The Only Worry about Foxy Amy Coney Barrett is She's Too Good to Be True.

[NotreDame]

There is no universe (not even the right-wing/alt-right universe) in which Barrett is considered "among the most brilliant lawyers", nor "one of the best judges in the nation". She's a hardcore right-wing, anti-abortion ideologue...with ovaries. Those are her qualifications. Everyone understands that.

And what kind of cretin would even consider physical attractiveness as a criteria (for, or against) in choosing a USSC justice? This just lends insight into the mentality of the lonely white dudes who make up Trump's base.

And why exactly is she disqualified as “among the most brilliant lawyers”?

Your ad hominems certainly do not speak to her legal acumen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bearpoker]

I don’t think that’s what the story means.


Sotomayo

It depends on what you mean by ugly, people born with birth defects or who have burns on their face or not ugly. However feminist should absolutely be kept on the fringes of society

Another so called "conservative" who hates the bill of rights. Thanks for outing yourself.

 

[Grand Mal]

I don’t think that's what the story means.

Of course that's what it means. What else is the difference between civilized and primitive? It's knowing the difference between right and wrong. That's why Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden. That's what civilizing primitive people means, right? Teaching them the difference between right and wrong.
God didn't want people to know that. God commanded them to not learn it. But now, having learned what we were forbidden to know, is it moral and good to teach it to others who haven't learned it yet?

 

[NotreDame]

Not on any planet in this solar system.

40 years ago, the USSC was the most liberal it had ever been....in HISTORY. Coney-Barrett is so radical that she would have never been considered. She's to the right of ANYONE on The Court in 1980.

If nominated, she will be to the right of everyone, save, perhaps, Clarence Thomas on the current USSC. She's an extremist, and there is no liberal counterpart to her on the current court. You people can't see, or acknowledge that, because you are extremists, as well.

Is she that far right? What evidence renders her that far right?

It is common for a nominee to have a what is called “conservative” or “liberal” or “moderate” views on many legal issues. Rarely, if ever, has a nominee been entirely conservative, liberal, or moderate in every field of law they have commented/ruled/voted upon.

Ginsburg was said to be diverse. “According to a 1993 archive from Congressional Quarterly Almanac, “[Judge] Ginsburg was known as a restrained and fair-minded judge who did her homework and then some.” She was “considered moderate to conservative on criminal issues and business law,” relatively progressive “on issues such as free speech, religious freedom and separation of church and states,” and more liberal on “civil rights and access to the courts.”

Same is true for Scalia, as he was not always taking the “conservative” view in every case before the Court, neither has Gorsuch, Roberts, and many others.

My point is Barrett may be more diverse than you think, while she adheres to conservative views as well.

And so what? So what if she is to the right of the other justices except for Thomas? If she can make a reasonable argument for her views based on the law, and she has, then why does it matter she’s right of 4 Republican appointed justices on the Court?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Of course that's what it means. What else is the difference between civilized and primitive? It's knowing the difference between right and wrong. That's why Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden. That's what civilizing primitive people means, right? Teaching them the difference between right and wrong.
God didn't want people to know that. God commanded them to not learn it. But now, having learned what we were forbidden to know, is it moral and good to teach it to others who haven't learned it yet?

The whole in your theory is the primitive peoples commit acts of grave evil near constantly and without remorse. The Indians (feather) are a good example. The commanche practiced what can generously be described as terrorism near constantly.

 

[Grand Mal]

The whole in your theory is the primitive peoples commit acts of grave evil near constantly and without remorse. The Indians (feather) are a good example. The commanche practiced what can generously be described as terrorism near constantly.

But you know It's evil because Adam and Eve ate from the tree they were told to avoid. They (primitive people) don't know the difference. See what the story means? If you teach primitive people what good and evil are, you're giving them knowledge that's forbidden to us by God. You're taking the role of the serpent.
It's plain and simple. Black and white. There can be no mistaking the point of the story.

Inuit hunter to a priest- "So if my ancestors didn't know about Jesus, they can't be in hell for not believing in Him?"
Priest- "That's right."
Inuit hunter-"Then why did you tell me?"

