Amy Coney Barrett

[SuperMatt]

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.)

But hey, Trump is friends with Herschel Walker, so that proves he isn’t racist.

 

[Thomas Veil]

Republicans then: "Omigod, we can't elect John F. Kennedy! He's a Catholic. What if he does something...Catholic?

Republicans now: "We gotta get that pope-lover chick on the Supreme Court...now!!"

 

[Yoused]

What religion is Joe Biden (who smears ashes on his forehead in late winter)?

 

[lizkat]

What religion is Joe Biden (who smears ashes on his forehead in late winter)?

Biden is Roman Catholic. Is my next question supposed to be so what, or are we just going to stipulate that it's pretty weird for Rs to propose anti-catholic bigotry at play in Democrats' opposition to Barrett's nomination, since our own nominee is Roman Catholic himself.

It's hilarious in a noir vein that the Rs, at the bidding of evangelical Protestants when putting conservatives on the court, seem no longer to trust Protestants in general not to drift to the left, ever since David Souter (an Episcopalian) deeply disappointed some conservative voters. Some Protestant sects at least in the USA don't actually regard either Episcopalians, Anglicans or Roman Catholics as "real" Christians yet lately choose RCs for the court.

Conservatives do increasingly seem to expect their picks on the high court to rule in the context of some sort of imagined "Christian" construction of the United States of America despite the clear text of the First Amendment, meanwhile putting RCs onto the bench in the assumption they will rule against abortion... forgetting they may also rule against the death penalty, for example, if they set religious doctrine before the Constitution and legal precedents.

Go figure. Bottom line: the politicization of selections for the high court, the unreasonable expectations that the politics of whoever appointed a justice should drive interpretation of the Constitution, and the increasing entanglement by Republicans of politics and the pulpit since the 1990s are making of our federal benches an unholy and convoluted hell for an America whose founders proposed an independent judiciary.

 

[lizkat]

In recent news on Barrett, first reported in the Guardian:

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1311758489920909313/​

​

There's some argument over whether a nominee to the courts must supply information on all endorsements or only references to material that one has edited or written. The White House says Barrett only "signed" the ad in question, so it doesn't matter that she did not disclose it in material submitted for her vetting.

[so we are to assume what about that, vis a vis her potential ability to indeed write or edit an opinion about Roe V Wade from the highest court in the USA? Maybe if she initials a draft doesn't mean she intends to support it when the opinion is published? And meanwhile how will she have voted?]

This is not going to matter to the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but in case they cared, my reaction to this piece of news is "imagine my surprise".

Barrett's participation in 2006 ad calling for overturn of Roe v. Wade was not included in Senate disclosures

Democrats say she should have revealed the inclusion of her name on a list of signatures supporting the ad sponsor's mission.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Alli]

And even worse news, it seems that she was the only one in the Rose Garden the other day who has already had, or at least tested positive for, COVID. Hrmmm....Typhoid Mary is now COVID Amy?

 

[lizkat]

File under "another county heard from" on Barrett's nomination: more than 1500 alumni of Barrett's undergraduate college, including some from as far back as class of 1959 and also including some who were there while Barrett was, have signed a letter protesting the college administration's embrace of Barrett's nomination and asserting that she has not been entirely forthcoming on her views of a number of hot button issues that come before the high court.

Hundreds of alumni from Amy Coney Barrett's undergrad school declare opposition

More than 1,500 alumni of the college Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett graduated from are not proud of their ties to her.

www.latimes.com

“Amy Coney Barrett has repeatedly shaded the truth about her own views and past associations,” the letter said. It added that Barrett “has demonstrated a judicial philosophy and record that fails to serve and protect the vulnerable in our society, including immigrants, those in the criminal justice system, and individuals reliant on the Affordable Care Act.”

[Rhodes alumnus Rob] Marus, co-author of the alumni letter, told the Associated Press the letter’s signees were upset and concerned the college’s reputation could be diminished... He called her views “antediluvian,” adding some alumni are terrified of any lifetime appointment for Barrett to the court.

“We thought it was time to speak out,” said Marus. “We never thought we’d change how the Senate voted on her. What we wanted to affect was public perception of Rhodes, the education we received there.”

The college president stood by her September 22 letter celebrating Barrett's nomination, but now of course must also get out in the weeds of alumni politics:

In a subsequent statement following the alumni’s letter, Hass encouraged “all members of the Rhodes community to rise to this moment with courage and to speak, act, and vote in the service of justice."

"I hope that your letter — as well as the support, dissent, and attention it has generated — serves as a spur for robust engagement with the political process,” Hass wrote.

Hass reiterated support for Barrett but added in remarks later on that she was “happy to reaffirm my own commitment and the commitment of the college to stand against bigotry and for the rights of minority and marginalized students and alumni.”

Yeah college presidents must learn ballroom dancing, you bet.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Biden is Roman Catholic. Is my next question supposed to be so what, or are we just going to stipulate that it's pretty weird for Rs to propose anti-catholic bigotry at play in Democrats' opposition to Barrett's nomination, since our own nominee is Roman Catholic himself.

It's hilarious in a noir vein that the Rs, at the bidding of evangelical Protestants when putting conservatives on the court, seem no longer to trust Protestants in general not to drift to the left, ever since David Souter (an Episcopalian) deeply disappointed some conservative voters. Some Protestant sects at least in the USA don't actually regard either Episcopalians, Anglicans or Roman Catholics as "real" Christians yet lately choose RCs for the court.

Conservatives do increasingly seem to expect their picks on the high court to rule in the context of some sort of imagined "Christian" construction of the United States of America despite the clear text of the First Amendment, meanwhile putting RCs onto the bench in the assumption they will rule against abortion... forgetting they may also rule against the death penalty, for example, if they set religious doctrine before the Constitution and legal precedents.

Go figure. Bottom line: the politicization of selections for the high court, the unreasonable expectations that the politics of whoever appointed a justice should drive interpretation of the Constitution, and the increasing entanglement by Republicans of politics and the pulpit since the 1990s are making of our federal benches an unholy and convoluted hell for an America whose founders proposed an independent judiciary.

Fintan O'Toole (in today's Irish Times) has a fascinating article addressing that very point and stressing that Mr Trump (despite his unsavoury personal life) has managed to unite the 'conservative' branch of US Catholicism and Evangelicals, whereas Mr Biden, who is a practicing Catholic (and would probably take the JFK view on Catholics imposing their religious principles on others, or via legislation, while holding high office, as he clearly did as VP serving under President Obama), seems more representative of a more 'liberal' and progressive expression of Catholicism in public life, as is seen in parts of the east coast, among a 'liberal' Catholic elite.

 

[lizkat]

Fintan O'Toole (in today's Irish Times) has a fascinating article addressing that very point and stressing that Mr Trump (despite his unsavoury personal life) has managed to unite the 'conservative' branch of US Catholicism and Evangelicals, whereas Mr Biden, who is a practicing Catholic (and would probably take the JFK view on Catholics imposing their religious principles on others, or via legislation, while holding high office, as he clearly did as VP serving under President Obama), seems more representative of a more 'liberal' and progressive expression of Catholicism in public life, as is seen in parts of the east coast, among a 'liberal' Catholic elite.

The US Bishops' Conference decided to let each diocese determine how it wants to handle the rather dicey issue of "religion in the public square" so to speak, i.e. conflict of secular law and religious doctrine. It's very true that there are conservative and less conservative RC clergy including in the upper levels of the church's hierarchy.

Practicing Roman Catholic pols on the left often do take a public stance that they will respect and uphold secular law where it may conflict with RC doctrines or their own personal views on specified issues like abortion.

Conservative clergy will sometimes state that priests should deny communion to RC pols who take that road. The official position is usually stated a little differently, that someone who "persists in a public way in supporting abortion access... should refrain from receiving Holy Communion." But again, it's left up to the diocese in the USA.

Biden's bishop in his home area of Wilmington, Delaware, has not spoken publicly on the matter despite pressure from conservative RCs to do so. However, a priest in South Carolina made headlines sometime last year for denying Biden communion at a mass. Cardinal Dolan of New York was asked about that in an interview:

Dolan explained why he has never denied Holy Communion to anybody: "I personally can never judge the state of a person's soul. So it's difficult, that's what I'm saying. I'm not there as a tribunal, as a judge in distributing Holy Communion."

Asked whether Fr. Robert Morey was correct to refuse Holy Communion to Biden, Dolan answered: "Uh, I think what he said was very to the point, I thought that was a good teaching moment. But whether that prudential judgment was wise, I don't want to judge him either."

Dolan want on to say, "I wouldn't do it."

A few reactionary high level RC clergy from the US have made press to the contrary sometimes on this issue. The bishop of Phoenix once tweeted in all caps that pro-choice pols should even be excommunicated. This actually goes against church doctrine itself, which proposes a different canon law, involving private counsel. Cardinal Burke, formerly of St. Louis, now in Rome, notoriously anti-feminist and perennially in conflict with Pope Francis (who has demoted Burke a few times from assorted Vatican posts), acknowledges that he himself risks excommunication sometimes on matters of doctrine, e.g. on divorce and remarriage, because he so strongly disagrees with this somewhat more liberal Pope.

 

[Yoused]

I heard a rumor that Amy had a bout of COVID-19 this past summer and may have still been shedding pathogens during her encounters with various executive branch personnel – including the ShitGibbon. Ironic, in a deeply twisted way, that she could be the major vector. He chooses "only the best people".

 

[Eric]

Graham is asking for permission to push this back two weeks and Schumer must approve, which seem very unlikely considering how Republicans have basically given Dems the finger at literally every corner.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1312443247357165570/

 

[JBaby]

Graham is asking for permission to push this back two weeks and Schumer must approve, which seem very unlikely considering how Republicans have basically given Dems the finger at literally every corner.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1312443247357165570/

I don’t know. The Dems love giving the GOP everything they want.

 

[Eric]

I don’t know. The Dems love giving the GOP everything they want.

All to often. Let's hope he holds fast here.

 

[lizkat]

All to often. Let's hope he holds fast here.

Without irony the Rs will tag Schumer's refusal as "political grandstanding". They also didn't like various Democrats' perfectly understandable and indeed sensible decisions not to meet w/ Barrett this past week, in the traditional shepherding around of a new court nominee by advocates for private meetings in advance of a Judiciary Committee hearing, but those decisions were greeted with Republican cries of "how rude" Dems have been to Barrett.

I have stopped listening for valid points attempted by the GOP or its followers in trying to defend this appointment, either as to nominee credentials or timing of the appointment itself, never mind hearings and a floor vote.

The whole thing --the several notably political characteristics of this nominee vs the iconic jurist she would replace, the timing of nomination, an attempt to make the promise of a floor vote before the election into ad-worthy campaign material-- is a power play, which is always an option for a party with the nominal strength to pull it off.

This particular set of circumstances though might make a pretty sharp-elbowed nomination now less likely to succeed, than if covid-19 and Barrett's nomination celebration had not met up with each other among hosts and invited guests in that WH Rose Garden last weekend.

Mulling the word 'karma' and checkin' the popcorn supply, that's about it for me on this thing.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Without irony the Rs will tag Schumer's refusal as "political grandstanding". They also didn't like various Democrats' perfectly understandable and indeed sensible decisions not to meet w/ Barrett this past week, in the traditional shepherding around of a new court nominee by advocates for private meetings in advance of a Judiciary Committee hearing, but those decisions were greeted with Republican cries of "how rude" Dems have been to Barrett.

I have stopped listening for valid points attempted by the GOP or its followers in trying to defend this appointment, either as to nominee credentials or timing of the appointment itself, never mind hearings and a floor vote.

The whole thing --the several notably political characteristics of this nominee vs the iconic jurist she would replace, the timing of nomination, an attempt to make the promise of a floor vote before the election into ad-worthy campaign material-- is a power play, which is always an option for a party with the nominal strength to pull it off.

This particular set of circumstances though might make a pretty sharp-elbowed nomination now less likely to succeed, than if covid-19 and Barrett's nomination celebration had not met up with each other among hosts and invited guests in that WH Rose Garden last weekend.

Mulling the word 'karma' and checkin' the popcorn supply, that's about it for me on this thing.

Karma and crisps (what Our Transatlantic Cousins refer to as "chips") have already been laid in.

However, I do wonder whether the GOP would dare to attempt to squeeze - or force, compel - this nomination through between November 3, and January 20, - in the event that the election does not go their way - if they haven't managed to push it through before then.

 

[Eric]

Karma and crisps (what Our Transatlantic Cousins refer to as "chips") have already been laid in.

However, I do wonder whether the GOP would dare to attempt to squeeze - or force, compel - this nomination through between November 3, and January 20, - in the event that the election does not go their way - if they haven't managed to push it through before then.

This is a great question. We know that they have to have an in person vote and that so far three cannot make it for that specific timeline, plus the vote will be razor thin as it is. This is the first time in years that Democrats have actually had any sway over something this big, I think there's no way Schumer gives them an inch here and nobody will blame him.

 

[Yoused]

I do wonder whether the GOP would dare to attempt to squeeze - or force, compel - this nomination through between November 3, and January 20

Because, you know, the Republicans are long-noted for their honorable behavior.

 

[lizkat]

Because, you know, the Republicans are long-noted for their honorable behavior.

Some of them however are more cagey than others. McConnell knows he could conceivably end up as Senate Majority Leader yet again but under a blue President. He's entirely capable of deciding he'd rather keep some political capital to work with Biden.... and so let slide that vote on Barrett or if push comes to shove let it go to the floor and fail if there are not the votes. After all, if he's still maj leader in 2021, it means he's got the votes to force Biden to tailor any pick he might think to make instead of Barrett. He's already loaded the lower courts up for the right, and landed two consevatives on SCOTUS in the Trump era. Not even Trump should be able to look at him crosseyed over that.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Some of them however are more cagey than others. McConnell knows he could conceivably end up as Senate Majority Leader yet again but under a blue President. He's entirely capable of deciding he'd rather keep some political capital to work with Biden.... and so let slide that vote on Barrett or if push comes to shove let it go to the floor and fail if there are not the votes. After all, if he's still maj leader in 2021, it means he's got the votes to force Biden to tailor any pick he might think to make instead of Barrett. He's already loaded the lower courts up for the right, and landed two consevatives on SCOTUS in the Trump era. Not even Trump should be able to look at him crosseyed over that.

Very well made point about the possibility of McConnell setting about amassing - or salvaging - some political capital and hedging bets for the future.

Not even Trump should be able to look at him crosseyed over that.

Mr Trump could look crosseyed at anyone, anywhere, and at any time. The concept of gratitude is unknown to him, while basic decency, dignity and courtesy are completely alien concepts.

However, loyalty cuts two ways; while Mr Trump's lunatic base will remain ferociously loyal, I am wiling to bet that the moment he looks like becoming an exceptionally damaging electoral liability, steps will be taken by some of those people in the upper echelons of the GOP to put some decent, but discreet, democratic distance between themselves and the absolutely awful Mr Trump.

 

[lizkat]

Mr Trump could look crosseyed at anyone, anywhere, and at any time. The concept of gratitude is unknown to him, while basic decency, dignity and courtesy are completely alien concepts.

However, loyalty cuts two ways; while Mr Trump's lunatic base will remain ferociously loyal, I am wiling to bet that the moment he looks like becoming an exceptionally damaging electoral liability, steps will be taken by some of those people in the upper echelons of the GOP to put some decent, but discreet, democratic distance between themselves and the absolutely awful Mr Trump.

McConnell and McCarthy both have taken a few at least perfunctory steps to divorce the shreds of that party's honor from the fringe assertions of Trump's followers. Both houses have passed resolutions noting Congressional expectation of an acceptance of election results and so a peaceful transition if power changes hands.

The House passed one with a very strong bipartisan but not unanimous vote noting abhorrence of white supremacy. The Senate last I checked was dancing on that one, having said something about needing to check jurisdictions or some such. After all, we're talking about their having to deny wilingness to represent aspirations of certain constituencies (yeah despite the government's classification of some of those as domestic terrorists).

But yes, the party honchos do have their eye on internal polling for the Congressional races right now, 24/7. Covid-19 at least briefly interrupted the flow and focus of Trump's rallies, in which of course after some intro exchanges of complimentary remarks, the focus shifts for Trump and he's on about himself only and the adulation he craves.

State chairs may have breathed a silent sigh of relief that for now they don't have to line up surrogates and air time on talk shows to distance themselves from egregiously damaging Trump rally rambles. A handful of races for Senate seats have been quite close in recent polling, with a few well below margins of error.