Blogger G.F. Brandenburg discovered a very clever post by Bill Svelmoe advising Democrats how to handle the hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy C. Barrett.
Don’t attack her personally. Don’t question her religious views. Don’t ask her how she will rule on abortion or Obamacare (nominees never answer questions about cases which they may hear.)
Ask her about Trump’s actions.
Here are a few of his ideas:
Instead Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there.
Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause?
Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause?
Then turn to the Hatch Act.
Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [List them. Then after Barrett’s response, and just fyi, the Office of the Special Council already convicted her, ask Barrett this.] When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president’s top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office?
Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention. Get Barrett’s opinion on those.
Then turn to Congressional Oversight.
Judge Barrett, would you please explain to the American people the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch. [She does so.] Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time and again [list them] to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Diane Regardless of Barrett’s political views, there are miles and miles between her understanding of law and order and Trump’s.
To Trump Law and Order means having and using gestapo tactics, along with a spontaneous suspension of Due Process. Also, the law and the call to order only applies to his political enemies, not to him or his enablers . . .like the white supremacists and the “boys.”
Last night, Trump ILLEGALLY called for intrusions into the voting process at voting centers. Trump thinks he IS the law, and he wouldn’t know an ordered life if it bit him on the face. CBK
GREAT advice.
All that can be hoped for is that Trump will get some more negative press out of the hearings. Barrett’s confirmation is a done deal. The new president and Congress must expand the court.
I agree. I hope this gets to the right people in Congress. These same questions should be asked of Bill Barr who, in two recent speeches, fiercely defends Executive Power.
So, another question she might be asked is: What limits does the Constitution put on the Executive Powers of the President?
Another: Does the law permit the President to prescribe what shall be taught in public schools?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4809509/user-clip-trump-constitution-i-president
How is it “great advice” to conduct a Senate hearing of a Supreme Court nominee who we all already know “walks on water”?
That’s what I heard about William Barr when he was nominated, too. He might have a different judicial philosophy, but he was an upright man of the very highest integrity and that was recognized by everyone in both parties!
It wasn’t true. And the idea that President Trump would ever nominate someone who “walks on water” (by most definitions) is absurd.
The ONLY way President Trump nominates someone is if he is reassured that they will give him exactly what he wants.
Amy Barrett clearly made President Trump feel very comfortable nominating her. Nothing besmirches her character more than that fact.
What!!! Svelmoe doesn’t present Barrett as walking on water. He is telling you that a wide range of people find her impressive. Then he goes on to tell you how to get around the “halo.” Attack her on the basis of the Constitution not her religion or her personal character. Attack her jurisprudence. Your route would set one up as a religious bigot. That portrait would make it easy for more than a few to dismiss one’s opinion as not worth serious attention. If you read a bit about Smelvoe, you might find he is not quite the evangelical zealot you appear to believe he is.
The Republicans want Democrats to attack Barrett’s religion so as to alienate Catholic voters. Biden leads Trump among Catholics.
Diane My guess is that the republicans’ shorts are in knots about Biden also being Catholic. CBK
Diane If there is a nefarious “deep state,” however, the Federalist Society is a charter member. Who appointed them, or voted for them, to decide the exclusive list of candidates that the President can choose from? CBK
Distract with the emoluments clause? How many Americans even know what the 4 syllable word means?
Jim Jordan’s district in Ohio and, right wing radio prefer silence about race and, they tout it as good. They claim that talking about race relations needlessly ratchets up conflict. Their true reason for avoiding the discussion is that it makes them uncomfortable. Sound familiar?
The point here offered to justify silence, is concern about labeling as a religious bigot?
And, what about fears that Barrett will become William Barrr’s ally and that Barrett will side with conservative justices on decisions to benefit a religion that (1) wants community money for its religious schools, hospitals (1 out of every 6 in the nation) and, social service organizations (2) wants its employees exempted from civil rights legislation and, (3) wants religions to be able to deny medical care to women ?
The prior-listed successes have been delivered by conservative Catholic justices and, it’s the tip of the iceberg.
The same religious interests work to prohibit women in all settings from receiving pharmaceutical birth control and life saving care related to reproduction.
But, keep on promoting silence about religion’s power to destroy American progress because it’s worked so well up to this point.
Linda Are you advocating for a religious test? . . . If so, or even skirting close to it, here’s from Article VI of that pesky document, the U.S. Constitution:
. . . “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Not to mention Amendment 1.
I think the founders didn’t want to allow those who would to make judgments based on, and especially to institutionalize, their religious affiliations, not to mention
biases.
In my view, it’s much better and even easier to question Barrett’s rather “fuzzy” legal theory. CBK
Linda If you want to argue against nefarious religious influence in government offices, it seems to me that, considering the makeup of the Federalist Society list of nominees, they are presenting the President with a document–their list–that is tacitly selective by way of a religious test (again, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution).
As I said earlier, my view is that IF we are going to look at religious backgrounds of nominees as such, then we should shoot for a religiously diverse Court. But even THAT goes against selection on qualitative principles that are related to the law and the courts as such.
And BTW, judges are not elected by the electorate at large. Those who will pass Barrett or not are mostly lawyers and/or legislators who know what “emoluments” means. CBK
These are judicial hearings not town hall meetings. I suspect every Senator in the room knows what the emoluments clause is and they are the ones voting.
