Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Mr.Pack said:

And this is good policy?

Of course "we the people" would do better being less lazy and less proud of our ignorance.  But if "we the people" were required to understand all of the positive impacts that a major piece of legislation contained before it could be voted on then Congress might as well be dissolved.   It is ten years later and there are still many (though less and less each year) that don't grasp what was in the bill (as evident by its components routinely polling better than the name).

But even more simplistic than this, the entire purpose of representative government is to represent the interest of the people without the need for the people to actually understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

What is the issue with having 7 kids?

Plain and simple, it's odd and most Americans would agree that it's odd. :shrug:

 

"In the United States, nearly half of adults consider two to be the ideal number of children, according to Gallup polls, with three as the next most popular option, preferred by 26 percent. Two is the favorite across Europe, too."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eoMMan said:

Plain and simple, it's odd and most Americans would agree that it's odd. :shrug:

 

"In the United States, nearly half of adults consider two to be the ideal number of children, according to Gallup polls, with three as the next most popular option, preferred by 26 percent. Two is the favorite across Europe, too."

It may be more than most adults have but what is odd about it?  Does it prevent her from doing her job or alter her resume?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the best criticism is that she has 7 kids I'd say she's qualified. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Props to former Dem. Sen. Joe Lieberman for recently calling out Feinstein...obviously he thinks what occurred in 2017 is still relevant and at risk of happening again.

 

"But when you start to say that you're against them because their religion, in this case, their Roman Catholicism determines their point of view," he added, "you're doing something really abhorrent that I think is bigoted, is un-American, and incidentally, is unconstitutional."

"I thought Sen. Feinstein's question in that case," Lieberman said, "was really improper, and was biased really. Everybody brings to the Senate, to the Congress, to [the] Supreme Court experiences and beliefs that they have.

"There's no reason why a religiously observant person should be accused more of dogma than somebody who is particularly ideological in a secular way."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lieberman-amy-coney-barrett-catholic-faith

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

Props to former Dem. Sen. Joe Lieberman for recently calling out Feinstein...obviously he thinks what occurred in 2017 is still relevant and at risk of happening again.

 

"But when you start to say that you're against them because their religion, in this case, their Roman Catholicism determines their point of view," he added, "you're doing something really abhorrent that I think is bigoted, is un-American, and incidentally, is unconstitutional."

"I thought Sen. Feinstein's question in that case," Lieberman said, "was really improper, and was biased really. Everybody brings to the Senate, to the Congress, to [the] Supreme Court experiences and beliefs that they have.

"There's no reason why a religiously observant person should be accused more of dogma than somebody who is particularly ideological in a secular way."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lieberman-amy-coney-barrett-catholic-faith

 

This is why I voted for Lieberman numerous times.  An independent thinker...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eoMMan said:

Plain and simple, it's odd and most Americans would agree that it's odd. :shrug:

 

"In the United States, nearly half of adults consider two to be the ideal number of children, according to Gallup polls, with three as the next most popular option, preferred by 26 percent. Two is the favorite across Europe, too."

It's not odd at all.   There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. 

Ideal?    From what I saw at her speech, those seven kids looked ideal to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Getzlaf15 said:

It's not odd at all.   There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. 

Ideal?    From what I saw at her speech, those seven kids looked ideal to me. 

I'll bow out after this post but if you look at the definition of "odd"...having 7 kids is odd. It literally fits the definition of the word. There's no debate here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/odd

"

odd

 adjective

\ ˈäd  \

odder; oddest

Kids Definition of odd

1: not usual or common : STRANGEWalking backward is an odd thing to do.

2: not usual, expected, or plannedHe does odd jobs to earn extra money.Finding the passage was an odd stroke of luck.

3: not capable of being divided by two without leaving a remainderThe odd numbers include 1, 3, 5, 7, etc.

4: not one of a pair or a setShe found an odd glove.

