Mr. Trump plans to announce on Saturday that she is his choice, according to people close to the process who asked not to be identified disclosing the decision in advance. The president met with Judge Barrett at the White House this week and came away impressed with a jurist that leading conservatives told him would be a female Antonin Scalia, referring to the justice who died in 2016 and for whom Judge Barrett clerked.
২৫ সেপ্টেম্বর, ২০২০
"Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett to Fill Ginsburg’s Seat on the Supreme Court."
The NYT reports.
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
১১৩টি মন্তব্য:
I've seen that several places. Not certain.
She's a handmaiden! from the movie and the book! Hand maiden hand maiden... hand maiden.
What else will the corrupt liar left toss out?
Did she rape everyone in High School?
It will be great fun watching a certain LLR-lefty from MI figure out if he is going to fake being supportive of Trump's conservative pick for the SC or if our LLR-lefty has finally figured out that the jig is up on being a fake conservative and just his hate-freak-flag fly like all of his marxist allies.
Our LLR-lefty could barely manage to squeak out some transparently forced support for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and now that his beloved lefty Ginsburg is gone he may not have the heart to pull off another Moby exercise.
You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh at him......
Probably true, but I hope not. Dewey Defeats Truman is still hilarious after 72 years.
If Trump were a better president he'd pick a less contentious nominee. But it’s his choice. Absent something egregious, like proof she ran a gang rape club in high school, I think she should be confirmed.
Is she another Federalist Society pick? I hope not. They have given too many disappointing insider DC corporate lawyers.
Funny how the left will attack Barrett for being Catholic, while running a Catholic for president.
Great choice! And she'll be represented with an action figure that can be proudly displayed and not raise questions, such as "who's the old grannie with the cape and glasses?".
5 Things to Know About Amy Coney Barrett
Good choice. Good luck, Judge Barrett. To the dawn of a new day.
Prepare for the onslaught of hate and vile behavior.
I can’t think of much, if anything, the left hates more than successful female “breeders,” especially those who refuse to abort their disabled child and who have a robust personal faith. This is going to be ugly.
While I'd be fine with ACB as the pick, I'd love for Trump to be trolling the media so they can have another serving of egg on their faces when he announces somebody else.
Good. It didn't make sense to pick the other nice wise Latina just because of Florida. If all Mr. Trump can do is win Florida, he's going to lose anyhow.
God bless her and carry her through the crisis ahead.
I'm sure Senator Whitehouse is rapidly flipping through her high school yearbook, doing a forensic analysis, and a half-dozen or so young men will now come forward, claiming that they were sexually assaulted by her when she was their babysitter...
You might have guessed this yesterday. The tell was when he didn't meet with Lagoa when he was in Florida then. He's never met her.
Leaks! To CNN! If I were ACB I'd be a smidge worried. Trump hates leakers and he hates CNN. Hmm, I wonder what he could do to screw them both over in one fell swoop?
I'm waiting for the front page story that an anonymous sources say they have witnessed Barrett par boiling and eating a human baby.
No, Trump hasn't selected her. He won't (according to the NYT) do so until tomorrow. The President makes and announces these decisions, not that fish-wrap newspaper. They could at least have the professionalism to say that "reliable sources say he will select . . . ."
Anyone he picks will get the same treatment so might as well pick the “most” controversial one
Pure gender politics. She’s fine. But I would’ve preferred Miguel Estrada.
I got an alert on this from CNN. Not Fox. My first thought was that, wouldn’t it be sort of Trumpian to do some misdirection here? Send the wrong story out, make the media ready their guns in one direction, then go a completely different? I could be wrong, but I’m waiting for the real announcement.
She seems like a good pick. I think the Dems are going to look bad if they try to demonize her ala Kavanagh
You understand that with ACB on the court, we Mackerel Snappers will begin the take-over! Out with English Common Law & in with Canon Law!
The food's next! Roman Collard Greens! Pecan Pius! Holy Watermelon!
Better bone up on yer Latin, kidz! All the street signs are gonna be in Latin! Say after me: "Wall Street = Via Murum".
(Seriously, even lil' ol' Proud Follower of the Whore of Babylon Me wonders aloud "How cumz we got so many Catholics on the SCOTUS? What, can't the Prods read the Law anymore, or what?)
beloved lefty Ginsburg is gone
I still wonder if Ginsburg had an epiphany, a renewal, a remorseful thought, and denied his Choice to President "Burden", until it was #HateTrumpsLove, and it was Her Choice. RIP
That said, good luck Judge Barrett, to the dawn of a new day, again.