Being labeled as a religious bigot before the vote in the Senate diminishes any argument you, as a Senator, might present in opposition to Barrett. This is not about how you as a Senator might appear to the public. It is about how you are heard by your colleagues and whether your arguments are cogent. I don’t care whether you see her appointment to the Supreme Court as a slam dunk or not. an assault on her religious beliefs would make wonderful sound bites for future dissemination.
“Distract with the emoluments clause? How many Americans even know what the 4 syllable word means?”
I think the point is to argue over issues most people agree on and are willing to listen to. Abortion or immigration or environment are not such issues.
Diane-
“alienating Catholic voters”
Don’t talk about theocracy in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, …?
20,000 petition signers opposed Barr’s receipt of the Catholic award that was given this month. Granted, they had different reasons for opposing it.
Linda,
Polls show that Biden is winning the Catholic vote.
Theocracy in America? Don’t make me laugh!
Which theology will become the established religion?
From The NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/catholic-voters-trump-biden.html
For Mr. Biden, the pitch is more personal. He is a weekly churchgoer who often keeps a rosary on hand (“The next Republican that tells me I’m not religious, I’m going to shove my rosary beads down their throat,” he said in 2005, according to The Cincinnati Enquirer), and he has a habit of crossing himself when he is considering making an edgy quip….
Fifty-six percent of Catholic adults generally favored abortion rights, according to a poll last year from the Pew Research Center, despite the church’s position on the matter.
And though many observant Catholics oppose abortion, some argue that it is only one issue among many and that the Affordable Care Act, with its expansion of health care access, may prevent more abortions in the long run than a Supreme Court ruling outlawing the procedure.
In addition to striking notes of economic populism and white grievance, Mr. Trump’s message to white Catholics is focused heavily on abortion and what his team frames as religious liberty issues.
The president, who has described himself as a Presbyterian, rarely attends church, and in 2016 clashed with Pope Francis.
The Hill reports that Biden leads Trump by 12 points among Catholic voters.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/517431-poll-biden-leads-trump-by-12-points-among-catholic-voters
Frank G. Splitt who wrote “Existential Threats to American Democracy”, didn’t get the memo.
To those commenters who admonish that it is senators who decide about Barrett, select one of your two contradictory arguments and stick with it,
(a) the public will get feedback from the hearings and if religion is mentioned Catholics will be “alienated” (btw-don’t suggest the response would make them tribalists) or, (b) the public is immaterial, the hearing’s sole purpose is an exercise in emoluments law to create a transcript for senators who can use the transcript to….
A possible answer offered to Diane’s question about which religion…”the one and only true church”?
This is really good. Would turn the hearing into an actual civic education lesson.
Yes, because no matter what Amy Barrett replies, since we already all agree that she “walks on water”, her answer – at worst – demonstrates that she just has a different judicial philosophy but of course would conduct herself in the upright and honorable manner that all people who “walk on water” do.
Good have a civic education about how the Senate asks questions of a woman who everyone in the country – including the Senators themselves – know “walks on water”.
No, no, no. What the Democrats have to do first is to stop this false narrative that a woman appointed by one of the most corrupt and unfit presidents ever who TOLD US that he wants a fast confirmation so the Supreme Court can decide the election “walks on water”.
Every appointee of Trump should be considered to have the moral and ethical character of William Barr. Would anyone really suggest now it was great to just hear his judicial philosophy?
This is written by a right wing evangelist who wants her confirmed.
Last night’s debate was pathetic.
Yes, for one reason only. Donald Trump. He is the only person to blame.
Yes and no.
Ignoring religion, the judiciary and politics, why didn’t Dems think of that before? (sarcasm)
Trump’s appointees fall into two categories, grifters and religious zealots. Truth in answering questions is counterproductive to the religious zealots’ mission to spread the “Lord’s kingdom”. Barr and Barrett view the Democratic Senators as impediments to the “moral order” that they advocate. Is the Dem’s strategy to be assuaged by lies in hearings without even introducing what drives Barrett?
Linda someone should write a comparison/contrast between Barrett and Betsy . . . my point being that the differences are probably quite telling . . . especially where religious influences on one’s politics are concerned.
On the other hand, we can compare Biden or Pelosi, who are both long-time Catholics, to Barrett and/or Betsy and we will find that the differences of religious influence in their respective political spheres are almost polar opposites.
Does this give you a clue about . . . say . . . wrongheadedness of focus? CBK
Afterthought to Linda. Maybe you should ask Diane what the spectrum of political views are in Judaism? CBK
She claims to be an originalist. What better way to question her than on the administration’s abuse of the Constitution by citing specific examples where she would be hard pressed to frame an argument in support of the administration’s actions. If by tying herself in knots, she did manage to exonerate Trump and his cohort that would be equally telling. Like RBG, we want dissent on record.
cx: we want reasoned dissent of record.
Even the framers weren’t “originalists” or the other idiotic term “constitutionalists.” This is such a croc. There is abundant evidence that the framers were quite aware of their fallibility as well as not being clairvoyant. They created a living constitution–hence the amendment process–that would adjust to the times and be informed by history and experience. This has been reiterated by every competent student of American constitutional history since George Washington became president. Taken to its logical conclusion, an intellectually consistent “originalist” (the most moronic of oxymorons) would argue that there is no need for a judiciary since everything the framers wrote was self-evident and immutable. “Originalists” are the true radicals who will ignore the Constitution whenever it does not suit their needs.