5: being or having a number that cannot be divided by two without leaving a remainderan odd year

6: some more than the number mentionedThe ship sank fifty odd years ago."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She had 5 kids and adooted two kids from Haiti.  Seems like she is qualified for sainthood.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, 7 kids is odd in the sense that it is unusual. But it doesn't have any bearing on her qualifications for bring a supreme court justice. I'm going to read eoMan charitably and assume that's what he meant. ETA: to be fair to him, he didn't say anything bad about Barret in that post, just "yikes", which I took to mean that's a lot of kids and would be a lot of work. 

This coming from somebody who will 100% vote Biden and doesn't want Barret confirmed simply because the "precedent" McConnell set a mere 4 years ago with the BS about letting the people decide since it is an election year after all. 

Edited by FBG26
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Context matters.  How the word is being used and by whom.  Odd usually has a negative connotation to it. 

In the dictionary example given if someones standard is to walk backwards you probably think they have a problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jon_mx said:

She had 5 kids and adooted two kids from Haiti.  Seems like she is qualified for sainthood.

She also chose to keep a child who was diagnosed with Downs syndrome during prenatal testing. Her character and scholarliness are not in question. The final vote for approval is a done deal. If the dems wanna get PR points they should focus on ACA and executive power issues. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Getzlaf15 said:

It's not odd at all.   There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. 

I'm not among this group, nor do I recall exactly who has expressed this sentiment in the past, but there are numerous posters who have historically posted that having lots of children is wrong in the context of the global population an the ability for the earth to sustain such numbers.  So if someone were to disagree with you it could be that they are finding reason to argue against this nominee but they could also be asserting this opinion which has been rather common.  To give context it has not been uncommon in guaranteed income (BIG or UBI) threads for those to argue against any funds being allocated to parents based on the number of children.  Again I'm not among this group of posters, but do know they exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Stoneworker said:

"But when you start to say that you're against them because their religion, in this case, their Roman Catholicism determines their point of view," he added, "you're doing something really abhorrent that I think is bigoted, is un-American, and incidentally, is unconstitutional."

Was this an issue for the John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and/or Brett Kavanaugh confirmations?   

10 hours ago, stlrams said:

This is why I voted for Lieberman numerous times.  An independent thinker...

Seems pretty disingenuous to pretend that the concerns (fair or not) about Barrett are about what she has in common with millions of Americans (Roman Catholicism) as opposed to what makes her standout (People of Praise).

 

Edited by Bottomfeeder Sports

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure someone paying only $750 in taxes and in hoc to god knows who for in excess of $400 million shouldn’t be making Supreme Court nominations.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, eoMMan said:

I'll bow out after this post but if you look at the definition of "odd"...having 7 kids is odd. It literally fits the definition of the word. There's no debate here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/odd

"

odd

 adjective

\ ˈäd  \

odder; oddest

Kids Definition of odd

1: not usual or common : STRANGEWalking backward is an odd thing to do.

2: not usual, expected, or plannedHe does odd jobs to earn extra money.Finding the passage was an odd stroke of luck.

3: not capable of being divided by two without leaving a remainderThe odd numbers include 1, 3, 5, 7, etc.

4: not one of a pair or a setShe found an odd glove.

5: being or having a number that cannot be divided by two without leaving a remainderan odd year

6: some more than the number mentionedThe ship sank fifty odd years ago."

You're the one that is odd for thinking having 7 kids is odd.  My mother came from a family of 8 kids.  Hell, I'll be willing to bet that in the state of Utah it is common.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Hell, I'll be willing to bet that in the state of Utah it is common.

I don't think that there is much about Utah that isn't "odd".    ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone with more than 3 kids is weird...period, end of story...this includes my brother with 5 kids.  

Mark me down as one who doesn't care if she's Catholic or not.  My concern with potential justices, not just her, is always whether they can put their personal views to the side and make decisions based on the law.  I think she's a better choice than Kavanaugh and I thought that before he threw his tantrums.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, eoMMan said:

I'll bow out after this post but if you look at the definition of "odd"...having 7 kids is odd. It literally fits the definition of the word. There's no debate here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/odd

"

odd

 adjective

\ ˈäd  \

odder; oddest

Kids Definition of odd

1: not usual or common : STRANGEWalking backward is an odd thing to do.

