Amy Coney Barrett

SuperMatt

Thread Starter
Site Champ
I Voted
Posts
567
Reaction score
911
Just saw on PBS News Hour that she will be Trump’s nominee. She seems very inexperienced... only 3 years as a judge.

In the “bad place,” people are already screaming that she’ll be religiously persecuted “for being catholic.” Which makes no sense since Biden is catholic. I expect some questions though because she is very outspoken about her faith, seemingly in a way that puts her faith above the constitution.
 

lizkat

Elite Member
I Voted
Posts
1,015
Reaction score
2,229
I keep wondering if Trump and McConnell are on the same page about a court nominee... not only which one, but the timing of a vote.

McConnell is smarter than Trump and a more political animal so he may be able to get whatever it is he really wants without cluing Trump in ahead of time, if he thinks Trump wouldn't like it or wouldn't go along.

Like bringing a nom to the floor before the election, even if short the votes after all... and just letting it fail. That would solve a lot of problems, in reality... and Mitch could shrug them off and blame the Senate he leads. "Did the best we could..." and he thus saves some good will with Biden, who's likely to win the WH.

McConnell wants to keep his leadership post above all. He doesn't care who ends up in the White House (he didn't care in 2016!) but wants to keep the Senate red if possible, doesn't care if Barrett doesn't get enough votes to land on the high court. He'll jam that nomination through only if it doesn't look to cost him too much...
 

Alli

Moderator
Staff member
I Voted
Posts
1,456
Reaction score
2,364

lizkat

Elite Member
I Voted
Posts
1,015
Reaction score
2,229
May she turn out to be the David Souter Trump so richly deserves. It's possible.

Noah Feldman wrote an interesting op-ed about her in Bloomberg. He clerked with her. He's a liberal. He figures he'll disagree with her pretty often, but regards her as highly qualified and an independent thinker.


From the wrap:

It would be naïve to deny that there is plenty of politics in constitutional interpretation. There are winners and losers every time the justices take a stance on an important issue of law. Nevertheless, the institutional purpose of the Supreme Court is to find a resolution of political conflicts through reason, interpretation, argument and vote-casting, not pure power politics. It follows that the social purpose of the Supreme Court is best served when justices on all sides of the issues make the strongest possible arguments, and do so in a way that facilitates debate and conversation.

We have a Supreme Court nominee who is a brilliant lawyer, a genuine and good person — and someone who holds views about how to interpret the law that I think are wrong and, in certain respects, misguided. I hope the senators at her hearing treat her with respect.

And when she is confirmed, I am going to accept it as the consequence of the constitutional rules we have and the choices we collectively and individually have made. And I’m going to be confident that Barrett is going to be a good justice, maybe even a great one — even if I disagree with her all the way.

[ What I might think: Noah Feldman either meditates with greater success than I do, or else he has found some really excellent dope. I don't disagree with a fair amount of what's in this piece but I'm too enraged by the circumstances of any nomination at this time to be able to articulate a defense or for that matter condemnation of any pick Trump might make.

Also: I'm surprised Bloomberg didn't put up their usual disclaimer about what their writers write and what Bloomberg thinks in 18-point bold type on this occasion.]
 

lizkat

Elite Member
I Voted
Posts
1,015
Reaction score
2,229
This little quote is running around my brain at the moment.

“The too-muchness of experiencing, why silence is the language of last resort.”​
--Yvonne Adhiambo Owuor, in the novel “Dust”​


(The comma there may actually carry more freight than that particularly intriguing one in the USA constitution's Second Amendment.)
 

Alli

Moderator
Staff member
I Voted
Posts
1,456
Reaction score
2,364
Here is an interesting read about the cult Barrett comes from. Reminds me of the series about Scientology.

 

SuperMatt

Thread Starter
Site Champ
I Voted
Posts
567
Reaction score
911
Here is an interesting read about the cult Barrett comes from. Reminds me of the series about Scientology.


They don’t allow women in leadership positions. I guess the Supreme Court doesn’t count?
 

lizkat

Elite Member
I Voted
Posts
1,015
Reaction score
2,229
I'm far more concerned that it's the menfolk of the Federalist Society that will have ended up being Barrett's guidance on how to rule on stuff.

