I know we are not supposed to pick on people for their religious views, but she does belong to a weird cult, the Praise for People group, which is not strictly Catholic as many have claimed, but did come out of the Catholic Charismatic movement in 1971 with most of its members Catholic. It accepts such things as speaking in tongues, which is not something generally accepted by most Catholics, generally, something practices by extreme Protestant sects. It also is sexist, with women forbidden from holding leadership positions and with each member having to follow the lead of a “Head.
Those defending Barrett claim she is “very intelligent.” I am sure she is, but that does not keep her from being a fanatic. She clerked for the late Justice Scalia, and conservatives want someone like him, but her views are more extreme than his.
Of course, she has criticized Roe v. Wade as well as the ACA, with a case on that being heard on Nov. 10 by the SCOTUS. Clearly, this is the issue Dems need to run hardest on in trying to oppose her, which will be hard given that even Sen. Murkowski of AK is thinking of supporting her.
As an example of just how extreme she is I note one item, I have seen written about things she has written in academic publications. It is known that she is an “Originalist,” a term Scalia used for himself, which means one tries to rely on the original meaning of a term in a case from when the Constitution was written or when an amendment was adopted. However, what is not so well known is that there are factions among these people, and apparently, Barrett is part of an especially extreme faction that views both the 14th and 15th Amendments as not being legitimate because when they were passed by Congress, the Confederate states were not represented in Congress. Of course, these amendments, especially the 14th, are the foundation of all SCOTUS rulings on civil rights and against discrimination on any grounds.
I shall add that indeed I am sorry RBG did not take the reportedly subtle invitation to resign that Obama offered to her in a lunch in 2013. But I also understand why she did not. One factor was that she had this competition with her old friend going on, Scalia, for whom Barrett clerked. By the time he died 11 months before the next president would be sworn in was too late for her to do so, as we all know McConnell blocked even the moderate centrist Merrick Garland from even getting a hearing. And, of course, RBG was expecting HRC to be the next prez. But that did not work out, much to all our disappointments, and for RBG, well, it looks that her final wish will not be obeyed, even though it is supported by a solid majority of the American public, including 49% of Republicans reportedly. But the current Senate is not paying any attention to that in their rush to confirm Barrett before the election.
Barkley Rosser
Entirely accurate but at the end of the day it is all about how much pain the Dems can inflict on GOP Senators. If McConnell feels an early vote will cost him 8 seats he will postpone the vote until after the election and if there is a blue tsunami they will not confirm in the lame duck. Not very likely but it is the only card left after they took the government shutdown off the table.
I do not believe this woman should even be allowed to teach school, let alone be on the Supreme Court. She is a total ah.
” this passage from a 2006 commencement address that she gave to the graduating class at Notre Dame law school.
‘So what then, does it mean to be a different kind of lawyer? The implications of our Catholic mission for your legal education are many, and don’t worry—I’m not going to explore them all in this short speech. I’m just going to identify one way in which I hope that you, as graduates of Notre Dame, will fulfill the promise of being a different kind of lawyer. And that is this: that you will always keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and as Father Jenkins told you this morning, that end is building the kingdom of God. You know the same law, are charged with maintaining the same ethical standards, and will be entering the same kinds of legal jobs as your peers across the country. But if you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love, and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.’
The “kingdom of God” is a heavily weighted theological term, with roots in both the Old and New Testaments. Jesus uses it repeatedly in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, most notably in the latter, when Jesus tells his disciples, “For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.” According to the Catholic catechism, the kingdom of God began with the death and resurrection of Jesus and is an ongoing project that will not be completed until his return at the end of days. ”
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a34194750/amy-coney-barrett-catholic-evangelical-alliance/
And she is going to be on this court for decades. Dems will have no choice but to expand the Court as soon as they are able. I say 6.
Barkley:
You forgot one other issue which contributes to how serious this is today. The resignation of Anthony Kennedy.
The whole idea of failing forwards is that at some point we must reach the forwards part.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
The nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the United States Senate to override a standing rule of the Senate, such as the 60-vote rule to close debate, by a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend the rules. The option is invoked when the majority leader raises a point of order that contravenes a standing rule, such as that only a simple majority is needed to close debate on certain matters. The presiding officer denies the point of order based on Senate rules, but the ruling of the chair is then appealed and overturned by majority vote, establishing new precedent.
This procedure uses Rule XX to allow the Senate to decide any issue by simple majority vote, regardless of Rule XXII, which requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) to end a filibuster for legislation and 67 for amending a Senate rule. The term “nuclear option” is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare.
