From the article:
A devout Catholic who is fervently antiabortion, Barrett appeals to Trump’s conservative base. But Republicans also hope that for moderates such as Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), her gender makes her a more palatable replacement for Ginsburg, a feminist icon who spent her life fighting for gender equality....That links to a September 7, 2017 WaPo article "Did Dianne Feinstein accuse a judicial nominee of being too Christian?"
Trump first nominated Barrett to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in 2017. Previously, she’d taught law at the University of Notre Dame for 15 years, so she had no previous judicial record to scrutinize. Democrats balked at her nomination, questioning whether the academic could be an impartial arbiter because of her deep religious convictions. Republicans accused Democrats of applying a religious test in their questioning.
Amy Barrett... has spoken often of her Catholic faith and drawn opposition from liberal groups, which argue that she'd place it above the law. Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, echoed those concerns Wednesday at a confirmation hearing, telling Barrett that “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern …”I blogged about that at the time, here. Excerpt:
Is "dogma" a dog whistle, expressive of anti-Catholic bias or does it aptly characterize a person with fixed beliefs that interfere with understanding law in a properly judicial way?... We're being asked to rely on the decisions that will come from the mind of this nominee. That mind must be tested, and it can't be tested enough. There are all sorts of biases and disabilities within any human mind, and the hearings can do very little to expose the limitations of an intelligent, well-prepared nominee....ADDED: Is it too late to be annoyed by the use of "they" in the quote in the post title? Also let me remind you of what Thurgood Thurgood Marshall said as he was retiring from the Court, before Clarence Thomas was nominated:
A nominee with a mind entirely devoted to religion and intending to use her position as a judge to further the principles of her religion should be voted down just like a candidate who revealed that he'd go by "what decision in a case was most likely to advance the cause of socialism."
I'd like to think that a religious person has a strong moral core that would preclude that kind of dishonesty, but we're not required to give religious nominees a pass and presume they're more honest than nominees who are not religious devotees. That would be religious discrimination!
Q: Do you think President Bush has any kind of an obligation to name a minority justice in your place?
Thurgood Marshall: What?
Q: Do you think President Bush has any kind of an obligation to name a minority candidate for your job?
Thurgood Marshall: I don't think that that should be a ploy, and I don't think it should be used as an excuse one way or the other.
Q: An excuse for what, Justice?
Thurgood Marshall: Doing wrong. I mean for picking the wrong Negro and saying "I'm picking him because he is a Negro." I am opposed to that. My dad told me way back that you can't use race. For example, there's no difference between a white snake and black snake, they'll both bite. So I don't want to use race as an excuse.
পোস্টগুলি
৯৩টি মন্তব্য:
Picking a black woman because she is black is like picking an onion and pretending it is an apple. Who are the ones who are picking ONLY because of somebodies skin color for vice president, and probably for the supreme court???? They should talk. Because their picks are quite obviously for black votes.
It's obvious that if Trump doesn't nominate a woman, the left will scream diversity. If he does nominate a conservative woman, the left will scream that he's using a woman for his own ends, a houe woman if you will.
Since it won't be possible for Trump to nominate a candidate that will please the left, he might as well nominate the one he pleases? I suspect that was his plan anyway.
The religious dogma of pro-choice doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone in the Democratic aisle. I mean that seriously. You show me one person Biden would put up who so much as parted ways slightly from the current litmus test of abortion up to and past viability plus public funding for abortion plus legal consequences for religious groups who do not want to pay for chemical contraception that does, to the best of our knowledge abort pre-emplanted but fertilized eggs -- that from Guttmacher, suppressed of course. And I'll eat my words.
"Judges cannot - nor should they try to - align our legal system with the Church's moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church's standard."
Amy Coney Barrett
What is this dogma I have seen pop up so often? Can Someone spell it out or Feinstein explain it in so many words?
If he doesn't, he's a sexist patriarch. If he does, it is pandering tokenism. Kind of a neat Catch 22 for Republicans.