ACB has given plenty of speeches and interviews in the past few years.
IMO, she is not a firebrand conservative that some may be hoping for. If Antonin Scalia and Judge Judy had a kid together, Amy would be the result.
I think she will make a terrific Supreme Court Justice.
Hope someone asks her about the death penalty. Then we can find out how good a Catholic she really is.
The comment section is chock full of Anti-Religious bigotry!
If , hypothetically, the House were to impeach President Trump for purely parliamentary purposes — getting the Senate to shut down to try the impeachment instead of confirming a Supreme Court nominee — couldn’t the Senate dodge the ploy by suspending or changing its rules?
Why should Senate Republicans have fewer votes for that than they would have to confirm a nomination?
Heck, McConnell could do it now — suspend the rules re impeachment until January 2.
I'm not sure if I should make this observation (but thanks to anonymity, I will). One thing that will help Barrett and will also help Trump is the fact that Barrett is so attractive and wholesome and mom-like. Kagan, and (in my opinion to a lesser extent) Sotomayor, are brilliant legal minds, but they don't look like the PTA soccer moms that many suburban women see in their own social circles. So Barrett is relatable and that may make Trump more palatable.
Yay except Trump's Supreme Court nominees to date have under-whelmed, as have most of his political appointees
I foresee large numbers of women instantly turned lesbian talking about their 'crazy college experimental years" when ACB raped them while saying a hail mary, holding a crucifix, and talking about this great book about handmaids.
According to the radio news, Ginsburg is the first woman ever to lie in repose in the Capitol. Another first for women. But how do we know she's in the box? The same suspicion arose with Nixon.
I'd find the leaker, put him in a closet, and knock his teeth out.
Oh- That's right...Maggie Haberman has a cozy, leaky relationship with Ivanka and Jared. The two lib morons thinks they're "friends".
I didn't watch The Handmaiden. It sounded like another film where women wear bonnets.
Filling Ginsbur's seat wouldn't be hard. She was pretty tiny, though perhaps the robes hid a huge ass, who knows.
It's shoe-filling that usually takes place. Huge shoes to fill.
She reminds me of Pam from The Office, but 25 years later.
Lolz - the commenters are deranged anti-re ligous bigots.
"So much for any remaining shred of separation of church and state."
"Goodbye, gender equality, hello retrograde sexism and misogyny."
"It’s great to see a Christian religious fanatic nominated to the highest court in the land. " (written sarcastically)
"We don't need a People of Praise religious zealot, a literal "Handmaiden", making decisions for the women, and indeed all the people, of America."
"The outlandish version of Catholicism that she follows alone disqualifies her."
"As they often do, aides cautioned that Mr. Trump sometimes upends his own plans. But he is not known to have interviewed any other candidates for the post."
In short, the NYT may or may not have spoken with someone who works at the White House. If they did, that person may be privy to the President's thinking. Or he may just be speculating, based upon the fact that the President interviewed Barret.
anti-Catholic bigotry towards her will be spun as ...?
...compared to touting Biden's "deep Catholic faith"
She's not a female Scalia - he was the master. Indeed, Barrett has a bit of an authoritarian, which cause me to prefer Lagoa.
Nonetheless, she's a qualified choice and should confirmed by acclamation.
Dud he set any forest fires at the gender reveal party?
"The leaks are real, the news is fake."
Already I've seen a thread on Twitter beginning, "I would love to know which adoption agency Amy Coney Barrett & her husband used to adopt the two children they brought here from Haiti". Well, she and they knew all that was headed their way and she's agreed to suffer it; a better person than me.
So would things have been better or worse if the President had nominated Barrett first, and Kavanaugh second?
finally, a president with balls
I hope the Democrats treat her better than they did Kavanaugh.
I've also seen the same report at PJMedia.
I was 12 years old and ACB was my piano teacher (side gig). I remember her touching me as I played Pachelbel. Pavoroti was playing in the background. She took me upstairs...I had no choice in the matter. I recall it being wonderful but I know that was wrong now. It is indelible in my hippocampus.
Her education and brilliant communication skills make her as qualified as they have ever seen. But her connection to Christianity seems to be real and sincere. Ah there’s the rub. Trump is loving this.
Might be a head fake...Trump is known for that.
It would give critics less ammo...
She and Laura Linney look very much alike.
Another glorious opportunity to prove the NYT wrong.