In November 2013, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court.[1] In April 2017, Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations in order to end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.[2][3][4]
As of September 2020, a three-fifths majority vote is still required to end debates on legislation.[5] …
…Rule XX
Although rule XXII requires three-fifths of Senators to close debate, rule XX states that “A question of order may be raised at any stage of the proceedings” and “shall be decided by the Presiding Officer without debate, subject to an appeal to the Senate…and every appeal therefrom shall be decided at once, and without debate”.[6]
Procedure to invoke the option
The “nuclear option” is invoked when the presiding officer’s enforcement of rule XXII is overruled by the full Senate without debate under rule XX. Without debate, there is no need for a three-fifths majority to end debate. The presiding officer is therefore overruled by a simple majority.
Following a failed cloture vote, the majority leader raises a point of order that Rule XXII should be interpreted – or disregarded on constitutional grounds – to require only a simple majority to invoke cloture on a certain type of business, such as nominations. The presiding officer, relying on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, then denies the point of order based upon rules and precedent. But the ruling of the chair is then appealed, and is overturned by simple majority vote. For example, the option was invoked on November 21, 2013, as follows:
Mr. REID. I raise a point of order that the vote on cloture under rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the rules, the point of order is not sustained.
Mr. REID. I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for the yeas and nays.
(48–52 vote on upholding ruling of the chair)
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The decision of the Chair is not sustained.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. *** Under the precedent set by the Senate today, November 21, 2013, the threshold for cloture on nominations, not including those to the Supreme Court of the United States, is now a majority. That is the ruling of the Chair.[7]
A new precedent is thus established allowing for cloture to be invoked by a simple majority on certain types of actions. These and other Senate precedents will then be relied upon by future Parliamentarians in advising the chair, effectively eliminating the 60-vote barrier going forward. (Riddick’s Senate Procedure is a compilation by Senate parliamentarians of precedents established throughout the entire history of the Senate by direct rulings of the chair, actions relating to rulings of the chair, or direct Senate action.)
Validity
The legality of the nuclear option has been challenged. For example, then-Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin expressed opposition to the nuclear option in 2005.[8] Successive Congressional Research Service reports have made it clear that the use of the nuclear option would by itself “involve violations of Senate rules and practices already in existence”.[9][10] However, its validity has not been seriously challenged since being invoked by both parties in 2013 and 2017, at least with regard to invoking cloture on judicial nominations by simple majority vote…
*
[Both parties are not the same, but both parties still do it, even if not in the road.]
Why Don’t We Do It In The Road? (Remastered 2009)
Amy Barrett: If Democrats attack her over People of Praise membership, they’ll regret it
via @usatoday – September 26
…Yes, women leaders in the People of Praise were until recently referred to as “handmaids” — a biblical reference to Mary, the mother of Jesus. In the Gospel of Luke, when the angel tells her, “You will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus,” she responds, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.”
But the group was not the inspiration for Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel “The Handmaid’s Tale.” …
The group does not require a loyalty oath, arrange marriages or force women to keep having children. It puts a premium on intellectual life and values education for men, women and children. Its well-regarded schools are attended by many nonmembers.
It does have a view of marriage that I don’t share and you might not, either, but that St. Paul certainly did. (“As the Church is subordinate to Christ,” says his letter to the Ephesians, “so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.”) …
Beady-eyed, as plain as the nose on your face.
having small, glinting (or glittering) eyes. “a beady-eyed chicken”
keenly observant, typically in a sinister or hostile way.
“beady-eyed security guards”
As Plain as the Nose on Your Face
The Nose as the Organ of Othering – Roy Goldblatt
Amerikastudien / American Studies
Vol. 48, No. 4 (2003), pp. 563-576
Goyim—the Americans—Philip Roth writes in Portnoy’s Complaint “[…] are the people for whom Nat ‘King’ Cole sings every Christmastime, ‘Chestnuts roasting on an open fire, Jack Frost nipping at your nose’… ‘No, no, theirs are the noses whereof he speaks. Not his flat black one or my long bumpy one, but those tiny bridgeless wonders whose nostrils point northward automatically at birth.'” The nose is thus a physical symbol of otherness, definitely for Jews as Roth notes, and also links them with African Americans; similar large proboscises have certainly served to mark other immigrant groups from southern and eastern Europe as different, and less “white” than their WASP and Nordic counterparts from the north. …
“Beady-Eyed”
Use of such a description is intensely prejudicial, an historic hurtful slur that should be withdrawn.
Anne:
What would she be named if she is the deciding vote on Roe v Wade or taking away healthcare from the 30+ million by her vote? And then there is this: A list of Trump’s attacks on prominent women
A writer makes a mistake in choosing a word, a word that is needless and offensive. The writer learns of the mistake and removes the word, removes the offense. The text is as a result of the change of a word made more effective. Simple.