2: not usual, expected, or plannedHe does odd jobs to earn extra money.Finding the passage was an odd stroke of luck.

3: not capable of being divided by two without leaving a remainderThe odd numbers include 1, 3, 5, 7, etc.

4: not one of a pair or a setShe found an odd glove.

5: being or having a number that cannot be divided by two without leaving a remainderan odd year

6: some more than the number mentionedThe ship sank fifty odd years ago."

Fair point.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Was this an issue for the John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and/or Brett Kavanaugh confirmations?   

The whataboutism dogma lives loudly within you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

The whataboutism dogma lives loudly within you.

There is no counter accusation (in fact I left Sonia Sotomayor off the list which could theoretically serve that purpose), nor did I raise a different issue to avoid the difficult question.  So nope!

Instead I pointed out that four GOP nominated justices are already Catholics and asked if that was a big deal during their confirmations.   (I don't know if the answer is no for any of them, or if all of them faced such questions, or somewhere in between).  Since, assuming that Barrett is confirmed six out of nine justices would be Catholic I think it is difficult to argue that being Catholic is by itself a problem.   But Barrett isn't just a Catholic. 

Now based on their website and FAQ I am not sure that the "public facing" "People of Praise" is an issue either (beyond admiring communists of course - "The People of Praise is a charismatic Christian community. We admire the first Christians who were led by the Holy Spirit to form a community. Those early believers put their lives and their possessions in common, and 'there were no needy persons among them'.")  But the headlines talk about the "secretive" nature of the group and I think it is appropriate to make certain that the "public facing" aspects are accurate and specifically what this "Our covenant is neither an oath nor a vow, but it is an important personal commitment" means to Barrett.  But these seem to be easily answered just by rephrasing the next sentence " We say that People of Praise members should always follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, and by the experience and the teachings of their churches" to minimize that last little bit.

For full disclosure if I was president I would not be nominating any Catholics anytime soon.  Not because there is something wrong with being Catholic (half my family is Catholic) but because I think it would be healthy to have some religious diversity on the court the same way others want diversity in education among other things.  But that would also be why I would not want here mainstream religious beliefs to be much of a topic because we all know they will be used as "whataboutism" if an atheist or muslin or hindu was nominated as justification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Mr.Pack said:

Fine, but why should a bill like that or any bill that affects millions of people, be kept from the people BEFORE it's passed? Where was the transparency?

It wasn't.  Much like you totally misunderstood what was being said originally, you also are now totally misunderstanding what was being said.

Edit: I guess the only answer I could give to that question is because Republicans were lying about what was in the bill to their constituents.  Things like "Death Panels" for instance.  What Pelosi was saying was "this huge bill has a lot of great things, and you're being lied to about what's in it by partisan hacks protecting the insurance industry.  We have to get it passed and let the Republicans stop lying so that you can understand what's in it when the story on the news isn't about whatever idiocy they're making up out of thin air this week."  Transparency isn't just about releasing the bill (and they did) it's also about how much chaff gets shot out between the viewer and the thing being viewed.  The Republican Party is masterful at firing gigantic cannons of chaff between what is being proposed and the voters.  Like they did with the ACA and a thousand other things since the Equal Rights Amendment.

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am catholic - though apparently not as catholic as Barrett.

Her faith does not bother me, nor does the faith of any other justice, or judicial nominee.

 

The critical questions - can she separate her faith from her legal scholarship?  Will she impose her faith on millions of Americans via the way she rules from the bench?

 

And, lets not kid ourselves here - these would be the same questions asked, albeit more harshly, if the nominee was Muslim.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I am catholic - though apparently not as catholic as Barrett.

Her faith does not bother me, nor does the faith of any other justice, or judicial nominee.

 

The critical questions - can she separate her faith from her legal scholarship?  Will she impose her faith on millions of Americans via the way she rules from the bench?

 

And, lets not kid ourselves here - these would be the same questions asked, albeit more harshly, if the nominee was Muslim.

This is spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Henry Ford @Sinn Fein @anyone

 

There's no hope here, right? There is nothing the Democrats can do to stop this nomination, correct? 

Which means Obamacare and preexisting conditions dies in approximately 6-7 weeks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BobbyLayne said:

@Henry Ford @Sinn Fein @anyone

 

There's no hope here, right? There is nothing the Democrats can do to stop this nomination, correct? 

Which means Obamacare and preexisting conditions dies in approximately 6-7 weeks?

If it would, it dies anyway unless some existing Supreme Court justices change their minds.  A 4-4 tie upholds the lower court ruling, and the appeal is of a ruling against the ACA.

And no, there's no hope here.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BobbyLayne said:

@Henry Ford @Sinn Fein @anyone

 

There's no hope here, right? There is nothing the Democrats can do to stop this nomination, correct? 

Which means Obamacare and preexisting conditions dies in approximately 6-7 weeks?

There is very little hope.

 

I think the best the Dems can do right now - is provoke public outrage over healthcare.  That is real, and affects people across the spectrum.

The problem is there is not enough time to really focus anger into action - in a meaningful way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BobbyLayne said:

@Henry Ford @Sinn Fein @anyone

 

There's no hope here, right? There is nothing the Democrats can do to stop this nomination, correct? 

Which means Obamacare and preexisting conditions dies in approximately 6-7 weeks?

The case is scheduled to be conveniently heard right after the election and then I'd assume a decision announced near the end of the term.  So ObamaCare should be good until the spring from this non legal guesstimate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the extent there is hope - its this:

The Dems can hope to control the House, Senate and White House - for at least two years, if not longer.

Within that, it is within their power to enact legislation that complies with SC rulings, but also moves toward democratic supported solutions to issues like healthcare, or gun control, or abortion (though I think this last one could be difficult to do on the federal level).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BobbyLayne said:

There's no hope here, right? There is nothing the Democrats can do to stop this nomination, correct? 

Which means Obamacare and preexisting conditions dies in approximately 6-7 weeks?

If Democrats sweep everything in November, they can pass legislation early next year that restores access to health care a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

There is no counter accusation (in fact I left Sonia Sotomayor off the list which could theoretically serve that purpose), nor did I raise a different issue to avoid the difficult question.  So nope!

Instead I pointed out that four GOP nominated justices are already Catholics and asked if that was a big deal during their confirmations.   (I don't know if the answer is no for any of them, or if all of them faced such questions, or somewhere in between).  Since, assuming that Barrett is confirmed six out of nine justices would be Catholic I think it is difficult to argue that being Catholic is by itself a problem.   But Barrett isn't just a Catholic. 

Now based on their website and FAQ I am not sure that the "public facing" "People of Praise" is an issue either (beyond admiring communists of course - "The People of Praise is a charismatic Christian community. We admire the first Christians who were led by the Holy Spirit to form a community. Those early believers put their lives and their possessions in common, and 'there were no needy persons among them'.")  But the headlines talk about the "secretive" nature of the group and I think it is appropriate to make certain that the "public facing" aspects are accurate and specifically what this "Our covenant is neither an oath nor a vow, but it is an important personal commitment" means to Barrett.  But these seem to be easily answered just by rephrasing the next sentence " We say that People of Praise members should always follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, and by the experience and the teachings of their churches" to minimize that last little bit.

For full disclosure if I was president I would not be nominating any Catholics anytime soon.  Not because there is something wrong with being Catholic (half my family is Catholic) but because I think it would be healthy to have some religious diversity on the court the same way others want diversity in education among other things.  But that would also be why I would not want here mainstream religious beliefs to be much of a topic because we all know they will be used as "whataboutism" if an atheist or muslin or hindu was nominated as justification.

I agree that the People of Praise membership should be carefully explored further to ensure there wouldn't be anything that would prevent Barrett from separating church and state.

IMO the reference to other nominees was not relevant since it seemed to imply that since the others weren't unfairly attacked, then neither would she. When it is obvious this is not the case. No worries and apologies if this was not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I am catholic - though apparently not as catholic as Barrett.

Her faith does not bother me, nor does the faith of any other justice, or judicial nominee.

 

The critical questions - can she separate her faith from her legal scholarship?  Will she impose her faith on millions of Americans via the way she rules from the bench?

 

And, lets not kid ourselves here - these would be the same questions asked, albeit more harshly, if the nominee was Muslim.

I think there is a broader question about the subservient nature of the People of Praise.  If she takes guidance from the female leader of this group, where does that guidance stop?  If that leader told her to write an opinion a certain way on an item before the court, would she go along with it?  She did make a covenant to that group to be subservient to the leader.

This is not all that different than someone that explicitly said they would take guidance on SCOTUS rulings from the Pope or from a mullah, but in the former case, at least the distance between the Pope and the judge is larger and more diffuse.  Plus, the Pope doesn't often give commentary on specific cases before the court, but I don't know about the leader of the People of Praise.

As I said before, my friend's family was a member of this organization in the late 70s / early 80s in South Bend.  The family left when it became obvious that the leaders were abusing the followers (his words, I don't have details).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I am catholic - though apparently not as catholic as Barrett.

Her faith does not bother me, nor does the faith of any other justice, or judicial nominee.

The critical questions - can she separate her faith from her legal scholarship?  Will she impose her faith on millions of Americans via the way she rules from the bench?

And, lets not kid ourselves here - these would be the same questions asked, albeit more harshly, if the nominee was Muslim.

The critical questions you are asking are subjective and almost rhetorical in nature.

Any Democratic Senator could easily justify (rationalize?) their No vote simply by saying Barrett didn't answer those questions "to their own personal satisfaction blah blah blah"...thus giving them an easy out...when to anyone with half a brain it would clearly be partisan politics.

Is this where we are headed? A confirmation vote along party lines...even though it's obvious to everyone the Democrats are just victims of bad timing?*

 

*Assuming nothing blatant turns up in the confirmation process.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

The critical questions you are asking are subjective and almost rhetorical in nature.

Any Democratic Senator could easily justify (rationalize?) their No vote simply by saying Barrett didn't answer those questions "to their own personal satisfaction blah blah blah"...thus giving them an easy out...when to anyone with half a brain it would clearly be partisan politics.

Is this where we are headed? A confirmation vote along party lines...even though it's obvious to everyone the Democrats are just victims of bad timing?*

 

*Assuming nothing blatant turns up in the confirmation process.

 

The vote to confirm is going to be 51 Rs in favor versus 47 D/I and 2 R against. Already a done deal. Don’t know why we need the theatrics. 
 

Edit: If I was a D Senator I wouldn’t vote at all. It’s the process and the politics at issue here. I’d let it be a 51-0 vote if I was Dem leadership. 

Edited by Trey
Edit for my thoughts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

even though it's obvious to everyone the Democrats are just victims of bad timing?*

"bad timing?"

 

Russian Judge:  🔟

Edited by Sinn Fein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

There is no counter accusation (in fact I left Sonia Sotomayor off the list which could theoretically serve that purpose), nor did I raise a different issue to avoid the difficult question.  So nope!

Instead I pointed out that four GOP nominated justices are already Catholics and asked if that was a big deal during their confirmations.   (I don't know if the answer is no for any of them, or if all of them faced such questions, or somewhere in between).  Since, assuming that Barrett is confirmed six out of nine justices would be Catholic I think it is difficult to argue that being Catholic is by itself a problem.   But Barrett isn't just a Catholic. 

Now based on their website and FAQ I am not sure that the "public facing" "People of Praise" is an issue either (beyond admiring communists of course - "The People of Praise is a charismatic Christian community. We admire the first Christians who were led by the Holy Spirit to form a community. Those early believers put their lives and their possessions in common, and 'there were no needy persons among them'.")  But the headlines talk about the "secretive" nature of the group and I think it is appropriate to make certain that the "public facing" aspects are accurate and specifically what this "Our covenant is neither an oath nor a vow, but it is an important personal commitment" means to Barrett.  But these seem to be easily answered just by rephrasing the next sentence " We say that People of Praise members should always follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, and by the experience and the teachings of their churches" to minimize that last little bit.

For full disclosure if I was president I would not be nominating any Catholics anytime soon.  Not because there is something wrong with being Catholic (half my family is Catholic) but because I think it would be healthy to have some religious diversity on the court the same way others want diversity in education among other things.  But that would also be why I would not want here mainstream religious beliefs to be much of a topic because we all know they will be used as "whataboutism" if an atheist or muslin or hindu was nominated as justification.

Not that it matters to me personally, but there's been a lot of discussion about how she's being "attacked" for being Catholic. Attacks which I haven't seen, but I have seen the accusations of attacks. 

From the website linked above:

"Jesus desires unity for all people. We live out this unity the best we can, in spite of the divisions within Christianity. We are Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians and other denominational and nondenominational Christians."

So, how does it follow that she's Catholic? None of the Catholic churches I've attended state that they are also "Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians and other denominational and nondenominational Christians".

Seems straightforward enough, until it isn't at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched an interview with Amy yesterday and she seems like a quality person.  When she said something like a Supreme Court judge is not there to make to laws of the land but there to uphold the laws of the land I guess that is all we can ask for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

Watched an interview with Amy yesterday and she seems like a quality person.  When she said something like a Supreme Court judge is not there to make to laws of the land but there to uphold the laws of the land I guess that is all we can ask for.

Nah, we can ask for more than that.  A lot more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

I think there is a broader question about the subservient nature of the People of Praise.  If she takes guidance from the female leader of this group, where does that guidance stop?  If that leader told her to write an opinion a certain way on an item before the court, would she go along with it?  She did make a covenant to that group to be subservient to the leader.

I don't know anything about the group - other than that they appear to be a lot more devout than I am.

 

But, I thought this was a male-dominated sect.  I did not know there was a female leader.

 

I also think many of these same questions were asked of JFK - would he owe allegiance or fealty to the Pope?

 

Again, we can't separate a person's faith from who they are as a person.  My chief concerns would be - is she going to impose those beliefs on others?  Can she separate her beliefs from the legal issues.

 

For example - her faith makes her opposed to all abortions.  Does that dictate her legal arguments on the issue?  Conversely, I would expect her beliefs to be equally as opposed to the death penalty - does she follow her beliefs here?  If there is a difference - its worth a little exploration.

 

The second, perhaps more important issue, is there enough time to properly vet her?  Rushing decisions like this are fraught with peril.  

 

I also wonder how people would feel about her faith is she were Muslim, or a Scientologist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Form my very cursory understand of the People of Praise, there are male leaders and female leaders and the members are supposed to go to the leader of their sex for guidance.  The overall leadership I'm sure is male dominated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I also think many of these same questions were asked of JFK - would he owe allegiance or fealty to the Pope?

Is that anti-Catholic or is that simply a valid question for all people of religious faiths that have a leader?  I think it's the latter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

If she takes guidance from the female leader of this group, where does that guidance stop?  If that leader told her to write an opinion a certain way on an item before the court, would she go along with it?  She did make a covenant to that group to be subservient to the leader.

This is not all that different than someone that explicitly said they would take guidance on SCOTUS rulings from the Pope or from a mullah, but in the former case, at least the distance between the Pope and the judge is larger and more diffuse.

These were the precise concerns with JFK, a known Catholic. How do we know he's not going to take orders from the Pope?

I think the obvious answer in Barrett's case is that those People of Praise folks don't know anything about the work that appellate judges do. On that issue, they'll defer to ACB's expertise rather than the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

There is very little hope.

 

I think the best the Dems can do right now - is provoke public outrage over healthcare.  That is real, and affects people across the spectrum.

The problem is there is not enough time to really focus anger into action - in a meaningful way.

 

I have it on good authority that Trump is going to release the details of an amazing health care plan in 2 weeks.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.