 

[H. E. Panqui]

High-profile Lawyer Barnes: Amy Coney Barrett would be a Disaster

High-profile trial lawyer Robert Barnes who deals in civil, criminal and constitutional law reported on Twitter that Amy Coney Barrett would...

catholicmonitor.blogspot.com

"..The Barnes Twitter report shows that Coney Barrett has "sid[ed] with the government on the lockdowns, on uncompensated takings, on excusing First Amendment infringements & Fourth Amendment violations... [and] exclaimed the benefits of Jacobson, the decision that green-lit forced vaccines & carved out an emergency exception to Constitutional protection in "public health" or "emergency" cases used to justify forced sterilizations & detention camps... [and] hid behind precedent... to prohibit pro-life activists from exercising their free speech."...

...Barnes on Twitter revealed:

- THREAD: #Barrett sided with the government on almost every civil rights case, every big employer case, every criminal case, while also siding with the government on the lockdowns, on uncompensated takings, on excusing First Amendment infringements & Fourth Amendment violations.

- #Barrett exclaimed the benefits of Jacobson, the decision that green-lit forced vaccines & carved out an emergency exception to Constitutional protection in "public health" or "emergency" cases used to justify forced sterilizations & detention camps. Read: https://politico.com/f/?id=00000174

- #Barrett excused or immunized questionable police conduct in almost every seizure case or use of force case she came across, many with fact patterns that will make her easily demolished in the court of public opinion in the age of George Floyd. An example: http://41af3k34gprx4f6bg12df75i.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/upl

- Another example: a highly dubious stop that the media can easily make into #Barrett justifying stopping drivers for "driving while black" that she prevented from reaching a jury trial despite the cops sudden memory loss in the case. https://casetext.com/case/torry-v-c

- #Barrett hid behind precedent that fellow federal circuits said did not apply any longer to allow Chicago to prohibit pro-life activists from exercising their free speech, and did so w/o a concurring opinion as she did whenever she doubted precedent.

- #Barrett justified regulatory takings without compensation and government discrimination by siding with the government's version once again (like she has in a near record setting 95%+ of cases). [https://twitter.com/barnes_law/status/1308233568099860481?s=21]

It appears that Amy Coney Barrett may be a neo-liberal Trojan Horse like Justice Neil Gorsuch. It seems she would possibly be semi-pro-abortion.

Voice of America revealed that "Barrett said she would “[f]ollow all [pro-abortion] 'Supreme Court precedent without fail' and would regard decisions such as Roe v. Wade as binding precedent":

"Republicans view her as reliably conservative and a future Supreme Court vote to overturn the landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion rights in the U.S., but Barrett has offered conflicting comments on how she might vote on abortion cases."

"During her confirmation hearing to the appeals court, Barrett said she would 'follow all Supreme Court precedent without fail' and would regard decisions such as Roe v. Wade as binding precedent..."

 

[EMNofSeattle]

But you know It's evil because Adam and Eve ate from the tree they were told to avoid. They (primitive people) don't know the difference. See what the story means? If you teach primitive people what good and evil are, you're giving them knowledge that's forbidden to us by God. You're taking the role of the serpent.
It's plain and simple. Black and white. There can be no mistaking the point of the story.

Inuit hunter to a priest- "So if my ancestors didn't know about Jesus, they can't be in hell for not believing in Him?"
Priest- "That's right."
Inuit hunter-"Then why did you tell me?"

That’s not proper theology, it is in fact possible his ancestors are in hell, or in heaven, or in a state between, we can only know someone is in heaven if they are baptized and die in a state of grace.

 

[NotreDame]

High-profile Lawyer Barnes: Amy Coney Barrett would be a Disaster

High-profile trial lawyer Robert Barnes who deals in civil, criminal and constitutional law reported on Twitter that Amy Coney Barrett would...

catholicmonitor.blogspot.com

"..The Barnes Twitter report shows that Coney Barrett has "sid[ed] with the government on the lockdowns, on uncompensated takings, on excusing First Amendment infringements & Fourth Amendment violations... [and] exclaimed the benefits of Jacobson, the decision that green-lit forced vaccines & carved out an emergency exception to Constitutional protection in "public health" or "emergency" cases used to justify forced sterilizations & detention camps... [and] hid behind precedent... to prohibit pro-life activists from exercising their free speech."...

...Barnes on Twitter revealed:

- THREAD: #Barrett sided with the government on almost every civil rights case, every big employer case, every criminal case, while also siding with the government on the lockdowns, on uncompensated takings, on excusing First Amendment infringements & Fourth Amendment violations.