All that was criticized was the use of a word.
Sorry to both Anne ands Fred, but “beady-eyed” is not remotely an ethnic slur. I have just done a thorough check, zero.This is just worthless bullshit. Both of you should be ashamed of yourselves for lying about this. Really. I am serious, and if I see more of this ignorant and offensive crap from either of you I shall get much nastier.
When I first wrote it I was going to say “bug-eyed,” but decided that would have insulted bugs.
As it is, I do think her eyes have a fanatical look to them, matching her fanatical views. She does not belong on the SCOTUS, and Trump and McConnell trying to put her there is court packing.
Another reason she does not belong there is that she refuses to recuse herself from election cases. Trump made it very clear in the debate last night he wants her on there to help him steal the election. She needs to be sent packing.
A writer uses a prejudicial word, a word that is offensive as prejudicial words are. The writer is asked to remove the needless and offensive word.
The single word would be removed by any formally edited publication. The single word should be removed. Simple as that.
Were I the writer, I would immediately have removed the word with a polite “thank you” for having the mistaken selection pointed to.
anne:
I am not taking this down and neither will Dan. Even women do evil things and this woman intends to cause harm to millions of people if she has her way. trump has chosen this handmaiden as the instrument to put into play such methods as to take healthcare away from millions of women and others besides denying the right of choice to women.
You are not the writer and your advocacy for her concerns me. It is done Anne.
Barkley please, I believe I have covered the issue.
My criticism of the use of the prejudicial word is of course correct. I did not in any way criticize the rest of the text. I did not criticize the writer.
I properly criticized a single prejudicial word, and I am pleased to have had the understanding and courage to do so.
Sorry, Anne, but you are simply dead wrong that “beady-eyed” is “prejudicial.” It means that somebody “has a malicious intent.” Go look it up. Indeed, google “beady-eyed ethnic slur” and the only hit that comes up is your baseless claim that it is. You have made this up out of whole cloth. It is a lie. You owe me an apology.
Another reason I am worked up about this and do not want to see this woman with her malicious intent on the court is that I have three daughters, one of them a lesbian. I see this malicious person as threatening their rights, on top of her possibly helping to bring about a fascist dictatorship in the US.
To Fred: St. Paul was a homophobic sexist. Why should I be impressed that somebody’s views follow his? Jesus did not push this stupid obnoxious shit.
Yes, making a fuss about people having large noses is tied to ethnic slurs, but because somebody once said that somebody with a big nose had beady eyes does not make the latter a an ethnic slur. This is just plain stupid. You too should go and google it. Not an ethnic slur. Both of you have made complete fools of yourselves with Anne’s pompous self-righteousness on this matter especially nauseating.
More generally some have suggested that nobody should mention Barret’s religious views. But there are limits to that, although I agree the Dem senators need to be cautious on that. But would we ignore the views of somebody who followed a religion advocating human sacrifice? I grant hers are not that bad, but they are bad, and while in one place she said she would not let her religious views determine her legal ones, elsewhere she has advocated exactly that in speeches to students. She belongs to the ADF, which advocates exactly that, a “Trojan Horse” strategy of sneaking “Christian” religious fanatics into the court system to impose their views on the rest of us. The SPLC has identified the ADF as especially anti-LGBQT group, so I have no qualms about opposing Barret for her fanaticism and her hypocrisy.
BTW, I just now saw another direct face photo of Barret on the internet, and I do not know if either beady or buggy fit, but there is something really unpleasant about her eyes and look. People say that she is a “nice person,” but that is not what I see in those eyes, which indeed blare out here fanaticism at least to my view. It will be very bad for a long time if she gets on the court.
“All that was criticized was the use of a word.”
I never asked that the essay in question be “taken down.” I asked only that a single prejudicial, hurtful word be changed.
I never ever “advocated” for the ideas of the person who was physically described with the hurtful word in question.
A word can be inadvertently hurtful, but then the hurt can be undone.
I am pleased that I have had the courage to object to an expression of prejudice, but I have been thoroughly frightened by the experience.
anne:
Your criticism will not cause it to be removed.
I guess this may not be read, but I apologize to Anne for coming on so strongly. She and I usually agree, but we have had some battle royals back in the day on Economists View.
For the record I suggest that people look at the photo accompanying the Wikipedia entry for the largely Anglo-Irish Amy Coney Barrett. I think her eyes look very beady, although creepy and fanatical also fit. Others can disagree.
Barkley:
I do believe she met with “I will never catch Covid 19” trump recently. You owe no apology. We all know what Barrett is here for and what she is expected to accomplish for trump. Maybe nature will take its course.