Unit2Sucks said:

---

I'm not watching the hearings. I heard a little bit about her opening statement and I guess she's going to pretend that what Scalia did wasn't legislating from the court. It's a farce.

She sounds like a good person with a great family and obviously doesn't have all the baggage Kavanaugh had. Even if none of the allegations of shenanigans against Kavanaugh were false, we know what role he played in the Clinton impeachment and he is a partisan hack. I would assume that she will be challenged on her judicial philosophies and that Republicans will rubber stamp her approval. The idea that Democrats who are going to elect a catholic president are somehow anti-catholic is peak White fragility. The only way it could be less self-aware were if Bill Burr delivered the rant from a Netflix special while complaining about being de-platformed.

As for the future of our government, the age of comity is officially dead. The Garland / ACB affair has officially polished off what was left of it. What this means is that any party that owns the white house and both houses of congress will completely ignore the minority party. Democrats will pack the courts, pass legislation without acknowledging Republican outrage, etc. Our checks and balances have been laid bare the last 4 years and we are going to see the limitations of the constitution (hint, they are many). This is a good news bad news situation. If the people in power are competent, this could lead to an improvement in our society. If they are reprehensible grifters, like the current ruling party, it will lead to chaos. Unless things change, it's just a matter of time before enough idiots and elderly get conned by another grifter and his minions and we are back to the chaos of the last 4 years.

---

While interpretation will often cross over to legislating, I think Scalia was more a strict constructionist than most and as such less inclined to legislate from the bench than those who viewed the Constitution as a document that needed to be interpreted based on the existing culture and not based on the plain reading of the provisions. While I may not agree with how he came out on certain issues, I think he is one of the last justice people would accuse of overly encroaching on the legislative body.

When Biden goes against one of the key teachings of the Catholic church (abortion), I don't think most Catholics would view Biden's election as a win. For me, I don't really care about a candidate's religion but more on their policies and character. But to argue that Barrett's faith is not viewed as a strong negative by the Democrats is also a farce.

And it is not peak of White fragility since quite a few non-Whites are also Catholics. In fact, there may be more non-White Catholics (with almost a majority of Latin America dominated by Catholics) than White.

And saying voting for Biden means the Democrats are not anti-Catholic would be tantamount to someone on the extreme far right saying that they are not racist despite their policies because they supported Ben Carson and like Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Herschel Walker and Candace Owens.

bearister said:

---

How Amy Coney Barrett would change the way the Supreme Court works - Axios


https://www.axios.com/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-john-roberts-17d45680-b7fc-421f-acff-d2c9d6730955.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

---

Eucharist before any discussion of how Merrick Garland got screwed?

calbear93 said:

---

When Biden goes against one of the key teachings of the Catholic church (abortion), I don't think most Catholics would view Biden's election as a win.

---

Polling shows that Catholics are evenly split on abortion, whatever the official Church's position may be.

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/catholic/views-about-abortion/

"... She sounds like a good person...."

Why would you presume that when she is playing the role of a tRump pawn and advancing her career at the cost of mortgaging her soul to a devil? In that regard....

...it appears that the same demon fly that sucked the last tiny bit of what was left of Pence's soul is now foreclosing on what is left of Judge Amy's.


*I concede the possibility exits she could end up being fair and f over tRump and The Federalist Society. Long shot, but one never knows.

"When Biden goes against one of the key teachings of the Catholic church (abortion), I don't think most Catholics would view Biden's election as a win."

"My friends, we cannot tolerate or turn a blind eye to racism and exclusion in any form and yet claim to defend the sacredness of every human life."


" Hyperbole, extremism and polarisation" have become political tools in many countries, he writes, without "healthy debates" and long-term plans but rather "slick marketing techniques aimed at discrediting others."
-Pope Francis



* If Catholics in the Federalist Society could contract some wetwork and whack the Pope....and felt they could get away with it...it would happen tomorrow. The whole lot of them are Spanish Inquisition mother f@uckers.

An Open Letter to Judge Amy Coney Barrett From Your Notre Dame Colleagues Teacher-Scholar-Activist


https://teacher-scholar-activist.org/2020/10/13/an-open-letter-to-judge-amy-coney-barrett-from-your-notre-dame-colleagues/

bearister said:

---

An Open Letter to Judge Amy Coney Barrett From Your Notre Dame Colleagues Teacher-Scholar-Activist


https://teacher-scholar-activist.org/2020/10/13/an-open-letter-to-judge-amy-coney-barrett-from-your-notre-dame-colleagues/

---

This is stupid political pandering. Nobody gives a fsck about Ginsburg's dying wish and nobody should.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I'm not watching the hearings. I heard a little bit about her opening statement and I guess she's going to pretend that what Scalia did wasn't legislating from the court. It's a farce.