But if she rules against choice in various cases likely dealing with state laws , or helps overturn Roe itself, it seems pretty hypocritical for her to be exemplar in smashing through a glass ceiling herself.

That she then proceeds to help consign other women to bearing a child whether they would choose to do so, or should do so?​
Ah but perhaps a woman can afford a nanny, babysitter, daycare, or else round up the money for an illegal abortion here or can fly somewhere else to get one. Sure. That's how it's done. Fuck the law, Always a choice when you have money.​
We saw that movie before. Why are we signing up for it again?​

If Roe goes down then Congress should just legislate a federal right of choice that is unquestionably constitutional. In fact if the Rs press forward on this nomination and it costs them the Senate, the Dems should just do it next year and promptly defend it against this swell 6-3 court Trump is trying to end up with.

The Republicans are not the only crowd with "brilliant" jurists. We just buried one of our own. There are many young women now in or already out of law school who not only admired RBG but have dreamed of and worked towards being able to follow the path she blazed for them. Not only that, there are plenty guys willing to help craft a law that finally gives an American woman the indisputable right to choose without having to go to court or to a back alley to affirm that choice.
 

lizkat

Elite Member
I Voted
Posts
1,015
Reaction score
2,229
National Catholic Reporter has a piece up on Trump's nomination of Barrett. Reaction among Roman Catholics in the USA was not expected to be monolithic, nor necessarily focused only on her views about abortion.


Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote, an independent political advocacy group, said in a Sept. 26 statement ahead of Trump's formal announcement: "Catholics are thrilled with the expected nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett and believe she represents the best choice to protect the rule of law and our constitutional rights." He added that she "deserves a speedy confirmation process and a Senate vote as soon as possible."

Catholics expressing concern about Trump's pick stressed unease with her stance on a number of issues. For example, John Gehring, the Catholic program director for Faith in Public Life, a Washington-based advocacy group, said in a Sept. 26 tweet: "Being 'pro-life' isn't a single issue. Many Catholic voters are worried that Amy Coney Barrett could undermine health care access, workers rights', environmental protections and other moral issues central to church teaching."
 

niji

Power User
I Voted
Posts
136
Reaction score
274
...health care access, workers rights', environmental protections and other moral issues...

there really are 2 Roman Catholic wings:

1st group: post 1960 Jesuit traditions coupled with "health care access, workers rights', environmental protections and other moral issues" (taken from yr quote) which emerged from Latin America-inner city USA-and progressivism, post 1960's. what i call pragmatic christians who see their faith as guiding posts, but with dictates in line with Vatican II.

2nd group: old school (think Ireland, France, South Boston,) that has severe guilt about abortion being not more actively fought against with more financial resources. what i see as more aligned with evangelicals on most issues. the more dogmatic group.

note regarding Notre Dame.
- although Ms. Barrett comes from Notre Dame law school, she did not do her undergraduate studies there
- Trump's Franz Gürtner (otherwise known as Kommandant Barr) gave a very revealing speech at Notre Dame a few months back that outlined his entire State-Religion-must-be-the-basis-for-law-in-USA
that speech so startled me (and legal experts as well...)
what direction Notre Dame is moving in now is beyond me.
from the 1960's until now, Notre Dame was actively promoting itself as a Jesuit university ala post 1960's Jesuit leanings. this had more to do with marketing and fund raising than church dogma.
but after the barr speech, they may be seeing an enrolment chance to tout a more open and direct alignment with being identified as a Catholic (read: dogmatic) university going forward.

 

lizkat

Elite Member
I Voted
Posts
1,015
Reaction score
2,229
Barr's Notre Dame speech if it's the one I'm thinking of was back in October of 2019. It was made to a closed door audience at the university's law school, although a transcript of his prepared remarks was published on the Justice Department's website.


The speech as delivered and officially recorded contained enough asides that I finally opened a tab toy the DOJ site to keep track of the intended speech vs Barr's delivery -- stunned plenty of ordinary citizens as well as academic and political professionals who heard it or else saw a later-released official video of it or merely read the prepared remarks later on. So I'm not saying that the shocking parts of the speech were not in the remarks as prepared for delivery. They were.

If you watch this, I strongly suggest you don't skip the two intros, no matter the inclination.


My first reaction to Barr's remarks was thinking (yet again) that the right leaning pols of America sure do spend a lot of time projecting their own behavior onto the left when they speechify... and my next was wondering if that speech would harm the reputation of Notre Dame, e.g., wrongly call into question the achievements of the so many accomplished alumni and faculty of the school. I would hope not, but it remains to be seen.

To tie this back to the matter of how Catholics view the nomination of Judge Barrett to our highest court, I would only say again that her co-religionists are not monolithic. I sure God hope they aren't all fans of William Barr and I'd like to imagine that Judge Barrett is not without her wonderment over Barr from time to time as well.
 

Scepticalscribe

Moderator
Staff member
Posts
1,098
Reaction score
1,709
there really are 2 Roman Catholic wings:

1st group: post 1960 Jesuit traditions coupled with "health care access, workers rights', environmental protections and other moral issues" (taken from yr quote) which emerged from Latin America-inner city USA-and progressivism, post 1960's. what i call pragmatic christians who see their faith as guiding posts, but with dictates in line with Vatican II.

2nd group: old school (think Ireland, France, South Boston,) that has severe guilt about abortion being not more actively fought against with more financial resources. what i see as more aligned with evangelicals on most issues. the more dogmatic group.

note regarding Notre Dame.
- although Ms. Barrett comes from Notre Dame law school, she did not do her undergraduate studies there
- Trump's Franz Gürtner (otherwise known as Kommandant Barr) gave a very revealing speech at Notre Dame a few months back that outlined his entire State-Religion-must-be-the-basis-for-law-in-USA
that speech so startled me (and legal experts as well...)
what direction Notre Dame is moving in now is beyond me.
from the 1960's until now, Notre Dame was actively promoting itself as a Jesuit university ala post 1960's Jesuit leanings. this had more to do with marketing and fund raising than church dogma.
but after the barr speech, they may be seeing an enrolment chance to tout a more open and direct alignment with being identified as a Catholic (read: dogmatic) university going forward.


Very good post on US Catholicism.

However, I'd argue that Europe is not what it was, not western Europe, anyway, re Catholicism.

For example, Ireland is now a lot more liberal than it used to be (in the past five years, same sex marriage and abortion have both been legalised by referendum - i.e. by a public vote - overturning prohibitions in the constitution); it is not - not remotely - the same country it was half a century ago, - the power of the Roman Catholic Church has waned considerably - and it is far more liberal now.

In the case of Northern Ireland, the identification with religion is a cultural (and political) identification, not one of theological belief, and not necessarily where one is informed by church teaching on matters such as abortion or divorce, still less one where people actually practice these religions.

France has always - but always - had a robust, secular, liberal tradition, that has - ever since the revolution - been in constant, cultural dispute with an older, conservative (at times, reactionary) tradition, that was heavily influenced by a suffocating Catholicism. Again, the liberal tradition is far more persuasive and prevalent, these days, certainly since WW2 and the 60s-70s. Portugal, Spain and Italy went through similar social, cultural and legal changes.

So, while the western European Catholic world you describe undoubtedly existed, that world has changed, irrevocably.

These days, for an active ardent, (almost fanatical) Catholicism, one allied with strong cultural and political conservative forces, which have an impact in law, politics, and on the lives of women, you have to travel to the east of the continent, to places such as Poland, and Hungary.
 
Last edited:

Yoused

Site Champ
Posts
258
Reaction score
417
Just another step in the theft of the country,

Did you know Amy Coney Barrett is sitting in a stolen judicial seat right now?" (civil rights lawyer Leslie) Proll asked in a tweet on Saturday. "In May 2017, Trump nominated Barrett to IN seat on Seventh Circuit, which covers Indiana, Illinois & Wisconsin. This is same seat to which President Obama nominated Myra Selby, a Black woman, in 2016."

"But Republican Senators blocked Selby’s confirmation and saved the seat for Donald Trump," she continued. "After Trump was elected Seventh Circuit lost its only Black judge to retirement. The Shelby appointment would have retained diversity on this court.

(Man, crooks&liars is a badly coded site.)
 
Top Bottom