- #Barrett exclaimed the benefits of Jacobson, the decision that green-lit forced vaccines & carved out an emergency exception to Constitutional protection in "public health" or "emergency" cases used to justify forced sterilizations & detention camps. Read: https://politico.com/f/?id=00000174

- #Barrett excused or immunized questionable police conduct in almost every seizure case or use of force case she came across, many with fact patterns that will make her easily demolished in the court of public opinion in the age of George Floyd. An example: http://41af3k34gprx4f6bg12df75i.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/upl

- Another example: a highly dubious stop that the media can easily make into #Barrett justifying stopping drivers for "driving while black" that she prevented from reaching a jury trial despite the cops sudden memory loss in the case. https://casetext.com/case/torry-v-c

- #Barrett hid behind precedent that fellow federal circuits said did not apply any longer to allow Chicago to prohibit pro-life activists from exercising their free speech, and did so w/o a concurring opinion as she did whenever she doubted precedent.

- #Barrett justified regulatory takings without compensation and government discrimination by siding with the government's version once again (like she has in a near record setting 95%+ of cases). [https://twitter.com/barnes_law/status/1308233568099860481?s=21]

It appears that Amy Coney Barrett may be a neo-liberal Trojan Horse like Justice Neil Gorsuch. It seems she would possibly be semi-pro-abortion.

Voice of America revealed that "Barrett said she would “[f]ollow all [pro-abortion] 'Supreme Court precedent without fail' and would regard decisions such as Roe v. Wade as binding precedent":

"Republicans view her as reliably conservative and a future Supreme Court vote to overturn the landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion rights in the U.S., but Barrett has offered conflicting comments on how she might vote on abortion cases."

"During her confirmation hearing to the appeals court, Barrett said she would 'follow all Supreme Court precedent without fail' and would regard decisions such as Roe v. Wade as binding precedent..."

Yeah, a summary how she voted or ruled doesn’t tell me her ruling was erroneous. Neither does this inform me her reasoning in those decisions, rulings, is so tenuous as to constitute as irrational.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Grand Mal]

That’s not proper theology, it is in fact possible his ancestors are in hell, or in heaven, or in a state between, we can only know someone is in heaven if they are baptized and die in a state of grace.

What about the knowledge of good and evil? You said primitive people do evil, I say you only know that because of the original sin, because Adam and Eve learned the difference between good and evil. That's what the Bible says, right?
If you don't know the difference between good and evil, It's because you haven't committed the sin of learning the difference.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

What about the knowledge of good and evil? You said primitive people do evil, I say you only know that because of the original sin, because Adam and Eve learned the difference between good and evil. That's what the Bible says, right?
If you don't know the difference between good and evil, It's because you haven't committed the sin of learning the difference.

Without baptism you retain original sin.

Regardless of your interpretation of genesis, because Adam fell the whole human race did, now unless you’re insisting Indians are not part of the human race that means they have the knowledge of Gods law written on their hearts and the knowledge of good and evil

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Without baptism you retain original sin.

Regardless of your interpretation of genesis, because Adam fell the whole human race did, now unless you’re insisting Indians are not part of the human race that means they have the knowledge of Gods law written on their hearts and the knowledge of good and evil

Why are you guys discussing fairy tales in a thread about a potential supreme court justice?

 

[Paradoxical]

Typical rightwinger.

Everything is a binary choice between polar opposites, right?

It must be nice to live in a world where everything is either black/white or good/evil, huh?

The simple truth is that in today's politics, one party actually looks like America when it gets together...and one party looks like a Klan rally.

One party looks like America (Republica) and the other like Hitlers Third Riech (Democrat) trying to exterminate everyone who isn’t a minority.

 

[Mashmont]

Didn't you know? Physical attractiveness is an essential qualification for any job a woman aspires to. Ugly women should be kept on the fringes of society and only allowed in places where nobody sees them.

It would be nice if Kagan and Sotomayor at least tried to fix up a little. I don't think Kagan even uses makeup.

 

[Grand Mal]

Without baptism you retain original sin.

Regardless of your interpretation of genesis, because Adam fell the whole human race did, now unless you’re insisting Indians are not part of the human race that means they have the knowledge of Gods law written on their hearts and the knowledge of good and evil

I disagree. God said people were not to learn the difference between good and evil. What would God say about you if you teach that difference? Nobody has the knowledge "written on their hearts". Everyone is taught it.
In fact, teaching the forbidden knowledge has to be the first step in conversion to Christianity. Without knowing the difference between good and evil, without taking on the guilt of original sin, there's no need for redemption, no need for the intervention of Christ on behalf of people.
And many of the Natives were just as civilized as white people. Natives here where we both live were living better, richer lives than a crewman on Captain Cooks ship did at home in England. Civilization isn't a synonym for Christianity. I don't consider white people coming to North America to be an encounter between the civilized and the primitive. Not in every case. There were primitive people here and there but most of the Natives were civilized.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

It would be nice if Kagan and Sotomayor at least tried to fix up a little. I don't think Kagan even uses makeup.

...yes and chelsea clinton was/is a dog too, right mr. christian republitrumpkin?

....let's face it, with republitrumpkins, it's better to look good than to think good...

 

[Grand Mal]

Why are you guys discussing fairy tales in a thread about a potential supreme court justice?

Because It's an interesting discussion. Every thread goes off on tangents after a couple pages.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Because It's an interesting discussion. Every thread goes off on tangents after a couple pages.

But you’re literally discussing made up stuff in a thread about actual laws on books. It‘s a weird take is all.

 

[Luce]

Without baptism you retain original sin.

Sounds like a design flaw.

 

[joko104]

First off, the civilizing of the Native Americans was a moral good. It was not genocide and it was not slaughter and to claim that is pure historical ignorance on your part.

Secondly your claim that the north was not very religious prior to the Civil War, is absolutely false. In fact the north east was the Home to all the most aggressive and puritanical forms of Protestant Christianity.

Also, it was not religious Christians in the English colonies that held slaves, the slavery in North America was predominantly driven by educated Men following Enlightenment principles. For lack of a better term, actually it is a perfect term, they were the liberals of their era who owns slaves.

Slavery has practiced in Catholic colonies in the Americas, was far more restrictive to the slaveowners, slaves had many more ways to be free, and The church never condoned to the practice.


You mean the mainstream political and moral views in effect when America became a power will destroy it? Lol

In the Southwest it was outright genocide. Entire peaceful towns (villages) were slaughtered including every child and woman. It was Custer's tactic to either kill 100% of everyone OR attack after the men had gone hunting and then use them as human shields while abusing the women and children - promising if the men disarmed and gave up their firearms in surrendering they would only be relocated. Upon doing so, then all those men would be murdered - mostly bayoneted. This was so well known about him it was the reason different tribes united. Usually they just tried to flee, but knew Custer would hunt them down and literally murder everyone.


The rest of your message is accurate.

 

[HennyBogan]

...and Mashmont deflects and dodges, once again.

So much for all of that moronic nonsense about her being considered "among the most brilliant lawyers" and "best judges in the nation". I guess you realized you couldn't back that crap up, pretty quickly, huh?

Barrett is just like almost every other conservative justice these days....a mediocre talent, but a hardcore ideologue. Those attributes...plus her ovaries and plain-Jane face...make her perfect for Trump's base of frustrated, angry white incel types.

Hopefully those frustrated angry white incel types will continue to advance mankind like they have for the last 400 years.
I think they should be segregated and keep all their wizardry to themselves and leave the rest back in the Stone Age

 

[Grand Mal]

But you’re literally discussing made up stuff in a thread about actual laws on books. It‘s a weird take is all.

Listen. I like creation myths and the one in the Bible is a good one. Every culture has It's creation myth. The Inuit said that a woman sat beside a hole in the ground with a fishing pole and pulled up each of the world's animals, told it what it's name was and sent it on It's way. The story doesn't have to be believed literally to have value. The story in Genesis, I think, means that humans sentenced themselves to all their problems when they adopted agriculture, when they became civilized. Opened Pandoras box when they planted seeds and domesticated animals. Agriculture allowed people to live crowded in cities and create a surplus and all of our problems come from the questions who will rule the city and who will control the surplus.
You're right, it has nothing to do with the Supreme Court so probably should be ignored by everyone else in the thread. I'll be done with it myself as soon as it stops raining.

 

[ultmd]

And why exactly is she disqualified as “among the most brilliant lawyers”?

I didn't say she's disqualified. I said she's a hardcore, right-wing, anti-abortion ideologue. That's what "qualifies" her in the eyes of those who wish to see her on the USSC.

The Right doesn't give a flip about things like "legal brilliance", personal integrity/morality or professional resume's. If they did, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanauggh would never have been nominated....and many of the new Trump appointees to the federal bench (some lacking ANY trial experience) would have never been nominated, as well.