Actually, the Times is probably right, this time. But now that they have "announced" before the president officially does so, the president has the opportunity name somebody else and leave the Times and the media, generally, with egg all over their face.
THEN, when the media announces election results in this or that swing state, Trump will remind us all that "this is the media that promised you ACB. Fake news!"
The NYT just can't help but set themselves up for a fall. The only question is whether Trump will push them over.
What I find interesting is that apparently Trump previously met with her on an earlier opening and the meeting did not go well. Maybe Trump CAN rethink a position.
If she's half the jurist that Scalia was, I'll be happy.
This is going to be fun to watch.
Unnamed sources again? Will they finally get one right?
Almost feel sorry for her - they are coming for her. Paul Krugman is sure she will disrupt the economy. Thomas Friedman is sure she will prevent middle east peace. Michelle Goldberg isn't sure about anything but she hates the Notorious ACB.
I look forward to Senator Harris completely destroying her own political chances as she seeks to destroy Barrett.
"according to people close to the process who asked not to be identified disclosing the decision in advance."
Has this been confirmed? I mean- that anonymous sources said it, not that that's what's really going to happen, that is.
She should genuflect every time she approaches the bench over her LONG time as a Justice.
Just to drive 'em nuts.
Welcome to Thunderdome.
If Trump were a better president he'd pick a less contentious nominee. But it’s his choice.
It's also his country, Canadian. So is the Supreme Court our country.
Trump isn't being careful, he is going to put religion and abortion right out there.
If it's not her, that is going to deflate a LOT of people. It will leave a very bad and sour taste in people's mouths.
Trump doesn't need that.
Hope someone asks her about the death penalty. Then we can find out how good a Catholic she really is.
I think her first law review article was about that issue. What should a Catholic--or Christian--do when confronted with a death penalty case.
She's a real pretty lady. Prettiest Supreme since Diana Ross.
"A female Scalia." That'll put the cat among the pigeons.
Freder Frederson said...Hope someone asks her about the death penalty. Then we can find out how good a Catholic she really is.
You do know that Antonin Scalia (a devout Catholic and mentor to ACB) did not oppose the death penalty as Catholic doctrine demands, don't you?
Well, it's Freder, so it is obvious he knows nothing beyond DNC talking points.
No participation points for you.
She could be played by Laura Linney, the Mom from Ozark.
Ray is right- I thought of Laura Linney, too, the first time I saw a picture of Barrett.
Freder,
I will make this simple for you- if asked about the death penalty, I expect Barrett will either demur as nominees often do when asked about a specific issue, but she very well just say that her personal religious beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to the Constitutional question about the death penalty.
One can be a good Catholic and be a good judge at the same time. I think this is what trips up little minds like yours- you seem to think there is a moral imperative for a Catholic to rule against abortion and the death penalty to be consistent, but that is just fucking daft. A good judge will try to answer the question of whether either or both are allowed or banned by the Constitution in a given case.
You will note that I never give grief to Catholics like Biden that support abortion on demand. I don't consider it hypocritical of him to do so- his religious beliefs can also be irrelevant to the political stands he takes. It is enough for that Biden believes Roe vs. Wade was the right decision whether he is Catholic or not.
Blacks are being aborted in disproportionate numbers relative to their share of the population. They are 34% of abortions and 13% of the population. As a result of this disproportion which has slowly increased over the years, blacks are no longer the largest minority in the US and have declining political power. Planned Parenthood has admitted that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist and removed her name from the Manhattan Planned Parenthood building. 1619 tells how to interpret these facts. (Was America funded on slavery? Well, Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, was a wealthy man whose inherited wealth was made in the slave trade.) Critical race theory tells us how to interpret these facts. BLM tells us to care. Yet as this latest episode of "Schrodinger's 2020 - The Year We Wished We Knew What we Now Know we Knew" rolls on, you will observe that these facts are never mentioned by critical race theorists, BLM, Antifa, 1619 curriculums. the NYT, or the Harris-biden ticket. Strangely, the only chance the black community has to see this scourge even slightly diminished through political action lies with the Republicans and their Supreme Court nominees. Come along, come along, and let's show that we mean it when we say: "All Black Lives Matter" is the better slogan.
“Dogma lives loudly within you.”
Making religion sound like schizophrenia?
. Farmer said...
Pure gender politics. She’s fine. But I would’ve preferred Miguel Estrada.
So would I but he gave up years ago. I wish Janet Rogers Brown was younger but they were both filibustered by you-know-who.
You do know that Antonin Scalia (a devout Catholic and mentor to ACB) did not oppose the death penalty as Catholic doctrine demands, don't you?
What is clear is that you don't know Catholic doctrine, which is a lot more nuanced than an unqualified rejection of the death penalty in any and all instances.
As in cases of personal self-defense to protect human life, and just war to protect human life, although it prohibits it as a "penalty" or "punishment," Catholic doctrine does permit the use of deadly measures against a guilty person if that is the only way to protect human life.
What modern magisterial teaching recognizes is that with the ability to incapacitate such criminals through incarceration, such cases are rare. What Pope Francis adds is the (unwarranted) assumption that such cases are non-existent. Of course, as a factual matter, he is wrong. Some people are so dangerous to others that even imprisonment cannot protect others.
chickelit said...
I look forward to Senator Harris completely destroying her own political chances as she seeks to destroy Barrett.
That would be funny - worth the price of admission! But your comment shows what a needle Harris has to thread!
ACB is the Catholic Althouse.
Here's where i come to read lesbian fan fiction.
"You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh at him......"
You have Chuck Derangement Syndrome.
If you are fully cognizant that you are sacrificing your mental health for the team, please then realize the team don't care.
It is for naught. A mere form of solipsism, disguised by tech so you wouldn't be self-aware enough to know and correct. Even if tech hasn't determined your own personal OODA loop, they have for everyone without your knowledge, experience, and wisdom.
Joke around more and keep on being you, forget the phantom Chuck evil that controls nothing and focus on the evil we know exists.
Be more like Trump, is what I am saying. Same advice applies to me. I don't empathize or sympathize, just acknowledge. Melania would be disappointed in that your responding to Chuck indicates that you aren't being your best. She is right.
Freder, the judge, is now in favor of the death penalty.
Welcome to the party.
Trump has timed this so the DC Prayer March by Franklin Graham will have tens of thousands of sincere Christian there tomorrow to pray for ACB and the President who seated her on the Court. What we have here is a big win in the Spiritual War.
"I hope the Democrats treat her better than they did Kavanaugh."
Is there any possible reason to believe they will?
alanc709 said...
Funny how the left will attack Barrett for being Catholic, while running a Catholic for president.
He, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi are from the Catholic Sect that favor abortion.
The bimillennial moral tradition of the Church teaches us that the state has the right to the use of the death penalty. St John Paul II specified that in this day and age the use of it should be extremely rare, given that we can maintain a criminal in prison for life; it is only in the current Pontificate that we have been instructed to ignore the bimillennial moral tradition of the Fathers. The Fredersons of the world have no doubt but that the Holy Ghost has spoken through Franciscus but there are in fact an awful lot of us who think otherwise. Time will tell, and Franciscus's successors.
Of course, one might hold the view that the Pope, who wields both Keys of St Peter, the spiritual and the secular powers, has exercised his dormant secular authority and forbidden the states' from imposing the death penalty; were I a legislator, I certainly wouldn't defy a papal edict. Something tells me, however, that the this is not a theory that the so-called 'progressive' or 'Left' Catholics want anything to do with.
Scalia (a devout Catholic and mentor to ACB) did not oppose the death penalty as Catholic doctrine demands
I think everyone's concern, and rightly, is that due process is handled correctly. The traditional standard of evidence was three independent witnesses, then Planned Perp of premeditated homicidal character is an acceptable remedy.
He, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi are from the Catholic Sect that favor abortion.
The Progressive Catholic sect with a Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic quasi-religion ("ethics"), founded in diversity (i.e. color judgment) dogma, which denies individual dignity, denies individual conscience, normalizes color blocs, color quotas, and affirmative discrimination, not limited to racism. Wicked.
One thing that will help Barrett and will also help Trump is the fact that Barrett is so attractive and wholesome and mom-like. Kagan, and (in my opinion to a lesser extent) Sotomayor, are brilliant legal minds, but they don't look like the PTA soccer moms that many suburban women see in their own social circles. So Barrett is relatable and that may make Trump more palatable.
------------=============
A Karen
A Karen is a kind of person who is unhappy when little things don’t go their way. They are a, “Can I speak to your manager?” kind of gal. The bitchy soccer mom of her friend group that nobody likes.
will Barrett be seen as
Manager that Karen wants to talk to or
gf that Karen takes with her to talk to manager
Pure gender politics.
Well, sex and gender, female and feminine. Politics, perhaps. Equal in rights and complementary in Nature. She's qualified. She's right on principle, character. Time will tell if her judgment will have a positive influence for the People and our Posterity, but she starts from a firm foundation.
If Trump were a better president he'd pick a less contentious nominee.
She's not contentious. She's the subject of a smear campaign, and any pick by Trump for the seat would be so subject.
She's kind of a JILF...
If Trump were a better president he'd pick a less contentious nominee.
He did that last time. That was Kavanaugh.
Here is the Catechism summary of Catholic teaching, as originally promulgated.
CCC 2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."
Pope Francis unilaterally changed it to say that resort to the death penalty is "inadmissible." Whatever that means.
(Seriously, even lil' ol' Proud Follower of the Whore of Babylon Me wonders aloud "How cumz we got so many Catholics on the SCOTUS? What, can't the Prods read the Law anymore, or what?)
9/25/20, 5:26 PM
I'm Catholic and I've wondered about that too. Traditional Catholics and evangelicals form much of the backbone of conservatism these days. I think Catholics have an intellectual tradition regarding the law that goes back to Thomas More, that evangelicals just never established. That's why Harriet Meirs bombed.
The reform Jews, the mainline Protestants - and the Pope Francis Catholics - are leftists.
Democrats coming after ACB for adopting kids from Haiti! Maybe she stole them, let's find out ....
AND complaining that the kids aren’t white! “Transracial adoption”, the bad kind of trans apparently.
I knew Trump could derange his opponents and make them commit unforced errors, but Democrats saying “Did she steal black babies” is not something I saw coming.
For, say, $350,000 USD I am quite certain Amy Coney Barrett did something awful to me.
Check first.
Story negotiable.
Michael K said...
. Farmer said...
Pure gender politics. She’s fine. But I would’ve preferred Miguel Estrada.
So would I but he gave up years ago. I wish Janet Rogers Brown was younger but they were both filibustered by you-know-who.
9/25/20, 8:33 PM
I've long favored Michael Luttig. As a man whose son was murdered in his own driveway, if memory serves, I figure Luttig would be the archetypal hanging judge. We don't execute nearly enough people.
Yes chuck is a standin for gerson or douthat or any of these blanc mange tepublucans, sometimes its like ahooting waomprats.
h said
"I'm not sure if I should make this observation (but thanks to anonymity, I will). One thing that will help Barrett and will also help Trump is the fact that Barrett is so attractive and wholesome and mom-like. Kagan, and (in my opinion to a lesser extent) Sotomayor, are brilliant legal minds, but they don't look like the PTA soccer moms that many suburban women see in their own social circles. So Barrett is relatable and that may make Trump more palatable."
I am not sure that anyone - including liberals - considered Kagan or Sotomayor brilliant legal minds. I think that our hostess would agree. Kagan barely published before she was granted tenure. Sotomayor had a very undistinguished career before being appointed to the bench.
As I understand it, Hilary Clinton called Trump the day Ginsburg died to say that she wanted to replace her. Trump said that it was fine with him but that he’d have to check with the funeral home to make sure it was ok.
- Krumhorn
I guess I'm going to have to look up what this Handmaiden's Tale is.
.....................................
It's a TV show???? That's their go-to? Some made-up, play-acting bullshit? Oh, now I see it's adapted from some made-up, bull-shit novel.
I should've known.
Kagan, and (in my opinion to a lesser extent) Sotomayor, are brilliant legal minds, but they don't look like the PTA soccer moms that many suburban women see in their own social circles.
They are not moms. In addition, Sotomayor is divorced and Kagan has never married.
If diversity matters, it’s time to put a wife and working mom on the court.
We don't execute nearly enough people.
It isn't the numbers, it's the 15-20 years of waiting for the ax to fall. Not much of a deterrent for people who rent by the week.
Will he though? [said in that sarcastically passive aggressive whine]
I’m sure he will, but this NYT piece is to setup the leftists which their missiles ready to attack immediately.
"I hope the Democrats treat her better than they did Kavanaugh."
Is there any possible reason to believe they will?
On the other hand, is there any possible way they can treat her worse?
The Handmaiden's Tale hook was falsely connecting a religious group that sounded similar to one connected with Barrett. Morning Joe has aired a deceptively edited tape of Judge Barrett that had already been debunked. The Dogma comment by Feinstein, the Hatian kids (SEVEN kids - Climate Change!).
There is nothing they will not do.
FOUR MORE KIDS!
FOUR MORE KIDS!
FOUR MORE KIDS!