That’s why, for example, any 2nd amendment fetishist cannot be taken seriously. Their intentional misreading of the amendment ignores the clause on “a well-regulated militia” because it is too inconvenient a fact that negates their extremist views. Anyone who claims to understand the 2nd amendment who knows nothing about the history and experience of the War of 1812 should be ignored. A. Scott Berg observed that Woodrow Wilson, the preeminent constitutional historian of his time understood this in 1902: “…he was utterly convinced that ‘the accumulation of arms, and the bearing of concealed weapon, may be forbidden constitutionally,’ because he believed the Second Amendment was less about private use of guns that the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, as stated in the amendment’s often overlooked opening clause.”
Linda,
You are absolutely right. It’s interesting to me because your skepticism of the Catholic Church (which I don’t always agree with) has made you be able to see evangelist Bill Smelvoe’s “advice” for what it is. You saw through the right wing propaganda.
Smelvoe describes being terrorized by the violence his father inflicted on him and his brothers in the name of religion. IMO, he still suffers from the after effects and deals with it by reframing.
I have seen this “Bill Smelvoe” advice posted elsewhere and I hate it. It is the kind of insidious right wing propaganda that so successfully gets inside our heads that every journalist and lots of moderates and progressives don’t even realize that they are being brainwashed.
The ideas about how the hearings should be conducted are fine. But that’s how right wing propaganda works — by presenting people with ideas that seem good.
But read carefully. This has two statements of “fact”. Those “facts” are indisputable. Those facts are as indisputable as “the earth isn’t flat” and “water is wet”. And everyone who read this essay has so internalized that those facts are indisputable that they don’t even notice them the way they wouldn’t notice if Bill Smelvoe wrote that water is wet.
Here are the “facts”:
Amy Barrett walks on water.
The People of Praise is not a cult. I’ve had half a dozen of their kids in my classes, including some men who heard about me from their female friends. Almost without fail, these have been among the best students I’ve ever had. Extremely bright. CAREFUL CRITICAL THINKERS. Wonderful writers.
This is so dangerous to democracy. Because everyone just loves a guy who basically said:
“Now that I’m done explaining the “facts” that we all agree are true since challenging those facts would be like challenging whether water is wet, I’ll present you with some reasonable ideas – which are reasonable because everyone already accepts the “facts” I set out in the beginning that we all agree are absolutely, positively, true.”
Bill Smelvoe — who is an evangelical professor — could have written the same “advice” without presenting as “fact” that Amy Barrett walks on water and the People of Praise church is so amazing that their students are almost without fail the most careful and critical thinkers of any students anywhere.
But he didn’t. Because he hopes we all start internalizing those “true facts”. And the fact that almost no one noticed them or challenged him on them gives those “facts” legitimacy. “Even progressives and democrats agree this is great”.
The right can’t govern and don’t care about governing. But they are great at making people believe things that aren’t true. They are great at making people internalize whatever nonsense helps them gain power. That is how they win.
NYC-
Your comment is well reasoned.
I understand the shock people experience when they learn it is not the evangelicals of the religious right who are the dominant threat. I was one who didn’t know. My first inkling was reading about the state Catholic Conferences which is the political arm of the bishops. My 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th opportunities to understand came from info. about the politicization of the Knights of Columbus (the largest lay organization in the world with billions of dollars in assets), the strategic plan of Steve Bannon, the mission of William Barr. and, the Paul Weyrich campaign funded by the Koch’s. If Americans fail or refuse to admit the source of power that is turning the nation backward, there is no reason to expect the trend to change.
People, who claim to value democracy, are in active denial if they aren’t outraged by Barr’s remarks of appreciation for his Catholic award received this month. The remarks are posted at the Justice Department site. He blames a litany of problems associated with poverty and racism on the “hollowing out” of religion. How convenient for billionaires, the Church, authoritarians and racists to have that excuse.
I read one sermon by Smelvoe- typical Godspeak babble.
btw- David Brooks has the same success with packaging for the unthinking that you describe.
Can you imagine the reaction if some bold progressive candidate in Florida said, “MS-13, Stand back and stand by”?
Or said to Amazon or Facebook, “Stand back and stand by”
Or said to China, “Stand back and stand by”
Or at the March on Washington and peaceful Black Lives Matters protests said to the mass crowds “Stand back and stand by”
The president and the silent fools on the hill would be all over it – castigating and asking for resignations or to drop out of the race.
It’s time for direct US Presidential and US Supreme Court Justices’ elections. 😁❗✔️🔔
The question that should be asked of Barrett, “Speculating about Leo Leonard, the man who got you the nomination (and got, Kavanaugh’s, Gorsuch’s and a slew of other conservative lawyers their judgeships), does he have 9 kids for the same reason
you have 9 kids?
Her answer is predictable, she will say she can’t speculate. The importance in asking the question is it lets the public know about Leonard Leo and, that both Barrett and Leo are religious fanatics hellbent on installing theocracy as a replacement for American democracy
Secondly, she should be asked to respond to a Jefferson quote about religion. It lets the public know that a founding father warned about the threat.
