy Coney Barrett happened to be at the Supreme Court”.
And that op ed from a right winger was written in a very deceptive way — and the clearest evidence of that is that people believed it was Justice Ginsburg who endorsed Barrett.
I’m guessing this is a lot like the very deceptive William Barr letter claiming that the Mueller Report totally exonerated Trump, but when you actually read the report, you realize that Barr just WANTED people to believe a lie to protect Trump.
And since Mary D has yet to be critical of Barr and probably believes that William Barr demonstrates the same integrity as Amy Barrett, I think we should treat anything said by this rabidly pro-Trump opinion writer with the same skepticism that we’d treat a statement from William Barr.
Mary, if you can’t provide the text of this over the top endorsement that you and pro-Trumpsters want us to believe, let’s assume it is as dishonest as what Barr says.
Too bad there’s nothing the Dems can do about it.
Oh, wait, there is: https://jacobinmag.com/2020/09/scotus-congress-democrats-trump-ginsburg
Oh wait, there is. They could have voted for a democrat in 2016. The people who didn’t have made it clear that they do not think the Supreme Court is important, period.
Why should we trust the very same people who already told us the Supreme Court didn’t matter? Have they admitted they were wrong yet?
Should we take the advice of the people who told us the Supreme Court didn’t matter? Are they now saying it does?
I’d like to have us pick the US Supreme Court Justices, instead of the US President. I feel, each of us is capable of making a good choice. 😁
I agree, with Fred, that forty years is too long. 😐
If I can elect Cook County and Illinois Judges, I can certainly vote for US Judges too. 😁
We won’t know until the Senate votes. There are Republican Senators running for re-election staying quiet hoping the election will be over before they vote to confirm this Trump appointment to the US Supreme Court.
Once the election is over, then the GOP Senators running for re-election that won may vote any way they want because their next election does not come up for six more years.
As long as Trump doesn’t manage to throw out the US Constitution, even if he is re-elected due to his cheating efforts and lies, he will have been gone for two years before those GOP Senators run for election again.
That means they will have more freedom to vote no if that is what they want to do. This also explains why the Trump administration is pushing so hard to get this judge on the Supreme Court before the election.
I think Trump met with her and asked if she would be loyal to him like I’ve read he asks everyone that he is considering for a job in the government. She probably said yes with him thinking one thing about what that loyalty meant and her thinking something else.
Trump isn’t the best communicator, In fact, he is one of the worst.
Lloyd Lofthouse: “I think Trump met with her and asked if she would be loyal to him like I’ve read he asks everyone that he is considering for a job in the government.”
I agree. Trump wants someone on the Supreme Court to stand up for him when he starts yelling ‘fraud’ IF he loses the election. There is likely to be chaos in the states over the counting of so many mail-in ballots. Confusion on the state level, or delays in counting, will set Trump up to declare himself the winner.
It will probably go to the Supreme Court and Trump wants it packed in his favor. I’m sure he quietly asked her to back him up.
Look at how loyal AG Barr is. He was appointed ONLY because of loyalty.
I think Trump has forgotten that this country is deep into a pandemic. He is doing a LOT of campaigning. His updates on COVID-19 will tell about how he kept people from China from entering the country and that he should be praised for doing so much. I’d much prefer to hear from medical experts rather than Dr. Trump who got his degree from Trump University, medical section.
The president claimed doctors were surprised he was so informed about the virus, Trump said, despite the fact he has been repeatedly fact-check for being misinformed about COVID-19.
……………………………
President Trump’s schedule:
Monday: Trump will give an update on coronavirus testing.
Tuesday: Trump and Biden face off in the first presidential debate in Ohio.
Wednesday: Trump will participate in a fundraising reception in Shorewood, Minnesota. Later he will speak at a campaign rally in Duluth, Minnesota.
Thursday: Trump will participate in a roundtable with supporters in Bedminster, New Jersey. He’ll also speak at the 75th annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in the Bronx, New York.
Friday: Trump will speak at a campaign rally in Sanford, Florida.
it45 is still calling covid “the China Virus.”
Washington Post: “I taught and worked with Amy Coney Barrett. Here’s what people get wrong about her faith.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/25/i-taught-worked-with-amy-coney-barrett-heres-what-people-get-wrong-about-her-faith/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_opinions&utm_campaign=wp_opinions https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/25/i-taught-worked-with-amy-coney-barrett-heres-what-people-get-wrong-about-her-faith/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_opinions&utm_campaign=wp_opinions
I…
After she graduated from law school, I wrote a one-line letter of recommendation for her to Justice Antonin Scalia: “Amy Coney is the best student I ever had.” He was wise to hire her as a clerk.