Marshall not aware why LBJ install him in United States Supremes Court or pretend?
Pierce Butler, a devout Catholic, was the only dissenter in Buck vs Bell. He was a man of interesting dissents.
Ironically, you can't be a feminist unless you're willing to promote women who don't agree with you. Freedom and all that.
Narayanan asked:
>What is this dogma I have seen pop up so often?
"Dogma" is the official name for the most authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church.
To those of us who are NOT Catholic (I'm an atheist), lots of those Catholic teachings strike us as quite bonkers. Take "transubstantiation"... please!
On the other hand, the quote provided by GingerBeer above is reassuring.
It really is possible for people to make this kind of separation.
For example, I myself am pro-choice: I agree with the policy conclusion of Roe v. Wade.
On the other hand, I think the legal reasoning in Roe v. Wade was shoddy: under our federal system, I think this issue should be settled at the state level, not the federal level. I live in California, and if the Court reverses Roe v. Wade, abortion will continue to be legal in California, as most of us out here wish it to be.
So, if I were on the Court, I would strike down Roe v. Wade, even though that would go against my own policy preferences.
Similarly, Scalia upheld the right to burn the flag as protected by the First Amendment, even though he himself hated flag burning. He was right, and I would have voted the same way.
Dave Miller in Sacramento
Bobby Barrett will do. She believes in stare decisis, so Roe v Wade may be safe.
Will she uphold our constitution and protect my rights?
That's all she has to do to be a good justice.
Republicans accused Democrats of applying a religious test in their questioning.
Can anyone doubt the truth of this statement?
Democrats hewed out this path, and are alarmed that GOPers are following it.
She had the feelings spot on the court. The trick is to get a replacement woman who's willing to take the anxiety of thinking like a man.
Trump asked his audience last night if he should pick a woman or a man.
Woman was the will of the people.
It's almost like skin color or actual (as opposed to political) gender are phony types of diversity. Want to see systemic racism? It's there if you want to see it, but you have to leave your political views behind.
That’s a great quite from Thurgood Marshall, but this is the inevitable logic of racial bean counting. There must be a black person on the court, so if your only one retires, you need a black to replace him. There needs to be roughly half women on the court and so if you’re already down a little, then when one retires, you need to replace her with another woman.
I’m sure the WaPo commenter understandings and (usually) agrees. How about we get an Asian woman? That way, when she retires, she'll have to be replaced by another Asian woman (unless in the meantime we get an Asian man).
If diverse candidates are not selected, the media will howl. If diverse candidates are selected, the media will howl.
The race-gender analogy is bad. All momen keep the gender score, don't they?
women...
Religion is so intimate a part of our society, or any society, that there is no rational basis for drawing distinctions between law qua law and religion. "We hold there truths to be self evident..." is the rock solid basis for all that follows and the missive by a single individual, Thomas Jefferson, to a particular church congregation in Danbury, Connecticut does not negate its import.
The Senate women, including Collins and Murkowsky, will attack ACB with everything they have simply because she is pretty in such a white, PTA-mom way. Their comments will drip with condescension and the questions will be the revenge they all wanted for being clumsy and ugly in high school. ACB is the conservative version of the pathetic liar they dragged out and abused to stop Brett Kavanaugh. This is really going to show the nasty the feminists try to keep hidden.
This raises an old smear from the 20th (and probably the 19th) century -- that Catholics could not be trusted in public office because they answered to a higher power in the Vatican than to the Constitution and secular law.
It was only with the election of charismatic JFK that this finally was seen to have been put to rest. And yet here it comes again.
This time -- these times -- it's the feminists. The job of the Supreme Court is not primarily to protect abortion rights. It is to interpret the Constitution and laws passed by legislatures. In 1973, the Supreme Court got ahead of its skis and decided Roe v. Wade all on its own when various states across the country were already enacting laws to deal with the matter in ways that suited the citizens of those states.
