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

[ultmd]

Part 2: continued...

Adrian J. Reimers, one of the founding members of People of Praise, later wrote a book criticizing the group, called Not Reliable Guides. In it, he explained the "sacrifice represented by making the covenant of the People of Praise is taken seriously." One "lays down his life" according to the requirements of the community, he wrote, by "faithfully attending men's and women's groups, submitting to one's head willingly, performing four hours of service to the community every week, contributing 5-13 percent of one's gross income to the community, and so on."

The "subordinate role of women to men is a fundamental cultural premise" for the group, he wrote. Reimers was forced out after 13 years for raising concerns about how much authority group leaders had over the lives of members as well as the group's deviation from Roman Catholic doctrine. The final straw, Reimers said, came when he had objected to instructions given to his wife by a handmaid. When he relayed his concerns to his head, he was told his wife was "trying to undermine God's plan for her life."

In Not Reliable Guides, Reimers described how a married woman in the People of Praise is "expected always to reflect the fact that she is under her husband's authority." "This goes beyond an acknowledgment that the husband is 'head of the home' or head of the family; he is, in fact, her personal pastoral head. Whatever she does requires at least his tacit approval," he wrote.

Members were "all supposed to stay in the People of Praise group and marry other children of People of Praise members," Theill said. As a wife, I couldn't even see my doctor alone. I couldn't see my family unless they gave me permission. I couldn't talk to neighbors, I couldn't see or talk to friends," she said. Theill, who wrote a blog post called "I lived the Handmaid's Tale" last year, added: "The People of Praise community use coercive control, isolation, intimidation tactics. Their cult ideology is based on domination and the submission of women. I had no rights. "I suffered two miscarriages back to back, I wasn't allowed contraceptives, that was something that I had no control of. I had no privacy. I lived like The Handmaid's Tale, and it was very painful."
---------

Sorry, but this is some cult-like stuff, here. I don't want a USSC justice whose every action and decision must be clear or "tacitly approved" by her husband, who is NOT a member of the court.
Seeing Coney-Barrett's background just reminds me of the fake/contrived outrage conservatives expressed about Barack Obama's previous ties to Reverend Jerimiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. If you people don't have the same reaction, or worse, to Coney-Barrett....you have no credibilty. After all, unlike Obama, Coney-Barrett ACTUALLY is a member of a strange religious cult.

 

[ultmd]

And it’s never occurred to you her “anti-abortion” legal view is a “qualifier”

Yes, of course. That's the very first thing I said. Being anti-abortion IS her primary qualification. All this nonsense about her being considered among the most brilliant legal minds, etc.....is just cover for people who like to pretend that they aren't being totally partisan about this.

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.

You're talking about the very same people who cheered wildly when conservatives on the Court "just made up" the "free speech" rights of Corporations in the 1st Amendment with the Citizens' United decision.....so, let's not pretend that any of you are honestly the "strict constructionists" you pretend to be, ok?

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?

Seriously? Come on, now...you're smart. That's not hard to figure out. More importantly, it's irrelevant to the point of my remarks, which you failed to address. If legal brilliance was a serious criteria for conservatives....there would be no Clarence Thomas, who was deemed barely qualified by the ABA. If integrity, morality, etc. were truly important to conservatives, neither Kavanaugh, nor Thomas would be on the bench today.

Regardless, neither one is an example, per se, of the “Right” as unburdened by “legal brilliance.”

Find me ONE legal scholar, ANYWHERE, who wrote or spoke (or even hinted) of the "legal brilliance" of Clarence Thomas.

The last 2 Republican presidents have pushed through more "unqualified" judicial nominees than every president in the entire 20th century COMBINED. W. Bush rammed through 8 "Unqualifed" conservative federal judicial nominees over his 8 years. In Trump's first 3 years alone, he placed 10 "UNQUALIFIED" right wing judges...and 6 more are pending confirmation, as we speak. For reference. Obama nominated a total of ZERO "Unqualified" judges over 8 years. Almost all of Obama's judicial nominees were "well-qualified" (the highest rating possible). Obama was, in reality a moderate institutionalist. His problem was that he happened to be both BLACK and a DEMOCRAT. That made him "evil" in the eyes of conservatives, for reasons that are so obvious that they need not be stated.

 

[Mashmont]

Yes, of course. That's the very first thing I said. Being anti-abortion IS her primary qualification. All this nonsense about her being considered among the most brilliant legal minds, etc.....is just cover for people who like to pretend that they aren't being totally partisan about this..