“Pope Francis declined to meet with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during his visit to Rome so as to avoid being used as a tool for Trump’s reelection….In an article earlier this month, Mr. Pompeo said the Catholic Church was risking its ‘moral authority’ by renewing an agreement with China regarding the appointment of bishops.”
Separation of church and state.
If the last Supreme Court appointment hearings for Justice Brett K-naugh are a guide, legislators should approach the coming hearings with umbrellas and earplugs for all the tears and shouting. It’s the age of Trump. Nothing is normal.
K-naughty or K-naught also. Or K-not studying but binge drinking beer. Ah, our mentally unstable three branches of government.
The significance of the Vatican’s rationale for Pope Francis not meeting with Pompeo- the Vatican believes (and, after 2016, they have substantiation) that Catholic leaders can get Trump elected.
Yet, there are commenters at this blog who claim that divergence of congregant opinion discounts what the Pope, with reason, believes to be true. And, those same commenters proffer that a rabbi in Israel or a Muslim cleric in the Middle East is an equivalent for the U.S.
Linda You are misreading my notes again. What is equivalent in any religious or atheist groups is a range of political positions from right to middle to left. These positions emerge in different cultures and in different times, but it’s generally the same range. CBK
Linda I have learned not to trust your unsupported claims. You say: “The significance of the Vatican’s rationale for Pope Francis not meeting with Pompeo- the Vatican believes (and, after 2016, they have substantiation) that Catholic leaders can get Trump elected.
What is your substantiation for what “the Vatican believes?” What exactly did Pope Francis say? CBK
**Here is what “the Vatican” said speaking for Pope Francis, said about Pompeo’s proposed visit:
SNIPS: “Pope Francis declined to meet US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during a visit to Rome over fears he would be used a tool in the 2020 presidential election.”
“The symposium went ahead regardless, with Gallagher and Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican secretary of state, attending instead. . .Parolin told Reuters that Pompeo explicitly asked to meet with Pope Francis ‘but the Pope had already said clearly that political figures are not received in election periods.'”
https://www.businessinsider.com/pope-francis-avoid-mike-pompeo-fearing-trump-campaign-election-tool-2020-10
From an earlier article: “The answer lies with Pompeo’s unsavory decision of late to act as Trump’s campaign surrogate, even in his official capacity — and it seems that decision may now be harming the administration’s ability to meet with foreign leaders.”
https://www.vox.com/2020/9/30/21495579/pope-francis-mike-pompeo-vatican-meeting
THEN THIS–Pompeo’s Payback
“But to some observers on both sides of the tensions between the Roman Catholic Church and the Trump administration, Mr. Pompeo’s visit is as much about the coming presidential election as about China policy. Mr. Pompeo dismissed that suggestion as absurd, but intended or not, his trip signals that President Trump is on the side of those conservative American Catholics who worry about the church’s direction under Francis and think he is soft on China.”
Sounds like great advice but I bet dems won’t follow it.
Americans voting for Trump will be swayed by the emoluments clause discussion held among experts who have J.D.’s. Ph.d.’s and masters degrees?
If the hearings go in that direction, the public will never know there was a moment in time when their representatives could have talked about the people’s personal losses- men and women’s reproductive rights, their communities’ money intended for schools diverted to religions, the loss of their civil rights protections,…
Linda Do you really think the American people won’t hear about such losses? Are you kidding me? Guess what: The sky isn’t falling! The sky isn’t falling! if we don’t given Supreme Court judges religious tests or focus on Barrett’s religion. CBK
In a single year – Biel, Little Sisters of the Poor and Espinosa, for which Barr deservedly received a Catholic award.
Leonard Leo- deserving recipient of the 2018 Benedict Leadership award. The conferring organization “was founded in 2016 to develop and inspire Catholic leaders to transform society in light of their faith.” Leo has transformed the U.S. through judge appointments in America’s civil courts.
Mum’s the word. Shhhhh. It’s not significant.
The NYT wrote about Pompeo and Pope Francis – fake news.
Linda “Mum’s the word. Shhhhh. It’s not significant.”
You are talking to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution?
But see my note on the Federalist Society anyway. The problem there, as I understand it, is that they are tacitly and, in preliminary fashion, running their selections through what looks very much like a religious test
. . . . unless we all think it’s just a coincidence that most, indeed, hail from a Catholic background. It’s just a small but profound step for the Society to prescribe that no one else, from any other religious background, can be on the list or be a high-quality legal scholar . . . and, by that alone, be qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. CBK
Religious leaders are not to transform society “in light of their faith”. Take faith and other ideology out of mass transformations, pls.
It is worth watching Al Franken asking questions of Judge Barrett during her confirmation hearing 3 years ago. Al Franken could not have asked those questions if he had stipulated that Judge Barrett “walked on water”. She does not.
Some of this advice about what to ask Judge Barrett is sound.
However, I can’t think of anything more harmful than if the Democrats – even before hearings begin – stipulate to the totally false narrative the Judge Barrett “walks on water”.
She does not. It was incredible watching her with Sen. Franken weasel out of talking about the money she took from a group that the Southern Poverty Law Center designated as a hate group when Al Franken asked her about it. And that was before much was known about her church. The very church that supposedly turns out the most brilliant, critical thinking students. The democrats are “advised” to stipulate to that, too. Why should they stipulate that right wing propaganda is true?
Judge Barrett does not “walk on water”. And any “helpful” advice from someone demanding that Democrats stipulate that is true rings false to me.
All of these questions are fine after it is made clear that in no way does Judge Barrett “walk on water”.
Once you stipulate that the witness “walks on water”, that witness can answer any question in any way and it doesn’t matter.
I don’t know where you get the idea that anyone is stipulating that Barrett walks on water. The idea is that because conservatives are impressed by her conservative credentials, attacking her from that viewpoint does nothing to enlighten that constituency as to how her position influences case law. I couldn’t care less if she “walks on water” or not. That is not the issue. The issue is how she is likely to rule and how she can square that with Constitutional law, using Trump’s actual disregard for that law to essentially question Trump’s fitness. For someone who is expected to dance to Trump’s tune, those questions should prove interesting. She is going to have trouble continuing to “walk on water” if she acts as a shill for Trump.
Describe the consequences Barrett will suffer from the “trouble”.
Clarence Thomas and his wife seem to be doing fine – didn’t Ginny get $600,000 from the Koch’s which Clarence neglected to write on the ethics form?
You might try quoting the whole thought–’She is going to have trouble continuing to “walk on water” if she acts as a shill for Trump.’
Her halo is going to be tarnished. Will she suffer visible consequences? Probably not, although losing the respect of some of the people who have venerated you is not nothing to most people, but we frequently don’t get to revel in someone else’s comeuppance. I imagine there will be no more visible effect on her than your insistence that the Democrats play the religion card would have.
speduktr I felt the “walk on water” thing sort of came out of left field; however, if it comes to that, and if Barrett gets the position and does NOT recuse herself, we’ll need to ask no more questions of her . . . done deal. CBK
speduktr,
Ask yourself why the author began with an assumption that everyone in the entire universe agrees that Judge Barrett walks on water so there is no reason to do anything to challenge that, because it is absolutely impossible and it is very important to him that no questions be asked that might challenge that she walks on water.
Basically, the democrats are being advised to treat her just like they did when they asked questions of the “walks on water” William Barr.
What he should have advised is that democrats first challenge the absolutely false narrative that this judge walks on water and show how biased she has been and how she is very close to hate groups and that very odd childcare arrangement she has.
Can you imagine if someone was giving debate advice to Bernie Sanders in the primary about how to debate Joe Biden, and it started “everyone agrees Joe Biden walks on water” so just ask him about policy. See a problem there?
He doesn’t say that everyone in the universe thinks she is wonderful. A little hyperbole there? All he is saying is that an attack on her character or her religious belief is not the most productive way to pin her wings. You cannot use religion as a reason to deny someone a position on the Court. The approach he suggests avoids even the appearance of religious bigotry and puts her on the spot. I would love to hear her answers to his questions.
You can’t talk about religion?
There have been Supreme Court Justices who were Jewish and who were Catholic.
Can you imagine if a president nominated a dedicated follower of Satmar Judiasm a sect that refused to follow social distancing rules, didn’t vaccinate their children, and took over upstate communities and ruined their public schools? Read about Kiryas Joel.
The idea that any questions about that person’s “personal life” is off limits because that children who follow that religion – almost without fail – are among the brightest and most careful and critical thinkers of students anywhere! — is absurd. It would have nothing to do with bias against Judiasm. It would be about looking carefully at a nominee who followed a unusual branch of that religion that demanded certain beliefs of its adherents that could great impact that person’s ability to be an impartial judge of SECULAR law.
I would never want a Justice who was a serious disciple of Satmar Judiasm, but that doesn’t make me an anti-Semite. It makes me a patriotic American who believes in separation of church and state.
There is a reason she has been scrubbed from the Church of Praise’ website, and that their entire website has been scrubbed.
And this man is giving the helpful advice that the Democrats should help him stipulate as fact that Amy Barrett’s church is as perfect as she is. It’s hard to know which is more perfect. But, he says, feel free to ask her judicial opinions.
If someone did that with a Supreme Court nominee who was follower of Satmar Judaism — stipulating that the person walked on water and Satmar Judaism was only notable as a religion because the children who attended their synagogues were – almost without fail – the most careful and critical thinkers of any students anywhere, you might notice that the person is extremely, extremely biased and clearly pushing the right wing narrative that is not true.
“And this man is giving the helpful advice that the Democrats should help him stipulate as fact that Amy Barrett’s church is as perfect as she is. It’s hard to know which is more perfect. But, he says, feel free to ask her judicial opinions.”
He doesn’t ask you to stipulate anything. He tells you about his own experience and recommends that you be well prepared to query her on things that Trump and his administration have done that break the law.
speduktr says: “He doesn’t say that everyone in the universe thinks she is wonderful. A little hyperbole there?”
I quote: “BY ALL ACCOUNTS Barrett walks on water.”
And I’m the one using a little hyperbole? Maybe you should be asking why this writer is using “a little hyperbole”.
Caveat emptor.
“Walking on water”
Trump put the halo on Barrett’s university, Notre Dame, and he dissed Joe Biden’s. Trump’s not alone, N.D. faculty claimed they had research to back the premise that students at Catholic schools have better character traits.
Notre Dame’s president is like Jerry Falwell who similarly implemented one policy for his institution and a different one for himself. N.D.’s President went to a D.C. event for Barrett wearing no mask, practicing no social distancing and he shook hands with other attendees.
A media outlet in South Bend asked the N.D. President to grow a conscience. The President cared so little about the risk to the school’s football players that he sought out a league to assure a full schedule of games when the school’s current schedule lost games due to Covid.
“By all accounts Barrett walks on water. I’ve had that in a roundabout way from people I know at Notre Dame, including from folks as liberal as me, who actually look forward to seeing her on the court.”
This was a huge red flag to me.
I heard the same thing about William Barr. People on both sides of the aisle adored him, I was told. Don’t even try to attack his upright and honest character. Only it turned out it wasn’t true at all.
That is a revealing way to characterize Barrett. Here is another way he could have said it:
“The conservative folks at Notre Dame think very highly of her, and I even know a few who aren’t Christian Right who look forward to seeing her on the court. So they may not like seeing some of the choices that she has made in her life attacked — like taking money from that group that the SPLC designated a hate group. But it would certainly be informative for the American pubic to understand exactly what kind of person Amy Barrett is and not assume that she walks on water just because the very conservative folks at Notre Dame think she does.”
This writer does not want to go anywhere near Judge Barrett’s character. Maybe that is because he knows there is something to hide. I still want to know about the “aunt” who spent at least 16 years providing full time childcare for 7 children, including one with special needs. She wasn’t even mentioned in Judge Barrett’s speech when she accepted President Trump’s nomination. Just a reference to “babysitters”.
The bottom line is that the character of any person that William Barr and Donald Trump handpick should be closely examined. Doing what this writer suggests does not mean that she should not also be questioned about the choices she made to take far right positions far out of the mainstream.
Are you kidding me? So now you are going to go after a working woman for farming her children out to babysitters?! And just how does that inform us about her performance as a judge? I would like to know more about her as a person as well, but there is no legitimate reason for bringing up her childcare arrangements at the judicial hearings. I’m sure there are plenty of journalists digging into her private life.
Are you kidding me? We already know about her performance as a judge. She was handpicked by William Barr and Donald Trump to fill a Supreme Court seat that President Trump made clear many times – including at the debate – he expected to decide the election. She should certainly be asked about all the things that Bill Svelmoe mentioned. And she SHOULD also be asked the kind of question that Senator Al Franken asked her at her first confirmation hearing 3 years ago. About associations with organizations the SPLC calls hate groups.
Please explain why women who are democrats have their childcare arrangements questioned and not women who are republicans? It is what it is and it’s an easy question to answer, right?
The judicial hearings are to vet a candidate on their qualifications to be a Justice. The questions you want them to ask are questions more appropriately dealt with by the media. Showing how her rulings could violate clear provisions in the Constitution are going to illuminate how she will act on the Court. Her childcare arrangements, past and present, tell me nothing relevant to her role on the Court. Now if the Republicans bring up personal information to buoy her “walk on water” sainthood, then a lot more becomes fair game. I just don’t see what we gain by using a personal attack as the main avenue of questioning. You may think you know enough about her judicial record, but that is what the judicial review is meant to illuminate. I don’t think most people know who she is as a judge other than the sound bites that everyone recites depending on their own views. I want to hear more than cherry-picked soundbites.
So we should take the advice of someone who went to EXTREME lengths to emphasize two facts that he tells us are so absolute that there is no point wasting any time challenging them:
Amy Barrett walks on water. Amy Barrett’s church is only notable because the children who attend become – almost without fail – some of the best students ever, extremely bright and careful critical thinkers.
Once the Senate takes his “advice”, and stipulates that the above narrative is so true that any questions that challenge it are off-limits, he gives Senators “advice” about questions that he has decided are fine to ask.
He’s doing it for the democrats! He’s “helping” by telling Democrats there is no point in challenging Judge Barrett’s integrity because, well, because she walks on water! Before asking any questions, he wants the Democrats to stipulate to Judge Barrett and her church’s absolute perfection.
And I have a bridge to sell you.
We are obviously not going to agree. From my armchair, you appear to be making inferences from his article that assume the worst possible conclusions. I see a man who was highly impressed by the quality of the students he taught who belonged to this group. So what?! It’s useful information to know when dealing with people whose ideas are radically different than yours. She presents herself well and knows her stuff. Now, he says, here’s how to make her stumble.
He says “here is what you should not talk about at all”.
There was no reason to include an utterly gratuitous “fact” testifying to the “fact” that Judge Barrett walks on water, and that virtually all students who were raised in that church come out as fantastic critical thinkers.
Well, there was a reason. To make sure that democrats “know” that challenging her character must never, ever be done under any circumstances.
Do YOU believe her character is above reproach? You think Trump and Barr would choose someone who isn’t signaling she will do what they want?
caveat emptor
From my point of view, you are putting words in his mouth. This is your interpretation of what he is saying. We will have to agree to disagree.
NYC
The “we’re blessed” gratitude didn’t extend to Barrett’s aunt.
William Barr talks about restoring the nation in terms of correcting the “hollowing out of religion”. How hollow are the religious who need doses of religion in order to prevent them from exploiting and from lacking empathy. Are Barrett and Barr, the examples?
I just learned that Barrett graduated from Rhodes College, here in Memphis.
This video explains the nominee with good sense humor
Now that video was very informative. Thank you, Máté.
This video normalized her. She is just a normal judge, except for conservative views.
Just like candidate Donald Trump was a normal candidate, except for being more uncouth and rude than other candidates in the past.
How did that work out?
In the end, the problem with President Trump is character. Every action he takes serves only one purpose — his own interests.
We knew what policies he supported, we just didn’t realize what he really supported was putting his own interests over those of the country.
It is interesting to me how many Republican women recognize that Judge Barrett is not just a normal working mom with a high power career.
Well, I think the video summarizes the main issues very well, starting with the scariest one that whomever is confirmed to the Supreme Court will be there for decades. In the beginning of the video we learn that Notre Dame law school, with the leadership of Reagan’s John Garvey, has been producing conservative lawyers/judges on purpose for a long time so that these graduates will end up overturning abortion rights and bring religion to the forefront in politics. The video also ridicules the so called originalist view of the Constitution.
The video puts in the correct amount of emotions not to alienate the audience and hence be willing to watch the whole 5 minutes. The video is made to educate and not to please the already converted.
Well said.
Anyhow, you may then prefer John Oliver’s take on the whole issue
I am here to please. 🙂
Right on! although I object to the sexist “mule piss” imagery. 🙂
Trump was never a normal candidate. He had absolutely no experience that qualified him to be President. Barrett is experienced.
“Barrett is experienced.”
“William Barr is experienced”.
Exactly. It isn’t their experience that is in doubt. It is their character.
That wasn’t the point of the comment, and you know it. The comment was made after your Trump remark: “Just like candidate Donald Trump was a normal candidate,…”
I actually don’t understand your point, except that for some reason you believe I am posting something so radical that you need to keep saying I’m wrong without actually explaining why.
Barrett is like William Barr. We are supposed to accept without question that “everyone” (i.e. everyone who matters) knows without a doubt that she is above reproach. But it wasn’t true with Barr and there is no reason to stipulate that it is true about Barrett. In what universe would Trump and Barr nominate a justice of the highest character?
I can’t figure out what you are objecting to. Do you agree with me or not that this writer demonstrates quite a lot of pro-Barrett and pro- People of Praise bias in his characterizations of Barret and People of Praise? Even most progressives who like Bernie Sanders or moderates who like Joe Biden don’t start off essays by throwing out “By all accounts, they walk on water.” It should be a red flag signaling that the rest of the essay should be taken with a very large grain of salt.
“I can’t figure out what you are objecting to. Do you agree with me or not that this writer demonstrates quite a lot of pro-Barrett and pro- People of Praise bias in his characterizations of Barret and People of Praise?”
No, I don’t. To me he is saying that her colleagues and associates see her this way, so the better way to trip her up is highlighting matters that are clearly abuses of the law and see what she says about them. She doesn’t have a bunch of rich donors telling her what to do, so she has no legitimate reason not torespond to his questions. Her answers will be illuminating.
Nor do I see Barrett and Barr as birds of a feather. While I am in no way in favor of Barrett’s nomination, she has yet to prove herself capable of twisting herself into a pretzel, like Barr, to support Trump. I dislike intensely how I suspect she will rule, but I don’t think she is corrupt, at least at this point. Barr is.
??
He is saying his colleagues see her this way and HE AGREES, as he made clear by his certifying that all his students who attended People of Praise are amazing critical thinkers!
Think about how we are falling for this man who apparently claims to know all the houses of worship all of his students attend, and thus when he notes his top students all come from the same church, that gives him all the evidence he needs to tell the rest of us that all questioning of the church is off-limits.
Do YOU have any idea what houses of worship most of your students attend? Do you note that all the students who worship at a certain church are especially outstanding students? What kind of person does that? And why is everyone trusting this person’s helpful “advice”? Because he is really good at connecting the religions of his students with their academic performance?
Think about it. You aren’t alone in falling for this attempt to stop ANY look whatsoever into that church and into Barrett’s character.
And no one is saying “attack the church” — that’s also right wing propaganda. That is exactly what the Satmar Judaism followers said whenever anyone questioned them and why they were allowed to get away with it for so long. “You are attacking us”.
There is a huge difference between questioning and attacking. This writer wants no questions about the things that Amy Barrett is most vulnerable on. And he’d be more trustworthy if he didn’t begin by pushing the exact same false narrative the far right who want Barrett confirmed is pushing.
I think this reveals your biases:
“Nor do I see Barrett and Barr as birds of a feather. While I am in no way in favor of Barrett’s nomination, she has yet to prove herself capable of twisting herself into a pretzel, like Barr, to support Trump. I dislike intensely how I suspect she will rule, but I don’t think she is corrupt, at least at this point. Barr is”
Any appointee of Barr should be assumed to be corrupt, and asked questions to make certain that she is not. The idea that she should get the benefit of doubt and just be asked questions that allow her to twist words is nonsense.
If Judge Barrett commits perjury, she can be removed from the bench. She can’t commit perjury if the Senators are forbidden to ask her any questions except ones that allow her to answer the way Barr does. That is why this man is desperate to stop any questions that force Barrett to admit to things she doesn’t want to acknowledge. I don’t think she will commit perjury. I don’t think she wants to commit perjury. But she and her supporters also desperately don’t want her to be asked certain kinds of questions which means those are exactly the questions she needs to be asked, ALONG with the other questions about policy. Forbidding certain kinds of questions by pushing the lie that they are “attacking her religion” is just as outrageous and disingenuous as when the Satmar Jews said it.
If you substitute “Satmar Judaism” for “People of Praise”, the advice here might be taken with more skepticism.
Imagine this advice if the nominee was a dedicated follower of Satmar Judaism. Imagine the advice begins with “this nominee walks on water” and “Satmar Judaism should not be discussed because I certify that the students who are followers of Satmar Judaism are, almost without fail, some of the best students ever, extremely bright and careful critical thinkers.”
That would be a clear reveal that the person was extremely biased toward the nominee and her religion.
NYCpublic So you would agree with the advice EXCEPT for that first paragraph? CBK
The Senators should FIRST examine her character, the way that Sen. Al Franken did during her first confirmation hearings. I would put her character on trial, because she was specifically chosen by two of the men — Trump and Barr — who want people who serve their interests.
The Senators should ask the questions that are advised here, but only as part of establishing that her character is suspect to begin with because an absolutely UNTRUSTWORTHY president who has continually cited that he wants the decision made in the Supreme Court has nominated her. And an absolutely UNTRUSTWORTHY Attorney General Barr recommended her.
It’s up to her to prove that she isn’t their sycophant. It’s up to her to prove she is trustworthy.
This writer begins with demanding the Senate stipulate that she walks on water and that the church she attends churns out the smartest students, who are, almost without fail, the most careful and critical thinkers!! Don’t you dare ask any questions about that, he says, because Judge Barrett’s integrity and the wonderfulness of her church are beyond reproach! Say what??!!
I don’t trust him. So I wonder at his so-called “advice”. The Senate should do exactly the opposite and instead of stipulating to the false narrative this writer demands they stipulate to, they should ask questions about it, and then follow up with those other questions this writer suggests, pointing out how her answers to those other questions are not trustworthy if she isn’t forthcoming about her own life.
I seem to remember Joe Lieberman getting some pushback when he ran for president for being an Orthodox Jew. I guess people were worried that he wouldn’t do any work on the sabbath.
Imagine this advice if the nominee was a dedicated follower of ________. Imagine the advice begins with “this nominee walks on water” and “________ should not be discussed because I certify that the students who are followers of _________ are, almost without fail, some of the best students ever, extremely bright and careful critical thinkers.”
Sounds like the beginning of a Mad Libs. What do you hope to gain except the satisfaction of displaying your dislike of her beliefs? Not that any approach is going to sway the position of Republicans who have sold their souls to their donors.
Again, you are equating Orthodox Judaism with Satmar Judaism, which is like equating a traditional Catholic Church with People of Praise.
I don’t know why democrats are so anxious to take advice from those who want us all to believe that the most important characteristic to know about the People of Praise Church is that the children who worship there are virtually all smart and careful critical thinkers.
I hear this way worked really well with William Barr. Aren’t we glad such a man of integrity is in office?
“Again, you are equating Orthodox Judaism with Satmar Judaism, which is like equating a traditional Catholic Church with People of Praise.”
No, I am not. I think using Satmar Judaism as an equivalent of the conservative Catholic sect was out of line. Again, we will have to agree to disagree. I would appreciate it if you would stop telling me what I believe and stick to what you believe.
I think it is far more out of line to compare the Orthodox Judaism practiced by Joe Lieberman to People of Praise. Wow, just wow.
Guys, you have been arguing over the character, expertise, logic of deeply committed ideologues. These people are crazy, mad, and that’s their main flaw, this is why their character is skewed,this is why they become experts in disguising their true intentions and this is why their logic is fatally flawed. In their minds, there is nothing more important than to fulfill the goals of their ideology, and logic, law, character don’t matter to them one bit. It doesn’t matter that some appear smart and even personable like Barrett and others are weak thinkers and withered like DeVos.
No, the important thing is that they are mad and the only way to prevent these people from causing devastation is to expose, as early as possible, their madness in how they are willing to sacrifice anything to act according to their ideology. As Feinstein told Barrett “The Dogma lives deep within you”.
Of course, triggering the madness in these people may not work since people often mistake madness for passion, doggedness to sacred energy and allow these people to rise in the ranks till they become judges, cabinet members presidents or even Fürer.
Since I am the one pointing out the absurdity of attacking candidates solely on the basis of their religious beliefs, you know very well I used Lieberman as another example of the prejudicial use of religious belief to disqualify a candidate. We don’t agree. There is no need to twist my words to make your point.
^^In other words, I suggest you take a look at the modern Orthodox synagogue that Lieberman belonged to where his daughter was bat mitzvahed — the Westville Synagogue in New Haven, CT .
Modern Orthodox Judaism is like a traditional Catholic Church. Not like People of Praise.
Mate,
I agree with you! I just think that some of the reason they can disguise it is that they are enabled to disguise it as they rarely get challenged on it. Their ideology is mischaracterized as having such strong principles and integrity that they “walk on water”. And I thought the hidden purpose of this “advice” to Democrats was to reinforce the false right wing propaganda that both Judge Barrett and People of Praise are beyond reproach, and scare democrats from making any effort whatsoever during the hearings to demonstrate that neither of them are beyond reproach.