Consequently we have one lodestar, Roe v. Wade, for abortion rights people and pitched arguments whenever any jurisdiction tries to limit or expand the idea.
After almost a half century of waving the bloody flag, I don't think I'm the only one who's tired of it. Every time a Catholic is nominated (see "Kavanaugh, Bret") we get told again that the Pope isn't the boss of us. Well, duh. This is a slur on my religion, and it's a distraction from the process of choosing appropriate jurists for a very important job.
And I don't give a darn about Judge Barrett.
I don't actually disagree with the quote about Thomas. Not what the speaker meant, but it's still true: yes, if all you care about is gender or race quotas, then replacing Marshall with Thomas was correct and replacing Ginsburg with Barrett will be equally correct.
By their rules.
"Having Barrett replace Ginsberg because they are women is like having Clarence Thomas replace Thurgood Marshall because they're black."
Yes, the new rules are that sex and race are everything. Aren’t they why Kamala Harris is going to be our next President in 1-3 years?
Assume the much respected Marshall was prognosticating about himself and Ginsberg, when he spoke of colored snakes. Who knew?
Ehh. It's not as if candidates can be rank ordered with one candidate being the "best" of them all. Once you get to a short list of preferred candidates, where randomly choosing any one would be satisfactory, then you might as well make a choice based on the symbolism and potential political benefit.
Women Supreme Court justices - Can't live with 'em; can't live without 'em.
Similarly, Scalia upheld the right to burn the flag as protected by the First Amendment, even though he himself hated flag burning. He was right, and I would have voted the same way.
Like Reagan, Scalia made errors. This being one.
Your flag, your property, do what you will. However, the American flag has a deep emotional and psychological connection with many Americans, and is cherished by, I dare say, most Americans.
When you burn the flag in a public setting you do it for one purpose. To be seen and incite Americans to anger and rage. There is no other purpose. If fighting "words" are a thing, so are "acts".
Now do "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater", which by the way, comes from dicta in a dissent in a court case that had nothing to do with free speech.
That "top comment" is pretty rich, coming from a political group of people who choose their candidates based on race, sex, color.
They pick their "people" based on sex. It is time for a WOMAN President. On race. YAY BLACK President. We have too many Asians in STEM, so we'd better hire some 8th grade educated people of color.
Hire according to a quota of color, race, ethnicity, gender. Consider ridiculous qualifications like being Gay, LBGT, Trans.
Forget ACTUAL qualifications, job history, competence.
Rich....really rich. And ironic.
“the dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern …”
The dogma lives loudly within many of our Supreme Court Justices. That is why most of them are completely predictable in their decision on any case. Is there any question how Sonia Sotomayor will vote on any single decision? Of course not. Nor is there with Clarence Thomas. But while I am pretty sure Thomas's opinions are based on what is actually written in the Constitution, Sotomayor's opinions seem to be more or less based on whatever the Liberal opinion of the day might be. Yet somehow the Liberal dogma is acceptable and a conservative dogma is not. And do not think for a minute that a religious person is more dogmatic than any Social Justice Warrior. What was RBG best known for? Fighting for women? What great decisions did she pass down? What did she actually write that has stirred the generations? It may be there, and she may have done that, but the throngs bemoaning her death are doing so only because of their dogmatic beliefs and that's what they know her for. She was as dogmatic as anyone ever on the court. She even inserted herself into the last election. Some would say that's courageous. I thought it was fairly revealing.
While I would prefer all Justices simply use the Constitution as The Law and judge accordingly, they do not all do that. Those who do are denounced as strict constitutionalists, yet those that do not are revered as having an understanding of the nuance of the 'living' document that is our Constitution.