I couldn’t agree more, Kevin. If identity politics is the name of the game now, why don’t working moms, moms of many kids, and moms parenting a child with a disability like Down syndrome deserve to be represented? If my Latina friends can demand a judge that looks like them, why can’t I demand the same?
In all seriousness, when did “feminism” change from the quest to “have it all” while embracing our femininity and unique role as women? When did the ability to have children while having a successful career get replaced with the alleged goal of denying the unique biological abilities that make us female? Why is the “right” to (brutally) end the life we alone have the ability to carry become the ideal of “feminism?” Sex is not without consequence. We know these consequences. Except in tragic circumstances, choice takes place when a woman chooses to have sex. Contraception isn’t fail proof. When did we cheapen ourselves to believe sex on demand and consequence-less behavior was something to be lauded? When did we stop expecting, if not demanding, that men also accept the consequences of sexual behavior and step up as parents?
Why must we accept that women need to choose between family and career? During my fourth pregnancy, which also happened to be my partnership year, my supervising attorney bluntly told me that I would not be considered partnership until I was done having children. That isn’t right or, frankly, legal. I should have realized years before that working moms weren’t valued there. None of the female partners had children, and senior female associates who had children mysteriously “moved on” when
We need to demand better, but the attitudes of men like my boss won’t change until we demand it and until we stop bowing to the pressure to abort our children or curtail our reproductive abilities to succeed. Our sons and daughters deserve a better example.
If we get points for diversity and make her personal life an issue, shouldn’t we also admire the diversity Judge Barrett will bring to the bench as a mom of a child with Down syndrome? I’m not aware of other parents of disabled children serving in such positions of power. Their life experience is unique. Unless you’ve walked that journey, you have no idea the obstacles parents who receive a prenatal diagnosis must face just to bring that child into the world. I’m currently expecting my fifth child, and received a very unexpected prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. Within minutes of breaking this news to me, my OB suggested terminating the pregnancy for nothing more than an extra chromosome. The perinatologists we were referred to pushed an abortion timeline and recommended an amnio or CVS that had just as much chance of ending her life as we had of receiving this diagnosis in the first place. Her life was viewed as disposable just because of that extra chromosome. By all measures she is perfectly healthy. The abortion talk didn’t stop until we reached the legal deadline of 24 weeks, despite my constant and firm assertion that we were not going to dismember our daughter. Why her life less worthy than someone with only 46 chromosomes? Depending on which study you read, between 60 and 92% of parents who receive a prenatal diagnosis end the life of that child on the basis of suspected or confirmed disability. Countries like Iceland brag of “eliminating the problem” of Down syndrome by aggressively pushing abortion. This arena is where eugenics is alive and well, whether society wants to acknowledge it or not. I admire the strength of conviction Judge Barrett must have had to bring her son into the world in light of this immense pressure. Her example that you can be a mother of a child with a disability and have a demanding career is something we should be celebrating regardless of what we think of her judicial philosophy. It certainly gives me hope that I will be able to resume my career while parenting a uniquely-abled child.
Christine Blasey Ford just announced that she was raped by ACB in high school, too. Just like her memory of Kavanaugh was triggered by installing a door, this time it came to her while she was fixing a leaky drain pipe.
She can't remember the year, or who else was there, or which house it was, or how she got there, or how she got home. So it's 100% credible, just like last time.
>Hope someone asks her about the death penalty. Then we can find out how good a Catholic she really is.
Hope someone asks Biden about partial birth abortion (aka death penalty for unborn children). Then we can find out how good a Catholic he is.
>> "The outlandish version of Catholicism that she follows alone disqualifies her."
It's right there in Article VI: No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States, except for outlandish Catholics.
Go look, it's right there next to the right to have an abortion and homosexual marriage.
"She's kind of a JILF..."
Ok, MILF and GILF I know...
'Jurist' I'd Like to...?
: )
NYT takes out its LONGEST, SHARPEST knives. I'm pretty sure they're dull. Flung dung can do that. And we all know the NYT can fling dung, and will.
On the front page of the Times now.
With [Judge Barrett's] selection, a partisan battle will ensue over a choice that would drastically reshape the highest court in the country. That battle is what Mr. Trump, who is losing to former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in nearly every public poll, is pinning his hopes on for a change in the arc of the 2020 race.
I wonder if anyone keeps track of how often Maggie Haberman's political speculations are proved accurate.
I LIKE BEER I LIKE GOD....... THERE YA GO :)
Lyssa @ 522 I had the same thought. Or maybe NYTimes is putting this story to get Trump to nominate someone else and prove them wrong!
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন