Author Topic: Female Supreme Court Nominee  (Read 9382 times)

GalRevRedux

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
  • The poster formerly known as GalRev83.
    • View Profile
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2020, 12:38:55 PM »
I did not, Randy Bosch, endorse what people say or do in the process. That is a different problem.
But as all of us know who have gone through various kinds of questioning or public additions, it’s just part of the deal. Even in a meeting with a congregation council considering whether to call you, you know that some center-of-the-rump jerk is going to ask stupid and inappropriate questions.”
Not saying, am I, that those things are appropriate; just that we know they will happen.

But they don't have to happen. There is no constitutional mandate for these circus hearings which, in a kinder, more civilized era, used to be affirming and positive for all involved.

Do not discount how ugly this can become. I will link an article you all  might be tempted to disregard, but take a look at the primary source material contained within (That is to say, tweet content and such).

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/25/https-www-breitbart-com-politics-2020-09-25-donald-trump-russia-interfered-in-2016-election-on-behalf-of-hillary-clinton/
A pastor of the North American Lutheran Church.

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 14249
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #16 on: September 26, 2020, 01:10:03 PM »
I believe the person and content of that incident have been repudiated. But I may be wrong.
OTOH, what is the list of things to be declared "off limits" when analyzing the decisions and life of a federal judge?
Candidates have been dumped because they had housekeepers who were undocumented. But there seems to be no consistency. Rush Limbaugh was given a pass when it was learned he was using his housekeep as a source for opiods.
Retired ELCA Pastor. You can say liberal Christians are wrong. You can say that you disagree with our interpretation of faith. But when you say we are driven by “culture” or “trendiness,” you prove that you do not listen to us. Luther fared better with Rome.

Keith Falk

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1651
    • View Profile
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #17 on: September 26, 2020, 01:19:57 PM »
I believe the person and content of that incident have been repudiated. But I may be wrong.
OTOH, what is the list of things to be declared "off limits" when analyzing the decisions and life of a federal judge?
Candidates have been dumped because they had housekeepers who were undocumented. But there seems to be no consistency. Rush Limbaugh was given a pass when it was learned he was using his housekeep as a source for opiods.


Rush Limbaugh was not seeking public office or being appointed to a position in government.  Comparing him to a SCOTUS nominee is like comparing apples and ballet.
Rev. Keith Falk, STS

Randy Bosch

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 543
    • View Profile
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2020, 01:21:31 PM »
I believe the person and content of that incident have been repudiated. But I may be wrong.
OTOH, what is the list of things to be declared "off limits" when analyzing the decisions and life of a federal judge?
Candidates have been dumped because they had housekeepers who were undocumented. But there seems to be no consistency. Rush Limbaugh was given a pass when it was learned he was using his housekeep as a source for opiods. 

1. Rush Limbaugh has never been nominated for the Federal Judiciary.  2.  You don't know that he was given a pass, only that whatever you heard about the results of the incident didn't meet your criterion for justice.  2.  Limbaugh is a public figure who often triggers emotional responses across the political spectrum. 

You are once again engaging in a form of "gaslighting" that is perhaps better understood as what C. S. Lewis defined to be "Bulverism".  (Paraphrased by Alan Jacobs),

"The charge of 'gaslighting' is an extreme form of 'Bulverism': Instead of claiming 'you say that because you are a man' or 'you say that because you're an American', it's 'you say that because you are a moral monster'.

"It's a useful tactic to deploy if you'd prefer never to think about whether any of your assumptions are correct.  Your opponents are not only wrong, theyare wicked, and why should you engage with arguments that are obviously made in bad faith and for evil purposes? 

"These convictions keep your echo chamber hermentically sealed."


Randy Bosch

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 543
    • View Profile
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2020, 01:31:33 PM »
I believe the person and content of that incident have been repudiated. But I may be wrong.  [...]

Where did you learn, o journalist humble, to justify hearsay by averring that you may be wrong to protect yourself?  Was it from the rumor spreaders who claim they were told something scurrilous about another person, then close with the "but I don't really know" disclaimer? 


Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 14249
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2020, 01:34:58 PM »
I don’t have any real “opponents” here. And I’m nor sure I would call anyone here “wicked.”
Forget I ever mentioned Limbaugh, for my attempt to use him as a “public person who...” obviously did not work.
P.S. (again) Nothing I write in this modest forum is ever intended to be journalism. Why would I work that hard for this small readership?
Retired ELCA Pastor. You can say liberal Christians are wrong. You can say that you disagree with our interpretation of faith. But when you say we are driven by “culture” or “trendiness,” you prove that you do not listen to us. Luther fared better with Rome.

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12931
    • View Profile
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #21 on: September 26, 2020, 01:45:39 PM »
I don’t have any real “opponents” here. And I’m nor sure I would call anyone here “wicked.”
Forget I ever mentioned Limbaugh, for my attempt to use him as a “public person who...” obviously did not work.
P.S. (again) Nothing I write in this modest forum is ever intended to be journalism. Why would I work that hard for this small readership?
Does that mean that we should not take anything that you post here seriously because you do not? You obvious don't care enough to proofread or get names or attributions correct. Just shooting the breeze.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

B Hughes

  • Guest
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #22 on: September 26, 2020, 01:48:57 PM »

Candidates have been dumped because they had housekeepers who were undocumented. But there seems to be no consistency. Rush Limbaugh was given a pass when it was learned he was using his housekeep as a source for opiods.

Just two years ago the senior senator from California dumped on her because she is a practicing Roman Catholic. That was wrong then and will be wrong again when it comes up during her confirmation hearing.

Rush was audited every year for 12 years straight until he moved out of New York. Harassment comes in many forms or did you forget Obama weaponized the IRS against conservatives during his time in office? And Rush is not a federal employee, but a private citizen.

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7626
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2020, 01:52:14 PM »
I wonder if the Democrats are paying close attention to the last time they made this mistake and the lessons learned.  They went after Kavanaugh with a vengeance.  There is widespread belief it cost them a chance to re-take the Senate, which would have essentially negated the present Supreme Court nomination by the way.  Why?  It empowered and offended conservatives, especially conservative women (my wife has yet to forget their vile treatment of him), and it turned off independents.

This seems worse.  Barrett is a Catholic.  At a time when the Democratic nominee for president is trying to tout his Catholicism as a feature, Democrats are trying to simultaneously argue that Barrett's is a bug (mostly because hers appears to be in line with what the Catholic Church actually teaches).  Worse, they are making up stories about her, such as the aforementioned People of Praise connection, which was initially reported as being the impetus for A Handmaid's Tale, but then quietly redacted when it turned out that was grade A horse squeeze.  They are attacking her for having too many children, and for adopting children from Haiti.  Which is ironic on two fronts, the first being the old and stupid canard that pro life people should go out and adopt more if they really believe what they preach, and the second being that apparently adopting black kids from overseas is noble when Madonna does it but virtue signaling and cultural appropriation when a conservative woman does it.  So Catholic Democrats and independents are going to get to watch their party, including their VP nominee, trash a woman for ............... being Catholic and living like she takes it seriously..

Democrats are fond of pointing to 2018 and blaming Republican losses in the House on Kavanaugh's ultimate confirmation.  That ignores that the Senate is far more akin to the electoral college in how it is constituted and how votes state-by-state are doled out than the House is.  And the Republicans gained seats in the Senate after the Kavanaugh debacle.  If Trump wins, particularly if he wins those rust belt states again, look back to this moment, when the Democrats could have made a valid process argument and chose instead to trash a Catholic woman for taking her faith seriously.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

B Hughes

  • Guest
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #24 on: September 26, 2020, 01:56:54 PM »

Well said David.

jebutler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1887
    • View Profile
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #25 on: September 26, 2020, 02:13:56 PM »
P.S. (again) Nothing I write in this modest forum is ever intended to be journalism. Why would I work that hard for this small readership?

Then why consistently refer to yourself as a "humble correspondent" on this forum?
The truth we preach is not an abstract thing. The truth is a Person. The goodness we preach is not an ideal quality. The goodness is Someone who is good. The love we preach is God himself in Christ. --H. Grady Davis

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 14249
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #26 on: September 26, 2020, 02:27:17 PM »
jebutler:
then why consistently refer to yourself as a "humble correspondent" on this forum?

Me:
Heaven's, what is this? Second grade?
The first Merriam-Webster definition of correspondent is: "one who communicates with another by letter." Yes, the word has other uses. I'm stretching "letter" to cover online posting. Is that OK?
Then there is common-sense and contextual understanding of a phrase I wryly use in my posting because everyone knows that - at times - I am not self-consciously "humble." Finally, the term "your humble correspondent," is intended to evoke a Victorian politesse and gentility which is rarely present here. Hence irony.
Now who wants to tell me what the White Whale really means to Captain Ahab and why the narrator of the book is named Ishmael?
Sorry: Once an English Major, Always an English Major. Card-carrying member of P.O.E.M, the Professional Organization of English Majors, formed years ago by Garrison Keillor.
Retired ELCA Pastor. You can say liberal Christians are wrong. You can say that you disagree with our interpretation of faith. But when you say we are driven by “culture” or “trendiness,” you prove that you do not listen to us. Luther fared better with Rome.

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12931
    • View Profile
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #27 on: September 26, 2020, 02:32:59 PM »
jebutler:
then why consistently refer to yourself as a "humble correspondent" on this forum?

Me:
Heaven's, what is this? Second grade?
The first Merriam-Webster definition of correspondent is: "one who communicates with another by letter." Yes, the word has other uses. I'm stretching "letter" to cover online posting. Is that OK?
Then there is common-sense and contextual understanding of a phrase I wryly use in my posting because everyone knows that - at times - I am not self-consciously "humble." Finally, the term "your humble correspondent," is intended to evoke a Victorian politesse and gentility which is rarely present here. Hence irony.
Now who wants to tell me what the White Whale really means to Captain Ahab and why the narrator of the book is named Ishmael?
Sorry: Once an English Major, Always an English Major. Card-carrying member of P.O.E.M, the Professional Organization of English Majors, formed years ago by Garrison Keillor.
Judging by your frequent forays into condescension and scorn your idea of Victorian politeness and gentility differs from mine.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 14249
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #28 on: September 26, 2020, 02:38:03 PM »
Sigh! Got to do it again.
“Evoke” means to recall, it does not mean to bring about or to be. And you need a comma after “scorn.” 😈
« Last Edit: September 26, 2020, 02:39:37 PM by Charles Austin »
Retired ELCA Pastor. You can say liberal Christians are wrong. You can say that you disagree with our interpretation of faith. But when you say we are driven by “culture” or “trendiness,” you prove that you do not listen to us. Luther fared better with Rome.

B Hughes

  • Guest
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #29 on: September 26, 2020, 02:46:40 PM »
Sigh! Got to do it again.
“Evoke” means to recall, it does not mean to bring about or to be. And you need a comma after “scorn.” 😈

You mentioned this is a small audience. It expended and improved during your lifetime ban. No one else here can claim a similar impact.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2020, 02:49:25 PM by B Hughes »