I am not a constitutional lawyer like some affiliated with this blog. But the Constitution is not living. The words do have meaning. The greatest ability the left has is to change the meaning of words. They do it daily and have for decades. (remember when 'gay' meant happy or illegal alien vs. undocumented immigrant?) It does not end with the Constitution. So you have to ask yourself: Do you want the Constitution to have actual meaning that applies to all people, every day? Or do you want it to be whatever someone says it is from day to day, ever shifting with the onset of new generations because you know, human nature changes so much. In reality, human nature has not changed for eons.
rehajm writes: All momen keep the gender score, don't they?
Momen is a good neologism in a world with penis-endowed women and uterus-bearing men.
She believes in stare decisis...
Poor Howard is befuddled. It’s a judicial principle; it is not religious canon or catechism. One does not ‘believe’ in it any more than one ‘believes’ in stop lights. That’s the problem with the daffy lefties and the Howards. So many of their politics are governed by their fervent beliefs such as AGW and BLM (except for murdering black babies in their mothers’ womb by the millions) it takes a village that are passed along to them by their high priests.
Speaking of murdering black babies, one of the very unhappy side effects of BLM and the images of black looters, rioters, restaurant bullies, and Critical Racers is that I am beginning to see the wisdom in the leftie religiosity about abortion. Now if we can find a way to encourage more mothers of white antifa brownshirts, as well as any woman named Soros, to substantially up their abortion rate, we may be on to some useful social policy.
See! I can learn.
- Krumhorn
What the commenter is really implying is that Clarence Thomas is not really black in the same way that ACB is not really a women. To the commenter and most WP readers, you are not legitimate in your identity group unless you have progressive political views.
So, who would Kamala Harris, er, Joe Biden pick?
PhysicistDave Said. ..............
To those of us who are NOT Catholic (I'm an atheist), lots of those Catholic teachings strike us as quite bonkers. Take "transubstantiation"... please!
On the other hand, the quote provided by GingerBeer above is reassuring.
It really is possible for people to make this kind of separation.
Agreeing with most of your post including Roe v Wade. It should be up to the States to decide legality. Further, I think it should only be up to the person submitting to the procedure to decide BUT~~~~ Abortion also should be NOT paid for by tax dollars which come from many who deeply and religiously oppose the process of killing unborn babies.
It is somewhat funny that a person who is a Theoretical Physicist can categorically state that they don't believe in a theory....being that there is a God or controlling force in the universe...without having proof of the absence of God. 😎
I was raised Catholic, but am really Agnostic. I don't know if there is God. I don't KNOW that there is not. Until there is proof, it is all just Theory. Perhaps we will find out the answer when we die. Until then...I prefer to act as if there might be something there.
It really is possible to make this kind of separation.
I've gotten to the point where I no longer look for consistent adherence to a principle: So, "It was right for Obama to nominate Garland during the 2016 race, but it would be wrong for Trump to nominate someone today." or "It was wrong for Obama to nominate Garland during the 2016 race, but it would be right for Trump to do so today." "Choosing a woman for VP shows great courage and wisdom; choosing a woman for the SC is obviously pandering." (or vice versa). There are only two underlying principles in today's politcs: "Reelect Trump" "Elect Biden". Everyone's opinions and behavior are completely consistent with one of those two principles.
A main reason that I read Althouse blog is that I see Althouse trying to enunciate consistent principles other than one of those two "principles". And I see a number of regular commenters who are at least willing to engage on the question of whether or not there are (and should be) consistent principles.
The logic of picking a woman to replace RBG is to act prophylactically to minimize the Kavanaugh and Thomas treatment. The lefties will still be vicious nasty little shits, but it limits the areas of attack unless they can assert that she has kept her children chained to the radiators and put out her cigarettes on their arms. And then there’s always the story about the pool boy that hasn’t come out yet. Mrs Falwell can give her tips on that. Mr ACB can be brought in to testify that “I like to watch”.
- Krumhorn
I haven't had time to review Trump's recent list of potential nominees. Besides ACB, who are the other female names on the list, and what is the likelihood that Trump might pull a surprise?
77% of Catholics favored abortion in a poll released a couple of days ago. So much for dogma.
At the top of President Trump’s list to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court is U.S. Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett,
I'd like to see the "list" that they claim she's at the top of; their link about the list doesn't contain a list or a link to a list.
But wait! I did the job the journalistas couldn't do: here's the list. Barrett is at the top because the list is alphabetical; maybe the WahPoo didn't want you to know that.
But wait! There's more!
Here are the Sep 2020 additions to the 2017 list. I'm afraid that "Bridget Bade" would now be at the top of an updated list.
Conclusion: WahPoo wrong again.
What Would Soros Do?
Reading this and the comments here, one can only conclude that Trump will pick Lagoa.
Let Kamala accuse a woman of gang rape is the idea.
I guess it’s Barrett, but Trump is a showman, and there are other women.
Ehh. It's not as if candidates can be rank ordered with one candidate being the "best" of them all.
Barrett is at the top of the list because the list is alphabetical, not, unfortunately, because "Barrett is the world leader in large-caliber rifle design and manufacturing."
@Browndog:
Now do "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater", which by the way, comes from dicta in a dissent in a court case that had nothing to do with free speech.
True enough about the dictum, but I don't think it's accurate to say Schenck v. United States "had nothing to do with free speech." Schenck was arrested under the Espionage Act precisely for distributing material he wrote opposing the WWI draft. And Holmes made the analogy in order to establish the notion that the First Amendment was not absolute.
I was raised Catholic, but am really Agnostic. I don't know if there is God. I don't KNOW that there is not. Until there is proof, it is all just Theory. Perhaps we will find out the answer when we die. Until then...I prefer to act as if there might be something there.
I agree and think of Atheism as one more religion, including heretics.
On Thurgood Marshall: A nominee with a mind entirely devoted to equal rights and intending to use his position as a judge to further the principles of equal rights should be voted down just like a candidate who revealed that he'd go by "what decision in a case was most likely to advance the cause of socialism.
What’s with the three names? Are woman justices becoming like presidential assasins?
Hmmm? Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and stop there. Or does the Justice also permit Americans to render unto God what is God’s. The Dems fear Christianity leads to a free people which means Deplorables ruling themselves. Egad. That makes us all equal. The horrors!
The Left is funny. They are so transparently dishonest on race and "gender" issues that you just have to chuckle and ignore all the lies they spew.
If RBG's replacement, were a white female liberal, who pledged to uphold Roe v Wade, they'd support the quick confirmation hearing for a new Justice on SCOTUS.
1. Ditto for a black female liberal
2. Ditto for a white male liberal
3. Ditto for a black male liberal
If RBG's replacement, were a white female conservative, who pledged to uphold the strict construction of the Constitution, they'd oppose the quick confirmation hearing for a new Justice on SCOTUS.
1. Ditto for a black female conservative
2. Ditto for a white male conservative
3. Ditto for a black male conservative.
It'd be nice if the Left just came out of the closet and said, "Sure, we care about women and minority judges. But only if they support Roe. If not, they are our sworn enemy!"
Stephen said...
"Having Barrett replace Ginsberg because they are women is like having Clarence Thomas replace Thurgood Marshall because they're black."
Yes, the new rules are that sex and race are everything. Aren’t they why Kamala Harris is going to be our next President in 1-3 years?
9/20/20, 7:36 AM
Only assuming the cheating left wins by counting non existent votes.
To those of us who are NOT Catholic (I'm an atheist), lots of those Catholic teachings strike us as quite bonkers. Take "transubstantiation"... please!
The nutty beliefs of superstitious people are generally less harmful in the real world than the nutty beliefs of socialists/Marxists since the superstitious beliefs, like transubstantiation, are typically about things that don't even exist. What's the worst she would do, not work on Sunday?
Interesting - this is the first time I have seen the hypothesis that ACB might be chosen simply because she's a white woman replacing a white woman. And having made this construct, the journalist then proceeds to find all of its fatal flaws. Isn't that the definition of a straw man argument? Nobody else, Trump included, has drawn such a connection, have they? Trump conducted a straw poll at his rally of Trump supporters, and the applause-O-meter pegged "woman" as a winner, but that's all.
