Ruth Marcus, a writer for the Washington Post, writes that Amy Coney Barrett says she holds the same judicial philosophy as her mentor Justice Antonin Scalia. In this column, she explores Scalia’s legacy.
The best way to predict how Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett would behave as a justice is to listen to her — and take her words seriously. She hasn’t been mysterious about it: Speaking in the Rose Garden after President Trump announced his selection, Barrett invoked the “incalculable influence” of her “mentor,” Justice Antonin Scalia, adding: “His judicial philosophy is mine, too — a judge must apply the law as written.”
We can, and should, examine Barrett’s record, on the bench and in academia. So Barrett’s decision to sign a newspaper advertisement in 2006 that decried the “barbaric legacy” of Roe v. Wade is instructive — if any more were needed to deduce her inclinations on that case. “You don’t know her view on Roe v. Wade,” Trump lectured Democratic nominee Joe Biden at Tuesday’s debate. “You don’t know her view.”
Oh, please. This from someone who vowed, during a debate with Hillary Clinton four years ago, that overturning Roe “will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court.”
But let’s imagine there’s still some uncertainty here. One way to examine how a Justice Barrett will rule is to examine the jurisprudence of Scalia, for whom she clerked in 1998 and 1999. The late justice repeatedly — and scathingly — made clear that he did not believe in any constitutional protection for abortion rights, and that the court was being cowardly by refusing to fix its error.
In 1989, when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor argued that “a fundamental rule of judicial restraint” required the court to avoid reconsidering Roe, Scalia was dismissive: That position, he said, “cannot be taken seriously.” Three years later, in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey, when O’Connor and a court plurality reaffirmed the essence of Roe, Scalia said the issue “is not whether the power of a woman to abort her unborn child is a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense; or even whether it is a liberty of great importance to many women. Of course, it is both. The issue is whether it is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure it is not.”
It is fair, given Barrett’s comments, to ask the nominee: Would a Justice Barrett agree? Is she sure, too?
Barrett’s alignment with Scalia has implications far beyond Roe.
Start with gay rights. Scalia issued a ferocious dissent in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, when the court overruled its 1986 holding that states could criminalize homosexual conduct. “The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are immoral and unacceptable . . . the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity,” Scalia wrote.
He lambasted the ruling as “the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”
A dozen years later, in Obergefell v. Hodges, when the court majority took the step that Scalia had forecast and ruled that the Constitution protects the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, Scalia was even more dismissive. “I write separately,” he observed, “to call attention to this court’s threat to American democracy.” He termed the ruling “a naked judicial claim to legislative — indeed, super-legislative — power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government,” adding, “A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”
Would a Justice Barrett agree? Do states have an interest in making homosexual conduct criminal? Was Obergefell a threat to democracy?
Then there’s Scalia on gender discrimination. When the court in 1996 ruled that Virginia Military Institute’s male-only admission policy violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, Scalia was the sole dissenter from Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinion for the majority. The court, Scalia wrote, “enshrines the notion that no substantial educational value is to be served by an all men’s military academy — so that the decision by the people of Virginia to maintain such an institution denies equal protection to women who cannot attend that institution but can attend others. Since it is entirely clear that the Constitution of the United States — the old one — takes no sides in this educational debate, I dissent.”
Would a Justice Barrett agree? Does the constitutional guarantee of equal protection not apply here? Or Scalia on affirmative action in higher education. In 2003’s Grutter v. Bollinger, when the court narrowly upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s policy that used race as a factor in admissions, Scalia, dissenting, called the approach “a sham to cover a scheme of racially proportionate admissions” — one not permitted by the Constitution. In a 2014 case, he criticized the court’s “sorry line of race-based admissions decisions.”
Would a Justice Barrett agree? Is this impermissible race discrimination? One thing that’s striking about all four of these areas is that Scalia was in dissent. One thing senators should explore — and that the public should weigh — is what could happen now, when the court’s conservative composition means that his former clerk could translate his angry dissents into controlling law.
Barretting False Witness
The Pope is not God
Nor does he bespeak
To give him the nod:
Short shrift to the meek
But Barrett sure acts
Like Pope is the King
Who gives us the facts
The Truth of a thing
In 2019, Pope Francis said abortion, even of a sick fetus is like “hiring a hitman”
And that’s just the latest Pope.