When she was nominated to be a judge on the 7th Circuit, every law clerk who had served with her at the Supreme Court, including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s clerks, supported her nomination. “This view is unanimous,” they said: She “is a woman of remarkable intellect and character.”
I would be astonished if anyone were to oppose her nomination on the basis of character or intellect. Anxiety about her confirmation instead seems driven by the fear that her religious belief is somehow incompatible with the impartiality demanded of a judge. …
…
And some anxiety is driven by the fear that we are getting out third Supreme Court justice who is the product of a typical, conservative catholic high school and college. Are these the only voices coming out of the Catholic Church? Of course not. These are the voices that are trying to restrict the governance of the church even as they are trying to trying to restrict the voices that are raised in our country.
We will Judge her by her deeds. If she votes to kill Obamacare and strip 20 million Americans of health insurance, then we will know that, despite her brains, she is cruel and heartless. We will see.
Mary D.
I read exactly the same testimonials about William Barr when he was nominated for Attorney General. Exactly the same.
Do you think they were right? Just wondering exactly what your political views are here.
It seems as if you love William Barr and that’s why you love Amy Barrett.
I would be astonished if anyone were to oppose William Barr’s nomination on the basis of his character or intellect. And yet turned out that William Barr’s character was a huge problem.
NYC
4-15-2020
An article in a Catholic publication announced the scheduled award for Atty Gem William Barr, an award named after St. John Paul II, “in honor and gratitude for fidelity to the church, exemplary selfless and steadfast service in the Lord’s vineyard.”
Linda What Catholic publication are you talking about? Is there a problem with linking to it so we can see that you aren’t omitting and misleading again? CBK
Mary D-
You get that WaPo published an opinion piece about Barrett written by the President of the D.C.- located Catholic University of America, John Garvey?
You know that the Board of CUA includes a member, Bishop Lori, who Father Peter Daly criticized in his article, “Why I’m Done with the Knights of Columbus”?
An internet search of Catholic University of America and Koch turns up the following titles among many, “Koch Bros. Latest Target: Pope Francis” and, “The University, the Koch Bros and the ‘Right Kind of Catholic’ ”
Maybe it wasn’t the intention of Garvey’s intellect for readers to infer from what he wrote that Ginsburg endorsed Barrett. or….
We’re going to have to replace Pollyanna in the dictionary with Mary D. Or perhaps she is just a seemingly affable troll. In the words of that great philosopher Bugs Bunny, What a Maroon!
https://s2.washingtonpost.com/2bcd0ff/5f715d9b9d2fda0efb372825/596996aa9bbc0f6d71c4feac/18/64/60e2e736e5e70b92939e7f8be79c811e
I thought more would come through on this link. Here is some of what Trump is saying:
“We need 9 justices. You need that. With the unsolicited millions of ballots that they’re sending … you’re gonna need 9 justices.” — Trump suggests he’s counting on SCOTUS to have his back when he makes claims of election fraud following November’s election
As regards William Barr- I don’t recall commenting on him. What ever I might have said positive about him in the past, I rescind. I have no respect for him.
Senator Todd Young [R-IN]: I am thrilled with President Trump’s nomination of fellow Hoosier, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, to serve on the Supreme Court. I’ve come to know her as an incredibly sharp legal mind, a woman of great integrity, and a dedicated mother of seven. When Americans elected President Trump to office in 2016 and expanded the Republican Senate majority in 2018, she was exactly the type of jurist they had in mind. Judge Barrett’s previous confirmation to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals turned into a shameful attack on her faith, not an evaluation of her legal credentials.
Anyone who fairly evaluates her superb qualifications and temperament will agree that Judge Amy Coney Barrett is the right person for the job. I ardently support her nomination to the Supreme Court and, as the Senate follows historical precedent by initiating a confirmation hearing, I will work diligently with all of my Senate colleagues with an eye towards voting on her confirmation as the next Associate Justice without delay.
Senator Todd Young: Statement Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court Nomination
Sep 26, 2020
Todd Young
Indy Dems posted at their site that Young votes for the Koch agenda 94% of the time.
Young co-sponsored bills that please the Catholic hierarchy including, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, School Choice Now Act, Education Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act,…
Linda Din, din, din . . . Catholic, Catholic Catholic. CBK
Linda If you want an explanation about why some claim “anti-Catholicism,” you need only look at the number, content, and tone of your own notes on this site to gain that explanation of it. CBK
Diane: This is just for general information on this topic. Two articles, one law review article co-written by Barrett where she speaks of judges recusing themselves in some situations, linked within an opinion piece in the New York Times:
SNIP: “Judge Barrett has meditated on this matter herself, as a co-author of a 1998 law review article addressing this genre of conundrum. The essay considers the options of Catholic judges hearing capital punishment cases, which the state permits but the church forbids. Judge Barrett and her co-author maintain that Catholic judges must or should recuse themselves from such cases, concluding that ‘judges cannot — nor should they try to — align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard.’ With individuals, this kind of resolution usually suffices.”
Law Article:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/527/
I don’t understand.
Is Amy Barrett’s position that she should recuse herself from voting (presumably if she knows that there are enough justices to do what she wants done based on her religious preferences?)
This sounds very much like Susan Collins’ philosophy. She always wants to support the things she says she supports or recuse herself but sometimes very important people need her to weigh in and I have little doubt that she will do so, and vote as they want and find a way to justify her vote to support Trump and the far right.
Well said, NYC.
Barr and Barrett have the same agenda. Barr described the agenda in his acceptance speech for the Catholic award he received this month. Barr’s speech to the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, a group modeled after the conservative politicians and businessmen,… of the National Prayer Breakfast is posted at the Justice Department website. The award was for Barr’s fidelity to the Church. Barr cited three SCOTUS wins for the Catholic Church, Espinosa, Biel and Little Sisters of the Poor. Other members of the group who awarded Barr are Leonard Leo, Rick Santorum,..
NYCparent Apparently, it’s what she said. Frankly, however, there is so much more to this:
First, the next president should choose Court candidates.
Second, if we are to pay any attention at all to a person’s religious background, then we need to also pay formal attention to the diversity of those backgrounds as they make up the Court. . . . too many Catholics or any one “faith” and you have a prescription for just more siloed arguments as well as public division.
Third, I don’t remember voting for the Federalist Society or even employing them as a policy-development part of government.
Fourth, the whole idea of “originalist” is philosophically unsound.
And fifth, I wouldn’t vote for her anyway. Why? Because I think her right-wing background (per GregB here), coupled with her having been brought up in a VERY southern United States culture . . . as in racist . . . creates for anyone’s psychology a thick thread . . . too thick for too long to push through that needle that’s made of the relationship between religion and democratic Constitutional ideas. I don’t know that she’s that thoughtful or ever will be.
Other than that, we’ve see so many liars and hypocrites coming from the Republicans that I would be surprised if she did actually recuse herself. CBK
“Amy Coney Barrett ‘spoke at a program founded to inspire a ‘distinctly Christian worldview in every area of law.’”
Some clarity on that statement would have been good . . . I wonder what the writer meant by that . . . do you think maybe things like not stealing and lying, committing murder, loving thy neighbor, honoring parents, . . . giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar? CBK
BTW, here’s the link to Linda’s quoted article and another snippet. I posted another article in another note with a link to a law review article co-written by Barrett . . . judge for yourself and be advised . . . much more to come.
The view Linda quoted was was that of the organization she spoke at, about which she said: “I don’t feel like affiliation with a group commits me to all of that group’s policy positions.”
For the record, I would not vote for Barrett, but my hair is not on fire about it. However, I do think many of her critics ARE critics NOT because they are so fair and freedom-minded as they seem to think they are, but because of their anti-Catholic, anti-religious bias, which has a long history in this country and spews cultural trash accordingly . . . they are no better than the farthest religious right among us.
This is not about the conflict between Christianity, Judaism, agnosticism or atheism anyway.
It’s about actual freedoms where the center of moral authority must be understood as located in each of us where choices are formed and made, and where we all must be surrounded, informed, and well-peopled by intelligent, generous, and even loving cultural institutions. CBK
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/coney-barrett-christian-law-fellowship-blackstone/2020/09/27/7ae41892-fdc5-11ea-b555-4d71a9254f4b_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F2bcfd3e%2F5f720adc9d2fda0efb377d7c%2F597c3073ade4e26514d23e47%2F29%2F72%2F35c708a0dfce30512dcc7ae3b2592fc6
Definition: Originalist —
Someone who believes the 2nd Amendment entitles you to carry a flintlock in a well-regulated militia. Anything more and they’re just blowing smoke.
Reduced to its absurdity.
The Justice Dept posted the Attorney General’s remarks which he gave on the occasion of his award for fidelity to the Church (award from the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast last week).
Theocracy in plain view- a clear and present danger. Everyone who values democracy should read Barr’s remarks. They are a sacrilege to American values.
btw- Notre Dame’s President attended a Barrett event in D.C. this week. He wore no mask, ignored social distancing and shook hands. Meanwhile, back on his university campus, he had implemented Covid restrictions. He’s just like Jerry Falwell- two sets of rules. Jefferson was right. In every country, in every age, the priest aligns with the despot.