Why use a 'straw man' construct when there are so many real-life examples of this fatally-flawed strategy within the identity-saturated Democratic Party? Looking at you, Ms. Vice Presidential Nominee.
Personally I think Trump is anticipating, based on the Kavanaugh and Gorsuch treatments, that the Democrats will show up with their very worst femini-nazi selves - including you, Ms. Vice Presidential Nominee. He has a pretty shrewd idea of how well that will go over. He might even already have the Trump campaign commercials in the can.
Howard said...
Bobby Barrett will do. She believes in stare decisis, so Roe v Wade may be safe.
----------============
isn't USSC where all "stare decisis" get to die or be over-ridden.
Are you suggesting Judicial infallibility?
"Having Barrett replace Ginsberg because they are women is like having Clarence Thomas replace Thurgood Marshall because they're black."
But four years ago we HAD (stomps foot) to elect a woman President!
The left want a white guy they can pound on and slam with false allegations.
how is stare decisis different from : What is meant by the phrase Let Sleeping Dogs Lie?
The meaning of the phrase let sleeping dogs lie is "to leave a situation as it is and not to interfere , when doing so could make a problem or cause trouble .". It's used when things are stable and peaceful but could potentially be made unstable or chaotic if they aren't left alone as they are.
democrat "Christians" in congress - the biggest phonies of them all.
Rusty said...
Will she uphold our constitution and protect my rights?
That's all she has to do to be a good justice.
-----------============
in fact that is all (s)he has to aver to every question at confirmation hearing
no extraneous distracting verbiage >>>> it is nauseating how obsequious many nominees are.
the more obsequious the more dangerous their resentment when they are elevated and challenged.
Or like replacing Byron White with Ruth Ginsburg....
I agree with the WaPo commenter.
Replacing those two Leftist Collectivist shitstains with constitutional conservatives is equivalent.
I applaud this.
I want to point out that while :
- ACB is consistent with initials of a possible nominee under discussion
- RGB is consistent only with TV color [The RGB color model is an additive color model]
- and not the recently passed
What Sen. Feinstein meant, of course, is the WRONG dogma lives in her. A dogmatic belief that History is a a process relentlessly progressing toward a radical egalitarian utopia, that certain actions can be analyzed as being on the "right side" of History, as others are on the "wrong side" of History, and that all law must be bent to serve and accelerate that progressive process, why that's just fine.
"Having Barrett replace Ginsberg because they are women is like having Clarence Thomas replace Thurgood Marshall because they're black."
Or is it like replacing Scalia with Garland because they are both white men?
DBQ
Pascal’s Wager.
DDB
Better a Catholic than a State-cultist. For one thing, these days Catholics have a lower body count. I haven't been a Catholic since my teens, but as I recall the Ten Commandments, alth were binding on Catholics, too; and there is that commandment about not coveting thy neighbor's goods. For "liberals" the commandment appears to read "Thou SHALT covet thy neighbor's goods!"
"... teachings strike us as quite bonkers."
Like human status is conferred in the last two inches of the birth canal. Like there are 32/61/78/? genders. Like letting rioters run free will result in calm? Like the protests were mostly peaceful? Like no cash bail won't increase crime? Like taxing productivity and subsidizing sloth will result in plenty? Like our deficit issue is due to low taxes and not high spending? And on and on...
C'mon man.
It is somewhat funny that a person who is a Theoretical Physicist can categorically state that they don't believe in a theory.
So either you -
- are open to the possibility that Zeus is King of the Gods™ and lives on Mt. Olympus, or
- you have been to Mt. Olympus and verified that there are no gods living there.
Which one is it?
Calling fairy tales and ghost stories a "theory" doesn't make the tales and stories become worthy of serious consideration.
mockturtle said...