You think Elena Kagan's lesbianism and Marxism weren't her primary 'qualifications'? She was hardly a legal wizard. She was never even a judge.

 

[NotreDame]

d.

Yes, of course. That's the very first thing I said. Being anti-abortion IS her primary qualification.

And you missed that I stated it isn’t so much anti-abortion as much as it is the right was created by the Court and by a clause that doesn’t support the existence of such a right. In other words, it is that she’s a textualist/originalist which qualifies her for the bench, and repudiated Roe v Wade as inconsistent with the text. That’s why “they,” and by “they” I mean some conservatives, possibly many or the majority, favor her.

All this nonsense about her among the most brilliant legal minds, just cover for people who like to pretend aren't being totally partisan

Except I have no evidence it is “non-sense” and no evidence of a “cover” or a “pretense.” You are of course entitled to your opinion that lacks evidentiary support. Just as the Flat Earth Society is entitled to their opinion the earth is flat. Which is a polite way of saying it is your mere opinion, nothing more, without evidence. An opinion which, in the absence of evidence, has no basis to be believed and doesn’t preclude the assessment your opinion is the product of personal ideas, nothing more, indeed an opinion ostensibly the product of your political disposition and nothing else.

the very same people who cheered when conservatives on the Court "just made up" the "free speech" rights of Corporations in the 1st Amendment, so, let's not pretend that any of you are the "strict constructionists" you pretend to be, ok?

Strict constructionists? You can’t even identify the proper method of interpretation. The dominant view is textualism/original meaning.

So, your allegation of hypocrisy is built upon the false premise Citizens United “just made up free speech” rights. Of course, you provide no supporting evidence for this premise.

And you clearly do not understand the meaning of the Free Speech Clause. Citizens United is consistent with the text and history of the Free Speech Clause. Collective speech by human beings, and the speech at issue in Citizens was collective speech by human(s) as a corporation is a collection of people and they collectively engaged in speech, has long been understood to be protected under the Free Speech Clause. The majority opinion cites to many cases, dating back to the early 1900s, recognizing speech by people through a corporation merits free speech rights. Scalia, in his concurrence, shows how collective speech has been understood to be protected for a very long time, dating back at or near the time of ratification of the BOR.

So, no, Citizens is not an example of “creating rights.”

Come on, now...you're smart. That's not hard to figure out.

Well, thanks for the kind words. I do not know how smart I am, but I do know, just from my educational background, the use of the word “or” creates two options, X could be it or Y could be it. It is best I not assume one or the other or both. It is better I have the person making the argument tell me, so I can avoid making false arguments for people.

If legal brilliance was a serious criteria for conservatives....there would be no Clarence Thomas, who was deemed barely qualified by the ABA. If integrity, morality, etc. were truly important to conservatives, neither Kavanaugh, nor Thomas would be on the bench today.

A few points. First, it is debatable whether ABA reflects “legal brilliance.” This is because the phrase “legal brilliance” is undefined and unknown how it’s measured. The phrase itself make be based upon subjective criteria but if you have an objective meaning and measurement for “legal brilliance” then I’d be interested to read it.

Second, the three labels of “Well qualified,” and “qualified” and “not qualified” may not necessarily reflect “legal brilliance.”

So, you’re equating ABA ratings with legal brilliance and there’s been no established connection between the two. The “Well qualified” rating by ABA doesn’t necessarily hint at “legal brilliance.” Why? It is possible someone could have “legal brilliance” and yet receive a rating other than “well qualified.”

It was contended the ratings for Bork and Thomas were ideologically driven by those with the ABA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotreDame]

.

Find me ONE legal scholar, ANYWHERE, who wrote or spoke (or even hinted) of the "legal brilliance" of Clarence Thomas.

Does that matter? Does it? Is it a popularity contest, is that what you’ve reduced the evaluation to? Let’s find X number of people who say X is the way to evaluate and measure qualifications? That makes sense to you?

The evaluation, rationally, is to be based on objective criteria. One bit of objective criteria would be A.) the content of their writings and rulings B.) strength of their views as measured by the legal texts and C.) the logic used to support their views, the analysis of law to the facts weaves together by the logic and facts.

Second, your question is built upon another layer of obscurity. What does “legal scholar” mean? How would I go about, if I wanted, identifying, among a see of lawyers and law professors, judges, justices, who/which is a “legal scholar”?

The last 2 Republican presidents have pushed through more "unqualified" judicial nominees than every president in the entire 20th century COMBINED. W. Bush rammed through 8 "Unqualifed" conservative federal judicial nominees over his 8 years. In Trump's first 3 years alone, he placed 10 "UNQUALIFIED" right wing judges...and 6 more are pending confirmation, as we speak. For reference. Obama nominated a total of ZERO "Unqualified" judges over 8 years. Almost all of Obama's judicial nominees were "well-qualified" (the highest rating possible). Obama was, in reality a moderate institutionalist. His problem was that he happened to be both BLACK and a DEMOCRAT. That made him "evil" in the eyes of conservatives, for reasons that are so obvious that they need not be stated

I can’t comment on that, and it is too voluminous to do so. I can say the above isn’t necessarily reflective of Barrett-Coney.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deuce]

She has mixed race children so of course most white Democrats will rant she is unfit for public office. The racism against her by the Democratic Party for her children is going to be so rabid that it will even be embarrassing to Democratic Party KKK chapters for the level of pure racist hatred.

Only right wingers have ever even brought up her children or their race on this message board.

 

[Deuce]

Federal law literally prohibits even considering a person's religious believes - but most progressive Democrats hate few things more than rule of law. Read many of them spit on that law on this forum.

You people ranted for years that we need to ban Muslims from immigrating, so that's an adorable accusation.

I am not bound by any Federal law. I can consider whatever the **** I want, I have that freedom no matter how desperately you wish I didn't.

 

[ultmd]

You think Elena Kagan's lesbianism and Marxism weren't her primary 'qualifications'?

Lesbianism and Marxism?

Why do you always offer up such empty-headed, fact-free, wingnut arguments and accusations, when you know you can't back them up? You might just be the least credible regular on this board.

And, speaking of your lack of credibility....how are those predictions about the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. looking for you, right about now, huh?

She was hardly a legal wizard.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

• B.A., Princeton-Summa Cum Laude, Recipient of Princeton's highest graduation scholarship and a free ride to Oxford
• M.A., Oxford
• J.D., Harvard-Magna Cum Laude, Supervising Editor of the Harvard Law Review
• Clerked for Thurgood Marshall
• Tenured Law Professor at U. Chicago by age 33
• Dean of Harvard Law by age 43 (first female to achieve that position)
• Solicitor General of the U.S. at age (first female to achieve the position)
• Antonin Scalia PERSONALLY lobbied President Obama to consider Kagan for a seat on the Court

She was never even a judge

So what? Learn some relevant history. Many of the all-time great USSC Justices never served a day on the bench prior to becoming Justices.

John Marshall, William Rehnquist, Lewis Powell Jr., Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, William Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Louis Brandeis, etc.

Amy Cony Barrett's resume pales in comparison to Kagan's. Barrett spent a couple of years in private practice, after clerking for Scalia. Then spent the next 15 years as an assistant professor at her alma mater. That's it. She "earned" her nomination to the Federal Appellate Court Circuit (skipping over the federal district court circuit entirely) simply by being the most radical right-wing, anti-abortion FEMALE legal scholar in the country.

Face it, Barrett is just another example of conservative affirmative action. The history of our country is replete with "affirmative action for white people". You people call it "merit", but by any objective standard, it's anything but. And you guys LOVE this stuff, as long as it furthers your interests and agenda.

 

[Aurora]

Well....that's one opinion, I guess.

Kinda hard to defend the logic, however, when one considers that the wingnuts are poised to nominate the most "far out" wingnuts in recent memory (i.e. Amy Coney Barrett) to the bench, any day now.

Obviously, there is no diversity among the wingnuts. About 90% of the party is white, male, evangelical (or right-wing Catholic) and rural/suburban. Coney Barrett represents "radical" diversity for you people, simple because she has ovaries.

She's not a leftist. She isn't a social activist. Not the duty of a court justice.

 

[Individual]

She's not a leftist. She isn't a social activist. Not the duty of a court justice.

Their duty is to ensure the application of our Constitution as the words were written, NOT to reinterpret them in a more modern context. Any changes to the meaning of our Constitution should be the result of an amendment rewording clearly the new meaning reducing/eliminating a need for interpretation, leaving only application to be adjudicated.

 

[Deuce]

Their duty is to ensure the application of our Constitution as the words were written, NOT to reinterpret them in a more modern context. Any changes to the meaning of our Constitution should be the result of an amendment rewording clearly the new meaning reducing/eliminating a need for interpretation, leaving only application to be adjudicated.

For example, under the original meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors," Donald Trump should have been removed from office inside of his first month.

 

[ultmd]

Does that matter? Does it?

Answer your own question. I'm not the guy trying to make the case that Clarence Thomas was a highly qualified, or intellectually superior candidate to replace the late, great Thurgood Marshall on the Court. Same thing for Kavanaugh, btw. Pointing out the obvious (i.e. that neither Marshall nor Kavanaugh were professionally, intellectually and/or morally unfit for a seat on the Court) should not be controversial, if you are a rational person.

The evaluation, rationally, is to be based on objective criteria. One bit of objective criteria would be A.) the content of their writings and rulings B.) strength of their views as measured by the legal texts and C.) the logic used to support their views, the analysis of law to the facts weaves together by the logic and facts.

Those are all subjective assessments. But sure, they are worth considering. I think there are less subjective criteria to consider, as well. Like experience. Like professional standing and reputation. Like demonstrated excellence and achievement.

Second, your question is built upon another layer of obscurity. What does “legal scholar” mean? How would I go about, if I wanted, identifying, among a see of lawyers and law professors, judges, justices,

Law professors, judges, pre-eminent attorneys with expertise in Constitutional law. You're getting lost in semantics. And I think you know it.

The point is that Clarence Thomas was not widely respected for his legal intellect. The ABA rated him "qualified" by the lowest possible margin (a split vote, half voting NOT qualified) for a USSC nomination. No other USSC justice has ever received such a poor peer review/referral. Thomas was chosen because he was the only available black conservative at the time. Qualifications be damned. That's all. And this the common practice for conservatives in politics. Merit, Morals, Values, Experience are "Qualifications" that are ONLY sticking points for liberals (or perceived liberals). For conservatives, those are all optional. I'm sure you know this, so why play the semantics games?

I can’t comment on that, and it is too voluminous to do so. I can say the above isn’t necessarily reflective of Barrett-Coney.

This is a political debate board. Reading is not optional.

And OF COURSE this is all "reflective" of Coney-Barrett. She's clearly the LEAST qualified person since Clarence Thomas to sit on the Court. That's not even an arguable point. Just because she's a fellow Notre Dame alum, and a rightwing Catholic, doesn't mean she's qualified. She's just someone who shares your values, and that's all that matters to you. I get it.

Just say that, next time. Be honest.

 

[ultmd]

She's not a leftist. She isn't a social activist. Not the duty of a court justice.

Nonsense.

She's a conservative social and legal activist. But that's ok with you, because conservatives LOVE activist judges, as long as they are CONSERVATIVE activists.

That's how/why we get decisions like Citizens' United. Every right-winger in the country cheered when the USSC interpreted the 1st Amendment to include "free speech" rights for Corporations.

That's how/why we see conservatives cheering the Bush v. Gore decision.

That's why we'll see the Court soon ignore almost 50 years of legal precedent, and overturn Roe v Wade.

We could go on and on, listing examples of CONSERVATIVE "legislating from the bench", but....the point is clear. Strict Constructionism is (and always has been) a myth...a canard...a trojan horse. Liberals always understood this. Only now are conservatives admitting it.

 

[Mashmont]

Lesbianism and Marxism?

Why do you always offer up such empty-headed, fact-free, wingnut arguments and accusations, when you know you can't back them up? You might just be the least credible regular on this board.

And, speaking of your lack of credibility....how are those predictions about the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. looking for you, right about now, huh?



You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

• B.A., Princeton-Summa Cum Laude, Recipient of Princeton's highest graduation scholarship and a free ride to Oxford
• M.A., Oxford
• J.D., Harvard-Magna Cum Laude, Supervising Editor of the Harvard Law Review
• Clerked for Thurgood Marshall
• Tenured Law Professor at U. Chicago by age 33
• Dean of Harvard Law by age 43 (first female to achieve that position)
• Solicitor General of the U.S. at age (first female to achieve the position)
• Antonin Scalia PERSONALLY lobbied President Obama to consider Kagan for a seat on the Court

So what? Learn some relevant history. Many of the all-time great USSC Justices never served a day on the bench prior to becoming Justices.

John Marshall, William Rehnquist, Lewis Powell Jr., Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, William Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Louis Brandeis, etc.

Amy Cony Barrett's resume pales in comparison to Kagan's. Barrett spent a couple of years in private practice, after clerking for Scalia. Then spent the next 15 years as an assistant professor at her alma mater. That's it. She "earned" her nomination to the Federal Appellate Court Circuit (skipping over the federal district court circuit entirely) simply by being the most radical right-wing, anti-abortion FEMALE legal scholar in the country.

Face it, Barrett is just another example of conservative affirmative action. The history of our country is replete with "affirmative action for white people". You people call it "merit", but by any objective standard, it's anything but. And you guys LOVE this stuff, as long as it furthers your interests and agenda.

Kagan IS a lesbian and a Marxist and was never a judge when she was nominated. Deny that.

 

[Court Jester]

Republicans have the votes. They should approve her without a hearing. They shouldn't allow Democrats to make another sideshow and try to personally destroy this wonderful woman they want they did Kavanaugh. Amy is too good for that.

I disagree, have the hearing, let the dimocrats do all the talking, let it devolve into a sideshow and let the Americans voters watch and listen. Only thing the Republicans should say to her on their turns is Good Morning, how are you today? Then no further questions, stand on her testimony from her prior confirmations and record, no need to play political football with the losing dimocrats during the hearing. Treat her with the same respect the Republicans treated RBG during her confirmation. Rise above.

I have to hand it to Trump for playing this poker hand so well. He could have nominated her before Gorsuch or Kavanagh, but he knew RBG had a high probability of croaking, and he knew he would need then to replace a woman with a woman. So he waited. Looked at some pitches and went deeper into the count.

Well played sir!

 

[Individual]

For example, under the original meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors," Donald Trump should have been removed from office inside of his first month.

Amy Coney Barrett is the topic, NOT Trump.

 

[Chomsky]

This morning, the GOP sent a letter to President Trump recommending that Mrs. Barrett be chosen as his SC nominee.
Done deal?

I must admit that she is indeed a great choice. Catholic, Notre Dame, clerked all over the place, raising a huge family, top in her law school class, taught Con Law at ND, editor of the Law Review, Phi Betta Kappa.

I'd much prefer a liberal, but have to say Amy seems imminently qualified. I think she'll make a fine Justice. Now Kavanaugh on the other hand ... well, I won't go there.

 

[Kiwimac]

She has mixed race children so of course most white Democrats will rant she is unfit for public office. The racism against her by the Democratic Party for her children is going to be so rabid that it will even be embarrassing to Democratic Party KKK chapters for the level of pure racist hatred.

The KKK is Republican to the core.

 

[Aurora]

Nonsense.

She's a conservative social and legal activist. But that's ok with you, because conservatives LOVE activist judges, as long as they are CONSERVATIVE activists.

That's how/why we get decisions like Citizens' United. Every right-winger in the country cheered when the USSC interpreted the 1st Amendment to include "free speech" rights for Corporations.

That's how/why we see conservatives cheering the Bush v. Gore decision.

That's why we'll see the Court soon ignore almost 50 years of legal precedent, and overturn Roe v Wade.

We could go on and on, listing examples of CONSERVATIVE "legislating from the bench", but....the point is clear. Strict Constructionism is (and always has been) a myth...a canard...a trojan horse. Liberals always understood this. Only now are conservatives admitting it.

Kagan IS a lesbian and a Marxist and was never a judge when she was nominated. Deny that.

Liberals are praising Ginsburg for her social justice stance,

 

[LowDown]

Republicans have the votes. They should approve her without a hearing. They shouldn't allow Democrats to make another sideshow and try to personally destroy this wonderful woman they want they did Kavanaugh. Amy is too good for that.

I agree. With Kavanaugh Democrats lost the moral right to have any input at all.

 

[LowDown]

The KKK is Republican to the core.

Democratic party membership was required for all KKK members.

 

[Kiwimac]

Democratic party membership was required for all KKK members.

In the 19th century perhaps

 

[Individual]

In the 19th century perhaps

And well into the 20th century too, but many still remain under the control of Democrats only today it's as a voting bloc not productive laborers.

 

[Court Jester]

FOXY LADY!!!!

She's GOT IT!!!!

 

[Kiwimac]

FOXY LADY!!!!

She's GOT IT!!!!

She is a right-wing ideologue. But par for the course with the Orange Idiot.