The posted Marcus excerpts never once mentioned the spring that Scalia and Barrett (and, Barr) credit for their intolerance, the Catholic Church.
It’s sad for America that Jefferson was willing to take on the despot-aligned churches but, the media, politicians, Dems, public school supporters, fighters against income disparity, etc. are unwilling to do the same.
High visibility Fox anchors are overwhelmingly Catholic. Fox anchors use the word “hate” 5 times as often as their main competitors (Daily Beast report about recent research). They claim the haters are media, liberals, and Democrats and the target is Christians. The response from the left and, the “thinking” right- nothing.
Would it be too much to ask that the Catholic hierarchy when it promotes the GOP and refers to Biden as not being a Catholic, to at least, tell their congregants that Fox is wrong when they say the Left hates Christians? Or, is filling their coffers with libertarian money more important than uniting the nation and preserving democracy?
Protection of “life” supposedly means so much to those who surround Trump and implement his religious policies. Odd that, the current list of Covid sufferers linked to the WH are of the Catholic faith and wore no life-saving masks.
Father Oscar Romero would NEVER celebrate Mass for any of them. Let’s not even allow them to be called “Catholics”. They hide behind labels like “Catholic”, “Conservative” and “Christian” to carry out their deathly agenda.
That’s because Marcus is another Washington tool. Clutches her pearls while spewing selective sophistry. She loves her “access” and exclusive shindigs with other tool insiders.
Greg- good to know.
The Intercept has an article about a new ad buy in Texas
for Rep. Michael McCaul (R). Intercept reports the ad features an anti- BLM policeman. Dallas Jesuit has a page at its site showing a photo of McCaul standing in front of what could be a stock photo for “good ole boy” southern cops.
We should be telling the story of who recruited her years ago and how that process worked over time to get her to where she is today. “CONSERVATIVE” she isn’t.
POLITICO.COM
In 1994, a group of professors at the University of Notre Dame first recognized the potential of a first-year law student and began paving the way for her career as a conservative jurist: collaborating on scholarship, helping her land a Supreme Court clerkship and later recruiting her to the law school’s faculty.
Her ascension would be a coup for Catholic culture warriors 25 years in the making and a high point in the right’s decades-long project of reshaping the judiciary.
She was kind of the Manchurian candidate,” said one former colleague at Notre Dame Law School. “She’s been groomed for this moment all the way along.”
She is a religious extremist masquerading as a “Constitutional Originalist”, which is why I entitled my above ditty “Barretting False Witness”
Note to Amy: Thou shalt not bear false witness is one of the ten Commandments.
Why wasn’t any of her family wearing masks during her White House event?
Does her worldview include believing that scientists have been lying about masks?
Does her worldview include doing what makes President Trump happy?
She doesn’t believe the scientists have been “lying”. She knows the value of masks even though she has refused to wear one. She has contracted Coronavirus and so has her husband. Perhaps their children as well. Not wearing a mask is her ideological statement to the world. She is a Manchurian candidate and she does the bidding of her handlers because doing so has elevated her to this current, undeserved position. Take a look at who the Mask-Less are infecting and killing and the reason will be pretty obvious. It is deliberate “bungling” chaos and death serving a “Greater Purpose”.
well said
If she is sending an ideological statement about not wearing a mask, then she should be grilled about the statement she was making at her Supreme Court hearings.
Why did she choose to follow the orders of the White House over science?
Anyone still believe she “walks on water”??
It isn’t only her family that was not wearing a mask. I just saw a photo of the quite large audience that attended the Rose garden event in which Barrett was picked by Trump to be a Supreme Court Justice.
People were sitting next to each other and hardly anyone was wearing a mask. This must be the behavior that is a model for us commoners to follow. /s
There is a reason Trump got COVID-19…and it isn’t his being careful.
Is there karma?
an essential argument to be made here: as a person willing to take on a Supreme Court Justice seat in the effort to protect and serve all US citizens, what did her cavalier response to the pandemic — not demanding masks or social distancing at her nomination, and subsequently visiting with legislators and bigwigs where masks were not worn — say to the nation?
Her not wearing a mask signaled that her loyalty is to Trump. There was absolutely no other reason for her to do that, unless she wants to argue that she knows better than the scientists. Which means that if she decides to make birth control illegal because life begins when she decides it begins and not science, she will do that. Once a judge has no morals except serving the desires of those she decides are worth serving, they should not be judges.
I couldn’t believe anyone fell for the “she walks on water so don’t dare challenge this upright and honorable woman on anything but her interpretation of the law”. Those people were protecting her because she did not want to have to answer certain types of questions that she knew would make her character look bad.
Like “why did you choose to bring your entire family to a crowded event without wearing masks? Did you do that because you knew the President doesn’t like to see masks, or was it because you didn’t care whether they exposed anyone or were exposed themselves because you believed IN YOUR JUDGEMENT that you knew more than scientists and doctors?”
The President of Barretts alma mater , Notre Dame also did not wear a mask at her unmasking ceremony.
And he has also contracted The Hoax (TM)
This after telling his students they should all wear masks and adhere to strict six foot social distancing when they have premarital sex with one another.
Students at Notre Dame are quite angry at his hypocrisy. He has apologized. But I have yet to hear him explain WHY he did it.
“I did it for President Trump” is not a good look, either for a university president or a Supreme Court nominee.
kathyirwin1 Thank you for identifying the “right” and not the general term “Catholic” as the source of a “decades long project to reshape the judiciary” and for recognizing being “cultural warriors.”
“Her ascension would be a coup for Catholic culture warriors 25 years in the making and a high point in the right’s decades-long project of reshaping the judiciary.”
That the Catholic left may have been distracted or politically asleep does not excuse them; but it doesn’t mean they capitulated to become “Catholic pod people” as Linda seems to think of all Catholics. The present Pope Francis is immersed in that same power tension. CBK
Catherine King: Pope Francis wants to reform capitalism. Laying out his vision for a post-pandemic world, his new encyclical criticizes free-market capitalism and advocates for migrant rights and a more communal society. The pandemic, he wrote, has shown that “not everything can be resolved by market freedom.”
carolmalaysia The Pope has his hands full. CBK
If Pope Francis really want to make a huge and almost immediate difference in the amount of poverty and suffering in the world, he would denounce the Church’s idiotic ban on artificial birth control.
That would be simple and would not require any change to capitalism, which is going to be resisted tooth and nail.
SomeDAM I don’t pretend to know Pope Frances’ mind or the details of his present political situation; but my liberal-minded guess is he is working along as fast as he can under the circumstances.
Things aren’t changing as fast as WE might like, but they are changing, and I think he is a vanguard of its right direction. And then there is some sense that, in the longer view, history takes care of itself. CBK
Does Barrett want to make abortion and gay marriage illegal through a federal law that affects the entire nation or allow each state to decide?
If she does and the conservative majority votes with her, that goes against the 10th Amendment that was passed by the founders in Congress September 25, 1789.
The 10th Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Therefore, if the US Constitution says nothing about abortion or gay marriage, then that issue must be decided at the state level, not by the federal government and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Jurist.org says “There is No Constitutional Right to Marriage … Of Any Kind.”
https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2014/10/richard-kelsey-samesex-marriage/
If the Jurist is correct, then the federal government, U.S. Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court cannot make it illegal for the entire country. All they can do is refer that issue back to the states to decide on a state by state basis.
The same applies to abortion.
That means if the U.S. Constitution says nothing about abortion or marriage rights, then the federal government has no choice but to defer to the states.
And 37 states already have laws that legalize gay marriage.
https://www.governing.com/gov-data/same-sex-marriage-civil-unions-doma-laws-by-state.html
And, only a small number of states have adopted anti-abortion laws.
https://www.governing.com/gov-data/same-sex-marriage-civil-unions-doma-laws-by-state.html
If Barrett and the other five conservative justices vote to make abortion and gay marriage illegal in the United States, all it will take is both Houses of Congress to pass laws giving the states the right to decide and strip the power from the federal government making that U.S. Supreme Court decision moot.
Then there would be court cases that would challenge that legislation.
This is another reason why voting on November 3rd is so important. Vote to not only get rid of Trump but also take the majority away from the GOP in the US Senate by the widest possible margin and add more Democratic seats in the House.
A Democrat in the White House with a strong Democratic majority in both houses of Congress could pass legislation that would void any decisions the U.S. Supreme Court makes on these issues. The same president and Congress could also add four more seats to the U.S. Supreme Court to turn the conservatives into a minority.
The problem is that leaving the decision up to the states will inevitably lead to some states outlawing abortion entirely.
While some states will continue to allow it, that’s small consolation for the poor women living in the medieval coat hanger abortion states who don’t have the money to go out of state for the procedure.
Lloyd “If the Jurist is correct, then the federal government, U.S. Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court cannot make it illegal for the entire country. All they can do is refer that issue back to the states to decide on a state by state basis.”
. . . or to “the people.” But this is, in part, the reason why ALEC and other right-wingers, religious totalitarians, and neo-liberals are worming their way into State legislatures. CBK
Amy Barrett is 48 years old. Her youngest child, born with Downs Syndrome, is 8.
Did she and her husband, after the birth of a special needs child, decide birth control for themselves was advisable?
Linda: According to the Catholic church, it is a mortal sin to use birth control. If you die with a mortal sin you will go to hell and never see God. If she is a practicing Catholic, she wouldn’t use it.
However, most Catholic women do not follow the “natural birth control method” approved by the church because it doesn’t work.
Most Catholics are not extremists like Barrett.
She’s a relic of a Church that once burned anyone who did not follow the letter of the Pope’s edicts.
A “relic” that will have a long life on the bench of the highest court in the land (a nation founded on democratic principles).
The majority of Americans want the next president to select the justice. If Barrett believed in democracy, she would withdraw her name from nomination.
Catholic school graduate and parent, Penn. Sen. Toomey (R) who promotes school choice will confirm Barrett, which will please his church’s hierarchy. But, Daily Beast reports he’s not going to run for re-election in 2022 nor run for governor. Too bad Toomey didn’t lose his election before the K-naugh, Gorsuch and Barrett hearings and Trump’s takeover of the party.
From MOTHER JONES:
But last week, more than 1,500 people who describe themselves as “proud Memphis,TN Rhodes College alumni” sent a strong letter of protest to college president, Marjorie Hass, outlining their concerns about Barrett’s nomination. The three-page letter frames their objections to Barrett’s record and the way her nomination has been handled as being “diametrically opposed to the values of truth, loyalty, and service” that are emblazoned on the college seal.
“Despite the respect that many of us hold for her intellect, and even the friendship that may of us held or continue to hold with her, we are firmly and passionately opposed to her nomination,” the letter states.
In the category of “Truth,” the authors express concern about her obfuscation “when it was convenient for the advancement of her judicial career, about issues central to the personal autonomy of Rhodes alumni. This is particularly true of issues related to Rhodes LGBTQ and female alumni.” They describe her avoidance of direct questions concerning challenges to the foundational 1973 abortion rights decision Roe v. Wade and her association with an anti-LGBTQ organization, the Alliance Defending Freedom. “[W]hen confronted with facts about ADF’s past advocacy against LGBTQ people around the world,” the letters notes, “Judge Barrett, in her 2017 Senate confirmation hearing, attempted to deflect questions about it.”
She does no better when it comes to loyalty, the writers state, pointing to Barrett’s insistence after the death of her mentor, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, that “it would be inappropriate for a Democratic nominee to replace the ultra-conservative Scalia in an election year because it would ‘dramatically flip the balance of power’ on the Court.” No such lofty standard appears to have held her back regarding her own nomination less than two months before the 2020 presidential election.
Suddenly, Amy Coney Barrett Might Not Have the Votes
For the moment, COVID-19 diagnoses have jeopardized three votes that Republicans can’t afford to lose.
OCTOBER 3, 2020
…The coronavirus cases that could prove most problematic for the GOP’s chances of confirming Barrett are a trio of Republican senators: Mike Lee of Utah, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. Lee and Tillis, who both serve on the Judiciary Committee, were at the White House last Saturday and later reported testing positive for the virus, while Johnson said in a statement today that he had been exposed to the virus in D.C. later in the week.
Read: No other Western democracy allows this
Republicans have a 53–47 majority in the Senate, but two of their members, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have said they oppose holding a vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice before the election. The Senate isn’t expected to hold a final vote until the end of the month, but were Lee, Tillis, and Johnson to be absent, Republicans wouldn’t have a majority to approve her without the support of Collins and Murkowski. (All 47 Democrats are likely to vote no, in part out of anger that McConnell plans to jam a nominee through after he refused to hold a vote on President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland in 2016.)
It’s also possible that more Republican senators will come down with the virus in the next few days; multiple GOP lawmakers are now quarantining after having been exposed to their colleagues or others who are infected. Unlike the House of Representatives, which changed its rules because of the pandemic to allow lawmakers to cast votes remotely, senators must be physically present on the floor to vote…
Read More:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/10/supreme-court-trump-covid/616608/?utm_source=atl&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share
Media reported that only 10% in the demographic that includes Trump, male, old, and obese (descriptive of many of the GOP senators) die from Covid.
Hope is in short supply.
Linda:I believe that what this article is saying is that we don’t know how long or how many Senators will be sick. If enough of them are sick, they can’t travel to D.C. to vote on Barretts confirmation.
Senators cannot vote from home. They still have to be in the Senate in person.
There is still hope but it depends upon the Republican Senators who follow Trump’s advice and never wear a mask nor keep social distancing.
Linda I was somewhat thrilled (snark alert) to see that video where Bill Barr was whispering into the air space of Kelly Anne Conway at that outdoor meeting. CBK
About extremist right wing judges- Daily Beast writes, “If you don’t know who Ryan D. Nelson and Naomi Rao Are, You Should”. In confirmation hearings, Rao apologized for her writings on race, sexual assault and feminism. Nelson is from Idaho. State rankings for inequality of women, rank Utah and Idaho highest. Linked to the Biel SCOTUS case, Nelson gave a lecture at Harvard Law, “A Minister by Any Other Name, Who Qualifies for the Ministerial Exception”.
Federalist Society (Leonard Leo).
Diane and Linda I am not a legal scholar, but it seems to me that the Federalist Society is involved in a conflict with Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: ” . . . but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
By presenting a “list of possible candidates to choose from,” when that list is consistently followed by those in office; and when that list is vetted mainly and consistently to include those hailing from one religious background, it implies a tacit but real limitation of choices based on a particular religious affiliation . . . rightly construed as a preliminary-applied “religious test.” . . . unless we think it’s some sort of co-incidence that so many on the Bench share one religious background.
The real point, of course, is that the vetting is less about Catholicism as such than it is about right-wing so-called “conservative” political views . . . one wonders . . . but views that are consistently oh-so offended by supporting national policies that align with actual Christian teachings, especially with regard to the poor, not to mention that religious conversion cannot be forced.
In fact, however, The Federalist Society, has (a) used the “religious test” aspect of Article VI of the Constitution to rightly steer others away from asking the religious question of candidates (which would not necessarily imply a religious test, but nevertheless . . . ) while, at the same time, (b) slyly and covertly encroaching-on or even breaking that same aspect of the Constitution.
I’ve said this in other threads before: If selectors are going to even look at a person’s religious background, then they should aim at a diverse Court. But of course they shouldn’t.
On the other hand, the numbers defy innocence on the part of those who write and accept such lists; and something should be done to keep anti-democratic and degenerate organizations like the Federalist Society from such backdoor encroachments on the spirit of the Constitution and the law.
The Federalist Society CLAIMS to support the rule of law. BAH. CBK
The so called “originalists” are hypocrits. “A judge must appy the law as written,” unless it differs from what they believe….
Originalist: one who applies the law as Adam dictated it to Eve in the garden of Eden:
“Thou shalt do whatever I tell you to do, Eve so get me some lunch…that Apple over there will do.”
And Eve, make sure it’s the iPhone 12. I don’t want none of them older versions that you can get on the internet.
And make sure it comes with an unlimited data plan so I can call and text my mom and send her photos of you and Cain and Abel.
Trump’s ‘hoax’ keeps spreading. How about this one!!!!
…………………………………
Kayleigh McEnany tests positive for coronavirus
Why it matters: She is the latest member of President Trump’s inner circle to be diagnosed.
A hoax is a hoax
For folks for folks
And this one will tweet
About Covid jokes
You never heard
Of a talking hoax?
Well listen this
“I am Mr. Med”
Diane This today (Oct. 5) from E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post after reading Pope Francis’ encyclical:
SNIP: E.J. Dionne: ” . . . it will be hard for Americans, Catholic and otherwise, to read Francis outside the context of a presidential campaign in its decisive phase. The themes of his encyclical — a form of papal communication more formally authoritative than a sermon or a speech — will make it much harder for conservative and right-wing Catholics to insist that the only orthodox vote is for Trump.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/04/popes-unexpected-election-message/?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%2F2bfb318%2F5f7b45219d2fda0efb3fbb6a%2F597c3073ade4e26514d23e47%2F15%2F68%2F35c708a0dfce30512dcc7ae3b2592fc6
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html
Our only concern is that she’s a true U.S. Constitutionalist, cannot be bought by the radical left or any special interests, and will follow the law.
I’m concerned with the real possibility that Amy Barrett was picked because a backroom deal was made with Trump.
If he loses the election, she has to join the conservative group that votes the election was fraudulent.
She should recuse herself. Doubt that would happen.
Trump never picks people because of their qualifications, just their loyalty to him. He is desperate to win because of all the state lawsuits. Prison is awaiting, I hope.
I don’t believe there’s any backroom deal regarding her. I’m a pretty good judge of character, and what I see in her eyes, her mannerisms, and her family I can relate to. In some instances, she talks like I do, though she’s far more educated. But I can see she lives by understanding and principle. Such a person will follow the Constitution, which the radical left are afraid, and some of her decisions our president will disagree. But she’ll be following a real career.
dolphinwrite : Trump has urged the Senate to quickly confirm his nominee, saying a ninth justice may be necessary if a case involving his reelection goes to the high court (The Washington Post).
BARRETT SILENT ON HEALTH CARE, ABORTION During her second day of confirmation hearings, Judge Amy Coney Barrett wouldn’t tell the Senate Judiciary Committee if she thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. She wouldn’t say if she agreed with the late Justice Antonin Scalia in his legal opinion against marriage equality. She refused to recuse herself from election-related disputes, and wouldn’t say if she thinks Trump can unilaterally delay the election. “I can’t pre-commit,” she said about Roe v. Wade. As for how she’d rule on potential election-related disputes, she said, “If I give off-the-cuff answers, I would basically be a legal pundit.” She said she has no “firm views” on climate change. [HuffPost]
Unfortunately, ACB’s principles include hostility to environmental regulations, hostility to women’s reproductive rights, hostility to gay rights, and a preference for religious freedom over civil rights.
Here is an off topic article from that ‘fake news media’ the NYT. The U.S. has never had problems like this until the GREAT TRUMP came into power. He is a sickening want-to-be-dictator for life so that he never goes to prison.
……………………………….
Riled Up: Misinformation Stokes Calls for Violence on Election Day
Oct. 13, 2020
Baseless claims are circulating online about a Democrat-led coup, inflaming tensions in an already turbulent election season.
In a video posted to Facebook on Sept. 14, Dan Bongino, a popular right-wing commentator and radio host, declared that Democrats were planning a coup against President Trump on Election Day.
For just over 11 minutes, Mr. Bongino talked about how bipartisan election experts who had met in June to plan for what might happen after people vote were actually holding exercises for such a coup. To support his baseless claim, he twisted the group’s words to fit his meaning.
“I want to warn you that this stuff is intense,” Mr. Bongino said, speaking into the camera to his 3.6 million Facebook followers. “Really intense, and you need to be ready to digest it all.”…
The coup falsehood was just one piece of misinformation that has gone viral in right-wing circles ahead of Election Day on Nov. 3. In another unsubstantiated rumor that is circulating on Facebook and Twitter, a secret network of elites was planning to destroy the ballots of those who voted for President Trump. And in yet another fabrication, supporters of Mr. Trump said that an elite cabal planned to block them from entering polling locations on Election Day.
All of the rumors appeared to be having the same effect: Of riling up Mr. Trump’s restive base, just as the president has publicly stoked the idea of election chaos. In comment after comment about the falsehoods, respondents said the only way to stop violence from the left was to respond in kind with force.
“Liberals and their propaganda,” one commenter wrote. “Bring that nonsense to country folks who literally sit in wait for days to pull a trigger.”
The misinformation, which has been amplified by right-wing media such as the Fox News host Mark Levin and outlets like Breitbart and The Daily Wire, adds contentiousness to an already powder-keg campaign season. Mr. Trump has repeatedly declined to say whether he would accept a peaceful transfer of power if he lost to his Democratic challenger, Joseph R. Biden Jr., and has urged his supporters “to go into the polls and watch very carefully.”…
Even so, the idea of a Democrat-led coup has gained plenty of traction online in recent weeks. It has made its way into at least 938 Facebook groups, 279 Facebook pages, 33 YouTube videos and hundreds of tweets, a Times analysis found….
Michael Anton, a former national security adviser to President Trump, also published an essay on Sept. 4 in the conservative publication The American Mind, claiming, “Democrats are laying the groundwork for revolution right in front of our eyes.”…
As if the stakes of next month’s election could get any higher, an American credit rating agency says a contested election could cost the US its prized AAA credit rating.
The hearing is a farce. Democrats can’t stop her.
…………………..
One of the recurring questions Judge Barrett fielded on Tuesday concerned her judicial independence and whether she would recuse herself in any election law cases related to the man who nominated her: President Trump.
Throughout the day, Judge Barrett emphasized that she had made no promises to Mr. Trump or anyone else about how she might rule in the future, even though the president has repeatedly spoken about his intent to add sympathetic voices to the court.
While several Democrats pushed Judge Barrett to commit to recusing herself in cases that concern the president, she repeatedly demurred, insisting only that she would consider any relevant factors that might cast doubt on her impartiality when making that decision.
Like many past nominees, Judge Barrett declined to speculate on how she might rule in hypothetical cases that may arise after her confirmation, including those involving the election. She used the same reasoning to rebuff questions about how she might rule on cases concerning the Affordable Care Act or abortion rights.
Given that any further questions about Judge Barrett’s participation in a hypothetical election case are likely to go unanswered, Democrats may be forced to take a different tack.
On Tuesday, Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, framed a few questions in more concrete terms, such as asking Judge Barrett whether she believed the president should commit to a peaceful transition of power, something he has repeatedly declined to do. While Judge Barrett may argue that she is not in a position to weigh in on the president’s behavior or public statements, Democrats may look to push her to discuss actions Mr. Trump has taken that they see as falling outside of the law, or threatening constitutional norms.
— Zach Montague
She’s not supposed to give opinions on future possibility, other than following the constitution. Otherwise, she would never be a good judge.
dolphinwrite: According to Democracy Now, Barrett does have some opinions, but refused to answer other questions.
The Infection Election: From Pallbearers to Poll Watchers
…The hearings have revealed some of Barrett’s disturbing legal views, including her belief that the right to bear arms is inviolable, but the right to vote is not. She refused to answer questions about the Affordable Care Act, Roe v. Wade, voting rights or even if President Trump could delay the election or refuse to transfer power peacefully…
https://www.democracynow.org/2020/10/15/the_infection_election_from_pallbearers_to
The Senate Republican majority refused to hold a hearing or vote on Garland Merrick’s nomination made during the last year of Obama’s presidency. They insisted that the next elected president should fill the vacancy.
Do we really want to take the U.S. back decades?
Demolishing ACA, destruction of women having any say in the bodies with elimination of Roe vs. Wade and our lives being ruled by corporations who don’t want to pay decent salaries or clean up their pollution will thrive.
Why shouldn’t gays, trans and lesbians have the rights that everyone else has? Why should public schools continue to suffer more when religious schools and charters will be able to take tax-payer money? Our country doesn’t have enough money to support 2-3 school systems. Why should ACA be eliminated when the GOP has no idea of how to give healthcare to its citizens? “Thoughts and prayers” is not a substitute for good healthcare.
Kamala Harris called climate change an “existential threat” but Barrett doesn’t have any firm views on the subject.
Amy Barrett refuses to say whether or not she will recuse herself if Trump’s wailing about fraudulent mail-in ballots has to go to the Supreme Court. He picked her with the idea of having support from a majority of 9 Supreme Court Justices. She refuses to say whether or not Trump should commit to a peaceful transfer of power.
This confirmation hearing is a farce.
Just follow the Constitution. Period.
Regarding the justice, she explained her personal views are not the deciding factors when rendering judgements, something all Supreme Court justices are supposed to do in order to support the U.S. Constitution and thereby protect our rights. Regarding the voting and second amendment issues, I think she’s right, but I’ll have to do more research, for I also think for myself. But I would also say, under no circumstances, other that those who use guns in crimes, that our rights to protect ourselves and others should even be taken away or reduced. That’s in the constitution, and the moment they begin reducing our rights, it’s a slippery slope to where we’re at. Ridiculous things like 10 round limitations in some states, inability to carry a defensive rods, and being in trouble for protecting yourself and family when you do use protection like we saw in the riots. Regarding voting, I do believe all citizens should be able to vote, but I also understand if one is in jail, they’ve done something that they need to serve first. I’m still researching that one. **But even if I decide all should vote, I don’t want a Supreme Court justice who will follow my or anyone else’s opinions other than following the U.S. Constitution.
Amy Coney Barrett was chosen to do three things:
To overturn gay marriage. Untold number of families will have their marriages dissolved by judicial fiat.
And as an added bonus, she will vote to overturn separation of church and state so public money will support religious schools.
As for the Second Amendment: read it. It is about a “well-regulated militia,” not the right of individuals to own AR-15s. As an Originalist, perhaps she would approve the right of individuals to own muskets.
One last share: 1) Amy Coney Barrett was selected, such that, whether our president, or any other, is in office, she will follow the U.S. Constitution and the law of the lands. 2) The Affordable Care act is government run taxation when the private sector can do a much better job. And the republicans support those with preexisting conditions. What we can’t afford is being told we have to belong to a single payer system, which never works except to be in long lines and down-graded care. 3) Marriage, throughout history and understood in nature is between a man and a woman. 4) The reason for the second amendment is so we, the people, can protect ourselves, our families, and our country, and we all should be able to procure arms that can defend. Criminals and terrorists don’t abide by the law, and if they have any weapons of choice, we should be able to protect. **Everything that can be said negatively about Amy Barrett will provide the opportunity to demonstrate the error.
Why are you bothering to post anything on this site? Surely by now, you have learned that people here follow a different line of thinking:
Amy Barrett will bring the U.S. back decades. She, if she is a true follower of originalism, shouldn’t allow herself to be on the Supreme Court. Women in those days had no say in anything and couldn’t vote.
The private sector of medicine is doing a great job? If that is the case, why are there millions who have no health insurance? ACA is not perfect but it is giving healthcare to many people. Medicare for All would give protections to everyone. Bernie and Warren had great plans. The Orange Virus brags about his ‘wonderful plan’ that nobody has ever seen. If other countries have healthcare for ALL of their people why can’t the U.S.? Ours is the most expensive and is great if you have the money to afford the care. Private insurance companies exist to make a profit. They don’t care about anyone getting ill and needing care. Having downgraded care is B.S. spread by Fox, Breitbart and the Republicans and some Democrats who are receiving lobby and campaign money from rich insurance and drug companies.
Just because ‘history’ does something doesn’t mean it is right. Freedom to marry whom you love should be a right for ALL citizens. Women couldn’t vote and slaves were never whole people…guess that is history that is okay by your mangled thinking. Christians destroyed many cultures because of their desire to ‘spread the one true religion’. Destroying cultures is okay. Pollution by corporations is okay because laws don’t exist to control their pollution…just fine.
The second amendment currently makes the U.S. the leader in the number of innocent people killed and murdered. First graders being murdered is just fine. High school students being gunned down in hallways of their schools is just fine. Trump is pumping up his ‘loyal followers’ to get out their guns and be ready to support him if he doesn’t win. “”Great idea”, don’t you think? Other countries have decent gun control laws and they never have the huge number of deaths the U.S. has. Guns do kill…that’s news to some people who join the NRA. The U.S. should have a huge buyback program like Australia did. It should be coupled with stringent gun control laws. If someone wants a gun let them jump through the hoops and get one.
In this public forum, viewed by some, opinions are posted. As such, some readers are reading. As such, an alternative, and real, source of information is encouraging readers to think for themselves. Whenever I blog, I don’t mind alternative views, but I will explain error where it exists. And it’s the public’s duty to shine the light on error where it exists, and encourage people to read, research, and think for themselves. Honest people want that. Dishonest people don’t want discussions, just pats on the back. We’re in a generation where many people have lost the ability to debate, afraid of being challenged, because they don’t know how to discuss and worry about their feelings far too much. All the best. But what you’re posting is exactly contradictory to the U.S. Constitution, the framers intent which provided for real freedom, and leads to socialism/communism if put together with other policies akin. I only encourage you and readers to keep researching and learning. That’s why I posted.