Female Supreme Court Nominee

[James J Eivan]

You must have missed my critique of Judge Coney Barratt's critics. I'm hardly "progressive" by your standards of sloppy assessment of folks.

Peace, JOHN

Since no names were noted in my posts, it's a bit confusing why you chose to respond ...apparently my post was not addressing you .... for some reason you responded  ... for what reason?

[Richard Johnson]

You must have missed my critique of Judge Coney Barratt's critics. I'm hardly "progressive" by your standards of sloppy assessment of folks.

Peace, JOHN

Since no names were noted in my posts, it's a bit confusing why you chose to respond ...apparently my post was not addressing you .... for some reason you responded  ... for what reason?

Probably because your response followed immediately after your quotation of John's post.

[John_Hannah]

You must have missed my critique of Judge Coney Barratt's critics. I'm hardly "progressive" by your standards of sloppy assessment of folks.

Peace, JOHN

Since no names were noted in my posts, it's a bit confusing why you chose to respond ...apparently my post was not addressing you .... for some reason you responded  ... for what reason?

Probably because your response followed immediately after your quotation of John's post.

Yes.   

[peter_speckhard]

You must have missed my critique of Judge Coney Barratt's critics. I'm hardly "progressive" by your standards of sloppy assessment of folks.

Peace, JOHN

Since no names were noted in my posts, it's a bit confusing why you chose to respond ...apparently my post was not addressing you .... for some reason you responded  ... for what reason?

You quoted him and used second person pronouns about him adopting children. You were obviously speaking directly to John. He responded, and then you post expressing confusion as to why he is responding as though you were talking to him. Your confusion might be something beyond the remedy of this forum to clear up. 

[FrPeters]

How fast is too fast?  A list of more recent justices and how long it was between nomination and confirmation:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993): 42 days
Sandra Day O'Connor (1981): 33 days
John Paul Stevens (1975): 19 days
Lewis Powell (1971): 45 days
Harry Blackmun (1970): 27 days
Warren Burger (1969): 17 days

Of the 163 nominations in U.S. history to the highest court in the nation, more than half were formally nominated and confirmed within 45 days. Some of the justices were even nominated and confirmed on the same day.  Every one of the 29 times there has been a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, the president has nominated a person to fill the vacancy (though not all were confirmed).  So either our current senate is not as smart as, cannot obtain or process information on the candidates as quickly, or, perhaps, this process has ceased to be about judicial qualifications and has become solely a political vote.

[Dave Likeness]

To demonstrate that confirming Supreme Court Justices was not always a political football:

Here are the vote totals for the 6 people listed by Pastor Peters.

Ginsburg.........96-3
O'Connor.........99-0
Stevens..........98-0
Powell.............89-1
Blackmun........94-0
Burger.............74-3

[James J Eivan]

You must have missed my critique of Judge Coney Barratt's critics. I'm hardly "progressive" by your standards of sloppy assessment of folks.

Peace, JOHN

Since no names were noted in my posts, it's a bit confusing why you chose to respond ...apparently my post was not addressing you .... for some reason you responded  ... for what reason?

You quoted him and used second person pronouns about him adopting children. You were obviously speaking directly to John. He responded, and then you post expressing confusion as to why he is responding as though you were talking to him. Your confusion might be something beyond the remedy of this forum to clear up. 

Since moderation is judging my response, my response was a result of Rev Hannah's response " You provide enough condemnation to cover all the rest of us."


Rev Speckhard ... I quoted who using second person pronouns?   To my knowledge, quoting a person requires one to use the exact words the person quoted used.  Please expand on your comment.

[Richard Johnson]

  So either our current senate is not as smart as, cannot obtain or process information on the candidates as quickly, or, perhaps, this process has ceased to be about judicial qualifications and has become solely a political vote.

All of the above. 

[peter_speckhard]

The wave of slanderous poop about to slop over the nominee begins its surge: She's a white colonizer because she and her husband adopted children from Haiti. You can't make this up, woke to the level of absurd. 

https://trendingpolitics.com/it-begins-liberals-compare-amy-coney-barrett-to-white-colonizer-for-adopting-two-black-children-from-haiti/?utm_source=economics

Tragically Rev Hughes was bullied off the forum .. but his body of posts remains.

The criticism of ACB's adoption of Haitian children simply reveals the demented moral condition of some progressives.  It is pointed out than Hollywood mavens such as Madonna, Sandra Bullock and the Pitt/Jolie have adopted children of similar nationality/race ... and are correctly praised by MSM ... but when ACB does it it criticized.

Where is the condemnation of this among forum membership or is such double standard behavior considered acceptable?

You provide enough condemnation to cover all the rest of us.

Peace, JOHN

Apparently you are quite tolerant of slanderous posts of fellow progressives ... but when hypocrisy of progressives is brought to light, your defensive partisan nature kicks in.

Your response is even more concerning and confusing because I was condemning the hypocrisy of progressives who are criticizing ACB for her adoption of her Haitian children. It seems you also adopted children of a different racial background ... which is commendable.

Why attack me with a snark filled response ... I'm not the subject here ... the Subject is the hypocrisy of some progressives in the manner they attack ACB for adopting children of a different race while praising and extolling progressives who do the same.

Feel free (moderator permitting😏) to begin a thread personally attacking anyone you like😎.

James, you quoted, that is, used the quote feature, to quote John Hannah's post, and responded to his host addressing him directly with the second person pronouns highlighted above. When he responded, you then asked why John Hannah was responding to you as though you were talking to him when no names were in your post. It is a tedious vexation to the spirit to engage in dialog at this level.   

[James J Eivan]

You must have missed my critique of Judge Coney Barratt's critics. I'm hardly "progressive" by your standards of sloppy assessment of folks.

Peace, JOHN

Since no names were noted in my posts, it's a bit confusing why you chose to respond ...apparently my post was not addressing you .... for some reason you responded  ... for what reason?

Probably because your response followed immediately after your quotation of John's post.

Again missing the point ... In the initial post the question was asked ..." Where is the condemnation of this among forum membership or is such double standard behavior considered acceptable?".

Rev Hannah responded " You must have missed my critique of Judge Coney Barratt's critics."

Giving Rev Hannah credit for his critique of the judge's critics, I simply acknowledging that my post was not directed to him, questioning why he felt the comment was directed at since no names were mentioned ... and Because he had indeed been critical of the judges critics ... and therefore already had been critical in the manner suggested in by " Where is the condemnation of this among forum membership or is such double standard behavior considered acceptable?"

In short, I'm still confused about why Rev Hannah thought I missed his critique of the judge's critics ... or to put it another way ... since he had already been critical in the manner I suggested, why did he feel the above question was directed at him ... it obviously was not.

[peter_speckhard]

An archbishop's view of the matter.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/09/when-the-dogma-lives-loudly

[Weedon]

Re the Archbishop's words: and, of course, the things that upset folks about ACB are not Catholic specifics but the bedrocks of what Lewis once called "mere Christianity."

[FrPeters]

Is there anything more dangerous than a pastor or people who believe the Scriptures, confess from the heart the creed, pray earnestly, and do so without apology or embarrassment?  Christianity has suffered from people who claim to be devout but who parse the Word of God and the creeds as if these were words without meaning, fact, or truth.  Sen. Feinstein was echoing not only the wariness of the world toward such faith but also the hesitation even within the churches to be bound by the faith of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ the chief cornerstone.

[Jim Butler]

A positive treatment of ACB and an interesting take on feminism and the issue of abortion:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/27/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-nominee-feminist-icon-422059