No, for the Right, it's all about power; and the end always justifies the means.....but only for them. For everyone else, "morality" and "values" and "qualifications" are of paramount importance.

Your ad hominems certainly do not speak to her legal acumen.

What ad hominems? Referring to her as a hardcore, right-wing, anti-abortion ideologue isn't name-calling. That's truth-calling.

 

[NotreDame]

I didn't say she's disqualified. I said she's a hardcore, right-wing, anti-abortion ideologue. That's what "qualifies" her in the eyes of those who wish to see her on the USSC.

....and many of the new Trump appointees to the federal bench (some lacking ANY trial experience) would have never been nominated, as well.

No, for the Right, it's all about power; and the end always justifies the means.....but only for them. For everyone else, "morality" and "values" and "qualifications" are of paramount importance.


What ad hominems? Referring to her as a hardcore, right-wing, anti-abortion ideologue isn't name-calling. That's truth-calling.

And it’s never occurred to you her “anti-abortion” legal view is a “qualifier” for those advocating for her to be a Justice because finding abortion as a right in the Due Process Clause is a misinterpretation? A lot of people who want her on the Court disagree with Roe v Wade because the Court, in their view, just made up the right of abortion in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Given the plain text reading of the clause, and the historical evidence, they have a legit quibble.

So, her qualification would be she isn’t going to invent rights that do not exist in the Due Process Clause and might vote to reverse the precedent in that basis.

The Right doesn't give a flip about things like "legal brilliance", personal integrity/morality or professional resume's. If they did, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanauggh would never have been nominated

Which part? You used the word “or” which means X or Y. So, which part do Thomas and Kavanaugh demonstrate the “Right” couldn’t care less about?

Regardless, neither one is an example, per se, of the “Right” as unburdened by “legal brilliance.” Maybe they are on the Court because of their “legal brilliance.” It’s a bit sketchy really as “legal brilliance” is such a nebulous phrase, and you’ve made no effort to define it and much less how to measure for it. Maybe it is just personal opinion.

What ad hominems? Referring to her as a hardcore, right-wing, anti-abortion ideologue isn't name-calling.

That is called rationalizing the name calling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ultmd]

Is she that far right? What evidence renders her that far right?

For starters, she's a member of a cult-like group called the People of Praise.
Newsweek: People of Praise.
" 48-year-old Barrett and her husband, Jesse Barrett, are both reportedly members of People of Praise. The group does not publicly list its members and Barrett herself has never commented on the matter. The group, founded in 1971 in South Bend, Indiana, says it has a community of 1,700 members in 22 cities across the U.S., Canada and the Caribbean."

"Coral Anika Theill, a former member of a branch of the group in Corvallis, Oregon, told Newsweek that women are expected to be "absolutely obedient" to their husbands and the men in the group. According to Theill, those who aren't are "shamed, shunned, humiliated." For a married women, her husband is her "head"—he makes the decisions for the family and serves as her moral compass. "Total discipline is imposed upon those who submit themselves to their head," said Theill, "and this includes submission of your will, your desire, your actions."

" Tim Kaiser, who grew up in the People of Praise and left aged 18 in 1997, told Newsweek, "the submission to your husband bit is not negotiable or figurative. In the case of a woman, her 'head' is her husband—that's who is in charge of her. That is the person who is supposed to be making all of her moral decisions and taking responsibility for the condition of her soul. It's really creepy, but that's the idea."

Members of the People of Praise are also assigned advisers of the same sex, called a "head" for men and a "handmaid" for women. Members of People of Praise also make a lifelong vow of loyalty in a ceremony, which Theill and Kaiser both described as akin to a marriage contract. Kaiser said his father moved their family from Ohio to South Bend, Indiana in order to join the community before he was born. When he went off to college, he decided to cut ties before he was asked to make the lifelong commitment to the group, known as a covenant, because he had grown disillusioned with the level of authority the group exerts on members and its insular nature. Close family members remain part of the community. "It depends on how well they think they've groomed you to some extent on whether or not they push you to join or whether they just let you go," he said. "I was let go fairly easy."

"Those who do make the commitment find it tricky to leave, Kaiser says. "They don't let members go," he said. "In order to sever ties with the community, you have to mutually... essentially you and the community have to agree to break the covenant. They have to release you and they are very reluctant to do that."

---to be continued---