She sounds like a good person with a great family and obviously doesn't have all the baggage Kavanaugh had. Even if none of the allegations of shenanigans against Kavanaugh were false, we know what role he played in the Clinton impeachment and he is a partisan hack. I would assume that she will be challenged on her judicial philosophies and that Republicans will rubber stamp her approval. The idea that Democrats who are going to elect a catholic president are somehow anti-catholic is peak White fragility. The only way it could be less self-aware were if Bill Burr delivered the rant from a Netflix special while complaining about being de-platformed.

As for the future of our government, the age of comity is officially dead. The Garland / ACB affair has officially polished off what was left of it. What this means is that any party that owns the white house and both houses of congress will completely ignore the minority party. Democrats will pack the courts, pass legislation without acknowledging Republican outrage, etc. Our checks and balances have been laid bare the last 4 years and we are going to see the limitations of the constitution (hint, they are many). This is a good news bad news situation. If the people in power are competent, this could lead to an improvement in our society. If they are reprehensible grifters, like the current ruling party, it will lead to chaos. Unless things change, it's just a matter of time before enough idiots and elderly get conned by another grifter and his minions and we are back to the chaos of the last 4 years.

---

While interpretation will often cross over to legislating, I think Scalia was more a strict constructionist than most and as such less inclined to legislate from the bench than those who viewed the Constitution as a document that needed to be interpreted based on the existing culture and not based on the plain reading of the provisions. While I may not agree with how he came out on certain issues, I think he is one of the last justice people would accuse of overly encroaching on the legislative body.

When Biden goes against one of the key teachings of the Catholic church (abortion), I don't think most Catholics would view Biden's election as a win. For me, I don't really care about a candidate's religion but more on their policies and character. But to argue that Barrett's faith is not viewed as a strong negative by the Democrats is also a farce.

And it is not peak of White fragility since quite a few non-Whites are also Catholics. In fact, there may be more non-White Catholics (with almost a majority of Latin America dominated by Catholics) than White.

And saying voting for Biden means the Democrats are not anti-Catholic would be tantamount to someone on the extreme far right saying that they are not racist despite their policies because they supported Ben Carson and like Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Herschel Walker and Candace Owens.

---

Heller to me felt like legislating from the bench.

As for your criticism of Biden, he is known to be Catholic and the democratic party is in full support of his candidacy. You may not agree with his beliefs or his faith, but that doesn't make him any less Catholic.

Finally, the reason I call it peak white fragility is because only white people complain about this anti-Christian sentiments. Maybe it's because it's made up or maybe people of color have bigger fish to fry, but by far the vast majority of the complaints about this come from a very specific group of white culture warriors.

---

Wasn't a criticism. Just an observation that I have not seen any Catholic body view Biden's election as a win for the Catholic faith. Granted that, at the time of Kennedy, no Catholic had been voted as President and, as such, his election may have been greatly celebrated by the Catholic Church, but don't see any representative of the Catholic church view Biden's candidacy as a win for the Catholic faith. If you can point to something that contradicts that, I would love to be corrected. I write this as someone who desperately wants Biden to win if only to remove Trump.

And the Democrats may know that Biden is Catholic, just like they know that Sanders is an atheist, Omar is a Muslin, and Clinton is a Protestant. Doesn't mean much.

And I never wrote that Biden is not Catholic. I don't presume to judge whether someone is Catholic or not, especially since I am not Catholic. Not sure what part of my post made you conclude that (would love for you to point it out, and I will make a note for the future), but did not believe I wrote anything that implied that. Won't call it a straw man since I will assume that something I wrote led you to make that counterargument against something I wasn't even arguing.

I also am humored sometimes when white people pretend to know definitely what people of color think or believe. That, I think, is truly White fragility, especially when progressive white people think they are not racist even as they continue to stereotype minorities.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

That's 88 of her faculty colleagues telling her to withdraw her nomination. With friends like that...

---

My understanding that not one of the 88 are colleagues in the School of Law.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

That's 88 of her faculty colleagues telling her to withdraw her nomination. With friends like that...

---

My understanding that not one of the 88 are colleagues in the School of Law.

---

DeBartolo Hall and DeBartolo Center of the Performing Arts located at University of Notre Dame :





This law professor at Notre Dame was going to sign that letter until he got a "visit" in his driveway while washing his car:

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

I haven't watched the video, but based on the commentary this seems like a lame gotcha question. Probably not a good look that she didn't study this specific area, but it doesn't mean she wouldn't uphold the law. This is more like "what is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?"

okaydo said:

---

---

Apparently there is more to the decision than the twitter feed. If you watched Barrett's response she explained it. It is hard for me to believe that she would condone the use of the N word at all considering her family situation. Now as to the law, that was explained.

She said the word was said after the termination decision was made and when the termination process was already underway. This is not an appellate court's job, but perhaps a better trial counsel could have tied use of that word to pre termination conduct and motives. I did not read the case. She said it involved the employee making a serious driving error. The employee using that word should have been summarily fired.

If Biden wins he should sign an Executive Order mandating that henceforth and forthwith Sen. John Kennedy's name is legally changed to Ben Jergen Hoffe.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

Sorry, you know I love you BA but this is another ridiculous question. That's a factual question, not a legal question. She's an idiot if she doesn't recognize climate change is real but it's a weird gotcha question. I don't think think is the way you qualify a SCOTUS pick - it should be focused on decisions she's made, public statements she's made and ethics. Now if she is on record saying something different, than this could speak to her ethics or her candor, but in the abstract I think this is no more appropriate a question than asking an appointee whether soccer is the most popular sport in the world.

I should also note that I didn't watch the video and just read the text so if I'm missing something, than let me know.

Jill Filipovic

Unit2Sucks said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

Sorry, you know I love you BA but this is another ridiculous question.

---

Oddly enough, the question was asked by Republican John Kennedy of Louisiana. I don't know what point he was driving at. It's a short watch.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

Apparently there is more to the decision than the twitter feed. If you watched Barrett's response she explained it. It is hard for me to believe that she would condone the use of the N word at all considering her family situation. Now as to the law, that was explained.

---

Quote:

---

In 2018, a three-judge panel ruled that Indiana laws requiring that funerals be held for fetal remains after an abortion or miscarriage and banning abortions because of the sex, race or developmental disability of a fetus were unconstitutional.

Barrett was among four judges who wanted the full court to weigh in and suggested that the laws, signed by then-Gov. Mike Pence, might be constitutional.

---

Yeah, that makes total sense.

Get this fscking wacko away from my Constitution.

calbear93 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

That's 88 of her faculty colleagues telling her to withdraw her nomination. With friends like that...

---

My understanding that not one of the 88 are colleagues in the School of Law.

---

I have not viewed one objection that pertained to her experience, brilliance, integrity or character. It has all been about politics and her faith. And if I am a conservative senator, why would I care about the objections of people who are upset that she does not adopt their liberal politics or interpretation of the constitution? I think she would make a great Supreme Court justice.

---

You must be watching a different hearing. Brilliance? Really, well I guess for you the bar is low.

bearister said:

---

She said the word was said after the termination decision was made and when the termination process was already underway. This is not an appellate court's job, but perhaps a better trial counsel could have tied use of that word to pre termination conduct and motives. I did not read the case. She said it involved the employee making a serious driving error. The employee using that word should have been summarily fired.

---

Stop interjecting facts to disclaim idiot twitterhead commentary. I enjoy seeing what moronic things Jill and DJ say. Let's face it, Cosmo is the intellectual elite of law journals.

wifeisafurd said:

---

bearister said:

---

She said the word was said after the termination decision was made and when the termination process was already underway. This is not an appellate court's job, but perhaps a better trial counsel could have tied use of that word to pre termination conduct and motives. I did not read the case. She said it involved the employee making a serious driving error. The employee using that word should have been summarily fired.

---

Stop interjecting facts to disclaim idiot twitterhead commentary. I enjoy seeing what moronic things Jill and DJ say. Let's face it, Cosmo is the intellectual elite of law journals.

---

I bet the people at Cosmo can spell Jimi Hendrix's last name without help though. Or know enough not to vote for Donald Trump for president.

Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.

---

It's more a matter of "why play the game when the other side gets to play by any rules they like and the whole thing is rigged against you?"

Don't legitimize the sham and play along like good little Libs.

sycasey said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.

---

There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.

---

Will pushing the nomination through cost them The Senate?

sycasey said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.

---

There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.

---

What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).