If diverse candidates are not selected, the media will howl. If diverse candidates are selected, the media will howl.
9/20/20, 7:00 AM
Yep. If Trump picked a man, it would take Gloria Allred 5 minutes to plant herself in front of a microphone with a dozen woman claiming the nominee "raped" them by snapping their bra straps in junior high.
I truly hate this "diversity" crap and wish that only qualifications would be considered. But that's not the world the Left has made for us. And, of course, we know that in Leftist eyes, conservative women are not really women, just as conservative blacks are not really black, conservative Hispanics are not really Hispanic, etc.
Roe v Wade created a huge cult of followers, who cling to the decision more than they cling to the Constitution as a whole.
Sad!
Having Barrett replace Ginsberg because they are women is like having Clarence Thomas replace Thurgood Marshall because they're black.
In other news, water is wet.
Heyboom at 8.27 am, "77% of Catholics favor abortion."
As a practicing Catholic, I don't believe that number. As a sinner who uses bad language too often, I call bullshit.
Post a source for your accusation, if there is one. Then we'll see just how much twisting and skewing transpired.
There's plenty I could say about a person who casually smears 1 billion people, or 77% of them, but I just went to Mass, and am/was in a state of grace.
"A nominee with a mind entirely devoted to religion and intending to use her position as a judge to further the principles of her religion should be voted down"
Of course, by that standard Ginsburg should have been voted down.
The reason for choosing a woman is that they are immune to the Kavenaugh smear of having sexually assaulted someone. There is no time for that nonsense in this appointment.
“The race-gender analogy is bad. All momen keep the gender score, don't they?”
Black women are only counting Black women, from a sense of resentment and inferiority. Asian women are only counting Asian women, from a sense of resentment and superiority. White chicks pretend to count the non-White women, but as much as they strain, by God, the condescension is palpable.
I don’t think ACB is going to be Trump’s final choice. Too obvious, and the abortion thing is too risky this close to the election. Let the Left spend a couple days beshatting themselves and then bring out your dark horse. Trump is always learning and his enemies are always forgetting.
It’s all just more of the self-anointed “good people” telling us who of our fellow citizens are good like them and who are not good. Following the constitution that gives the power to the people to decide matters (regardless of whether the people actually are good or not good) means nothing to the “self-anointed good guys”. What matters the constitution when there’s “good” to be done, regardless of that the Majority of people want.
Take "transubstantiation"...
----------============
taken and raise to cannibals
if new svelte women are confirmed >>>> will there be reality show version of USSC to win extra years on term limited appointment?
The Biggest Loser : The show features obese or overweight contestants competing or cash prize by losing the highest percentage of weight relative to their initial weight.
Late in life, Marshall suffered from bladder problems.
His clerks quietly referred to him as "the Dark Incontinent".
Phil 314 said...
What’s with the three names? Are woman justices becoming like presidential assasins?
**********
The "C" in ACB refers to her maiden name.
Kamala Harris's maidenhood ended a loooong time ago, so she doesn't allude to it.
Calling fairy tales and ghost stories a "theory" doesn't make the tales and stories become worthy of serious consideration.
Yup. A religion with heretics.
Blogger Fernandinande said...Quoting me : "It is somewhat funny that a person who is a Theoretical Physicist can categorically state that they don't believe in a theory."
So either you -
- are open to the possibility that Zeus is King of the Gods™ and lives on Mt. Olympus, or
- you have been to Mt. Olympus and verified that there are no gods living there.
Which one is it?
Calling fairy tales and ghost stories a "theory" doesn't make the tales and stories become worthy of serious consideration.
Tell that to Heinrich Schliemann, the man who discovered Troy. Discovered Troy...or what he thought was Troy, based on following clues in what was considered a "fairy tale" a made up story, a myth. [The Iliad] Following those unproven clues from a fable...he discovered previously unknown city which may be the Troy of the Iliad.
