A Question for Judge Barrett

Potentially revealing. Not that it would matter. The "hearings" are just scheduled confirmation dates under this administration.

lizmonster said:

Potentially revealing. Not that it would matter. The "hearings" are just scheduled confirmation dates under this administration.

Click to expand...

Unless the combined efforts of Democrats and Coronavirus can prevent a quorum....

- - - Updated - - -

lizmonster said:

Potentially revealing. Not that it would matter. The "hearings" are just scheduled confirmation dates under this administration.

Click to expand...

Unless Democrats and Coronavirus can prevent a quorum....

Didn't she send her covid infected kids to school knowingly? If so, I imagine that's against the law where she lives, which should disqualify her anyway. But, nothing matters anyway...

Diana Hignutt said:

Didn't she send her covid infected kids to school knowingly? If so, I imagine that's against the law where she lives, which should disqualify her anyway. But, nothing matters anyway...

Click to expand...

For this confirmation, you're right. She's in, and all we can do is vote, hope for the election outcome, and look at later remedies.

A former member of Barrett’s “People of Praise” sect is asking to testify to Congress during Ms. Barrett’s hearing.

https://www.womenscoalitioninternat...lf21JjbdCN7WvMOHF9ictjxFHwHAx3NzXgWCgDdc3hVnU

Womens Coalition International said:

Dear U. S. Senators,

My name is Coral Anika Theill, aka Kathryn Y. Warner (nee Hall). I legally changed my name in 1999 to Coral Anika Theill when I entered a state address confidentiality (protection) program for safety from my ex-husband, Marty Warner, i.e, V. Martin Warner, Independence, Oregon.

I would like to testify at the confirmation hearing of Judge Amy Coney Barrett as to the oppression, abuse and crimes that I and other women were victims of in the People of Praise sect, to which Amy belongs. Although men have ultimate authority in the sect, women leaders, like Amy, are complicit in the subordination and mistreatment of lower status women like me.

I became a member of the Vine and Branches sect in 1979 in Corvallis, Oregon. It was formally absorbed into People of Praise in 1982 and I escaped the group in 1984. My abuse became more severe after we became a People of Praise Community.

The entire time I was there, I was under the control of men and subjected to psychological abuse, including undue influence, threats, shaming, and shunning by leaders and my husband. Coercive persuasion was used on my children to turn them against me. My husband and community leaders used coercive control, isolation and intimidation to strip me of my personhood, safety and freedoms guaranteed to me as a United States citizen. They also launched a smear campaign when I finally got the courage to leave.

The actual crimes committed against me in the sect were: marital rape, false imprisonment, kidnapping, and illegal interrogation. I did not know these were crimes at the time. I believe these crimes are still occurring in People of Praise communities and need to be investigated.

...

Click to expand...

It’s clear that the press needs to stop referring to this group as merely Catholic. They are a cult. Ms. Barrett belongs to a fundamentalst Christian cult. Say it, press members. Be honest.

It does matter. It's important to see, out in the open, whether a potential Supreme Court justice is honorable or corrupt, whether an independent mind, or a mere puppet.

Click to expand...

This sentiment strikes me as both disingenuous and misguided. True believers are independent minds, and they're as dangerous as any puppet out there.

Here's what we know about Judge Barrett:

1) She'll be confirmed.

Here's what I strongly suspect about Judge Barrett:

1) She, like Kavanaugh, will lie to make herself look less extreme.
2) She'll likely perjure herself, should anyone ever care to call her on it later.
3) She'll be completely comfortable with this, because it serves her personal beliefs around right and wrong.

As to what does and doesn't matter? These hearings don't matter. They don't. They won't change anyone's mind or vote. If the Senate Democrats can't derail the hearings, she'll be in place for the election. Our one and only hope is to vote That Orange Person out in overwhelming numbers.

After January, remedies can come in many flavors, including impeachment. But expanding the court might be the better bet.

Oh, and if That Orange Person wins, or loses by little enough to allow his stacked court to hand him another term? That's when we'll learn what tyranny really is.

I don't think we should fool ourselves at this point. The colossal failure that is our POTUS will challenge any results, even if he loses in the biggest landslide since Reagan and the walk in ballots also favor Biden in the swing states.

I also worry that the legislatures and/or governors in swing states they control will do what they can to de-legitimize as many Democratic ballots as they can, or that local election commissions in some counties could be corrupt (oh these signatures look wrong, or those postmarks are too blurry to read). And if state governments smell a future where voter suppression becomes the new norm, they may not worry about backlash in elections down the line.
.
It would be harder for the courts to rationalize tossing out ballots in a landslide, however, unless they are so corrupted they simply declare the entire covid-era election process illegitimate. I worry what could happen if the results do indeed come down to a handful of counties in a couple of closely contested states.

It is scary to discover how fragile democracy really is, how strongly it depends on civic involvement by all sectors of our society, and on respect for precedent and respect for a piece of paper that is evidently as difficult to interpret as religious scriptures, and on at least a modicum of restraint and good faith on the part of elected officials.

Alvah said:

"Not that it would matter."

It does matter. It's important to see, out in the open, whether a potential Supreme Court justice is honorable or corrupt, whether an independent mind, or a mere puppet.


<<snip>>

It does matter, even if the odds are stacked in favor of tyranny.
Standing up for what's right and ethical always matters.

Click to expand...

lizmonster said:

This sentiment strikes me as both disingenuous and misguided. True believers are independent minds, and they're as dangerous as any puppet out there.

Here's what we know about Judge Barrett:

1) She'll be confirmed.

Here's what I strongly suspect about Judge Barrett:

1) She, like Kavanaugh, will lie to make herself look less extreme.
2) She'll likely perjure herself, should anyone ever care to call her on it later.
3) She'll be completely comfortable with this, because it serves her personal beliefs around right and wrong.

As to what does and doesn't matter? These hearings don't matter. They don't. They won't change anyone's mind or vote. If the Senate Democrats can't derail the hearings, she'll be in place for the election. Our one and only hope is to vote That Orange Person out in overwhelming numbers.

After January, remedies can come in many flavors, including impeachment. But expanding the court might be the better bet.

Oh, and if That Orange Person wins, or loses by little enough to allow his stacked court to hand him another term? That's when we'll learn what tyranny really is.

Click to expand...

I like the first sentiment, but unfortunately, for America just at the moment I think the second is more accurate.

Alvah said:

In the U.S. Senate confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court position, it would be useful and revealing to ask Amy Barrett this question:

"Do you believe that mailed in ballots are legitimate and valid?"

Click to expand...

In 2000, she was part of the Republican team arguing that mailed in absentee ballots with missing information in Florida were valid.

I suspect her answer now would include a consideration of why the votes were being contested. That's a diplomatic, safe answer. But itmight not tell us much.

Chris P said:

In 2000, she was part of the Republican team arguing that mailed in absentee ballots with missing information in Florida were valid.

I suspect her answer now would include a consideration of why the votes were being contested. That's a diplomatic, safe answer. But itmight not tell us much.

Click to expand...

And this may well be why she's the pick this time--trying to stack the court with justices who might side with invalidating certain mail-in ballots.

Sadly, anti-choice GOP ideologues are a dime a dozen nowadays.

I can't stand to listen to her claiming she doesn't think it's her job to make laws.

I want someone to ask her to name a few laws she thinks were unconstitutional. Apparently she disagreed with Robert's ruling that the ACA mandate was not a tax.

For those that don't know or don't recall, the GOP legislators tried to block the ACA claiming the mandate created a tax that wasn't authorized. (This is the same GOP that has no issue with Trump moving money all around without authorized tax funding.)

Typically the questions are poorly worded asking things like does the candidate believe in sticking with past rulings. What they need to ask her, and maybe they will, is does she think Roe v Wade was a Constitutional ruling. Of course even when asked directly they simply refuse to answer.

In lieu of that, I hope the Democratic Senators read her writings to her and ask her about them.

She said that she doesn't think it's the court's job to solve problems, or something like that.

I agree with her in a sense, but I think her definition of the word "problem" is different from mine. To me, problems are things that happen that are beyond our control but have to be dealt with, like potholes, or trees dying from bark beetles, or even floods and wildfires. As a rule, justices aren't going to be ruling on the best way to handle those kinds of issues--that's down to government officials and elected representatives. Though there certainly are some interpersonal "problems" for which judges and courts are called upon to decide on a solution, whether it's re crimes or lawsuits between different people.

But I wouldn't define inconsistencies in the rights society and our laws bestow or withhold from different groups, not to mention discrimination against entire groups of people, as "problems." Those are society-level injustices, and well, there's a reason why we call judges on high courts "justices." It's their job to look at the Constitution and determine whether existing laws are inconsistent with it, or whether laws that have already passed Constitutional muster, such as the Civil Rights Act, when taken in light of the Constitution and what we know now to be true, do in fact apply to a broader group of people and situations than the original drafters envisioned.

It's so maddening to see a woman who almost certainly wouldn't be where she is today if not for decisions made by various courts--including the SCOTUS--regarding gender discrimination dismissing these kinds of decisions as "solving people's problems for them." How in the hell is an individual person who is outnumbered and lacking the resources to take on laws and institutions that treat them as inferior supposed to solve these "problems"?

What in the hell does she think the court is supposed to do?

They all say the same things so GOP senators like Collins can nod sagely and tell their worried constituents they believe the judge in question will be an impartial justice. As if impartiality is a real thing.

They all know how Barrett will vote on the issues. The hearing is political theater. I kind of wish the press would ignore it and go back to discussing the scandals that have come out in just the last week.

I honestly cannot get past the fact that Lindsey is sitting there, heading this committee. Leading the hearing. After so publically promising to not do this! In a time not so very long ago, not only would a man be embarrassed to sit there after so adamantly claiming the opposite. It should be humiliating. The entire GOP should be mortified. There is no honor anymore, lies are truths depending on who's telling them. That's where we are.

Barrett will be confirmed. And the lawyers in the GOP's pockets will be ready to bring Roe v. Wade to the court. They've been ready and waiting, I'm sure. Let's hope the other side is too, even though it won't matter. It's inevitable now. We're headed back centuries, and who knows how far back they'll take us. Our only hope is that the Dems win everything so they can expand the court (which I have NO problem with after 2 seats now being stolen from the Dems). That's our only chance right now to start this country down a path of healing.

Yes. We will lose Roe. It'll be on the states, until the feds criminalize it completely.

Vote like your life depends on it, because it just might.

How my hometown sees Amy Coney Barett. No translation needed.

https://www.lapresse.ca/debats/caricatures/2020-10-16/caricature/amy-coney-barrett.php

-cb

cbenoi1 said:

How my hometown sees Amy Coney Barett. No translation needed.

https://www.lapresse.ca/debats/caricatures/2020-10-16/caricature/amy-coney-barrett.php

-cb

Click to expand...

LOL. Except ACB would be wearing the brown robes, which were the garments of the "Aunts" in handmaids tale. The aunts were the women who had a tiny bit of power afforded them by the patriarchy and therefore fought to enforce it by making life miserable for other women.

Atwood's sequel to Handmaid's Tale is interesting, though, as it provides more insight into some of them as characters.

Roxxsmom said:

LOL. Except ACB would be wearing the brown robes, which were the garments of the "Aunts" in handmaids tale. The aunts were the women who had a tiny bit of power afforded them by the patriarchy and therefore fought to enforce it by making life miserable for other women.

Atwood's sequel to Handmaid's Tale is interesting, though, as it provides more insight into some of them as characters.

Click to expand...

I think Judge Amy is more an Aunt Vidala type (even though folks seem to equate her to the better-known character of Aunt Lydia). Horrifying, either way.

More horrifying that this is all real life.

I keep hoping a handful of Republican Senators will show signs of retaining some vestigial scraps of their souls and refuse to play a part on this shameless push to get this person a lifetime appointment she's not even qualified for.

Likely an empty hope, I know. But still.

Moonchild said:

I think Judge Amy is more an Aunt Vidala type (even though folks seem to equate her to the better-known character of Aunt Lydia). Horrifying, either way.

More horrifying that this is all real life.

I keep hoping a handful of Republican Senators will show signs of retaining some vestigial scraps of their souls and refuse to play a part on this shameless push to get this person a lifetime appointment she's not even qualified for.

Likely an empty hope, I know. But still.

Click to expand...

I think you are right here. Aunt Lydia emerged as a much more complex and interesting character in the sequel, though as it turned out (hidden for spoiler) she had been a judge, or maybe it was just a lawyer, in her life before the Gileads took over.