In each myth or fable, there may be an kernel of truth. Is there the existence of God based on the myths, fables, tenets of multitudes of faiths around the globe? Who knows
To dismiss outright the "theory" with no proof is just basic ignorance and hubris.
To categorically dismiss a theory because you "feel" it is wrong with no proof is not part of Science, it is just opposing Dogma. Aren't we 'supposed' to believe in the science, follow the science.
Science isn't a religion.
@UniNoticias
tips their hand on coverage of presumptive SCOTUS finalists: with frames of ACB as religious zealot and Lagoa as “not one of us”
When the SC ruled on Roe, abortion was on its way to being settled politically. Washington State had an abortion law that allowed abortions, as did other states. Roe made abortion an absolute right, with no compromise allowed. Roe generated about 50-years of discord while each side tried to have its way while accusing the other side of being evil, vile and not worthy of life.
We are often told that Constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and gun-rights can have restrictions for time, place and manner imposed. These rights are enshrined in the Constitution in plain text. Roe was decided as an "penumbra" of the text of the Constitution. So why can't this "penumbra" also have restrictions of time, place and manner?
Atheism is not a religion.
Buddhists are atheists and their religion is about a great teacher. Until then, everyone believed in gods. Off the top of my head, I think Judaism was the only monotheistic religion until the Christians.
A lot atheists are cranks and can't wait to tell you. Sort of like vegans.
I have seen no evidence of a god but, figuratively, I would notice a burning bush. I love Jesus as a great teacher and still try to follow the Boy Scout codes. I was raised in one of the best religions in the world, the Presbyterian Church, although their leftward drift over 50 years sucks. I still pray, in the sense of wishing dharma on people.
I'm an atheist who appreciates the role of religion in people's life. But, atheism is not a religion.
Question, do Unitarians still believe in god?
I once considered becoming a Unitarian, because I didn't understand the Trinity of traditional Christian churches. However, I read the Unitarians were conflicted over whether to refer to God as 'Him' or 'Her' in their creed. They resolved the conflict by throwing God out altogether. You don't have to believe in God to be a Unitarian Universalist.
Thank you Ken. I was thinking it was something along those lines.
"Having Barrett replace Ginsberg because they are women is like having Clarence Thomas replace Thurgood Marshall because they're black."
Of course, Thomas has been a 1000 times better than Marshall was.
Blogger Dust Bunny Queen wrote to me:
>It is somewhat funny that a person who is a Theoretical Physicist can categorically state that they don't believe in a theory....being that there is a God or controlling force in the universe...without having proof of the absence of God.
Actually, most atheists I know use the word "atheist" to mean either "I do not have a positive belief in God" or "I think it more likely than not that there is no God."
If you want to argue that I should instead call myself an "agnostic"... well, I am tempted to quote the Bard's comment about a rose! Perhaps "non-believer" would be most neutral.
I used the word "atheist" above to emphasize that I do sharply disagree with the teachings of Catholicism. However, I do not despise or hate my fellow citizens who are Catholics. I respect my fellow citizens, -- be they Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, or whatever -- as long as they respect the rights of all Americans and treat all Americans with civility and kindness.
I think DiFi was off-base in how she dealt with Amy Coney Barrett. That is not how Americans treated each other when I was growing up.
Dave Miller in Sacramento
Fernandinande replied to me:
> The nutty beliefs of superstitious people are generally less harmful in the real world than the nutty beliefs of socialists/Marxists since the superstitious beliefs, like transubstantiation, are typically about things that don't even exist.
Indeed.
Back in the days of the Inquisition, religion really did destroy human lives.
Today, Leftism fills the role of religion in too many people's lives. Tens of millions died in the last hundred years at the hands of those who pursued various Leftist Utopias.
Let us hope that the current crisis in our country is the last gasp of the Left and not the rebirth of something like Stalinism or Maoism.
My wife's cousin lived through the Cultural Revolution in China in his youth. He fears it is happening again in the USA.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন