Author Topic: Female Supreme Court Nominee  (Read 12170 times)

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19815
    • View Profile
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #30 on: September 26, 2020, 03:03:41 PM »
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/09/26/bill-maher-demonizes-amy-coney-barrett-for-her-faith-shes-really-really-catholic-n972424

This article is good once you get past the usual stupidity from Maher and read about her exchange with a questioner on this topic at a speech she gave a year or two ago.

The gist is that religious people are always asked about separating their religious convictions from their rulings, which requires an originalist/textualist assumption. In reality, everyone, religious or otherwise, has strong personal, moral convictions that aren't part of the text of the law they're looking at. Irreligious people should be asked the same question just as often-- can you separate your personal convictions from your rulings? The idea that they're even separable in theory implies the need for textualist interpreters.

Jim Butler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2059
    • View Profile
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #31 on: September 26, 2020, 03:05:15 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?

You mean to say that you never thought that your use of the word "correspondent" would be taken to mean Merriam-Webster's second definition, "a person employed by a news agency, periodical, television network, etc., to gather, report, or contribute news, articles, and the like regularly from a distant place"? (Or the top two choices of synonyms for "correspondent": journalist and reporter.) Even with your constant reminder of your work as a journalist?

I'm sorry, I just don't believe that.

But let's put it out for a vote.

Anyone out there ever taken the retired journalist's use of the word "correspondent" to mean "one who communicates with another by letter"?

How about as a synonym for "journalist"?
The significance of the passage of time, right? The significance of the passage of time. So when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time. -- VP Kamala Harris

Richard Johnson

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10679
  • Create in me a clean heart, O God.
    • View Profile
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #32 on: September 26, 2020, 03:08:59 PM »
Personally, I have no objection to the nominee, even though I might’ve wished it was somebody else. She is relatively inexperienced, but…
ACB has clerk's for an appeals court judge and Supreme Court Justice, been a law professor, and sat on the 7th Court of Appeals for two years a rs how much more experience should be required?

"Relatively inexperienced." In terms of judicial experience prior to appointment to the court, here's how it looks:

Sotomayor: 17 years
Alito: 16 years
Breyer: 14 years
Kavanaugh: 12 years
Gorsuch: 11 years
Roberts: 2 years
Thomas: 1 year
Kagan: 0 years

Obviously there are other kinds of experience that make for a good justice. But in terms of judicial experience, I don't think it would be unfair to say that she is "relatively inexperienced"--relative to the amount of judicial experience that the majority of the current justices had when they were appointed. (BTW, her judicial experience is actually closer to 3 years, so that puts her right about at the middle relative to the rest of the court.)

She will also be (if confirmed), with the exception of Thomas, the youngest appointee on the court. So "relatively inexperienced" in that sense as well.

If I were you, I'd just accept Pr. Austin's acknowledgement that he has no objection to her appointment, though he would prefer someone else. That's how it's supposed to be, isn't it?
The Rev. Richard O. Johnson, STS

Richard Johnson

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10679
  • Create in me a clean heart, O God.
    • View Profile
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #33 on: September 26, 2020, 03:14:21 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.

As far as I can see, if Charles were to leave, it would decrease participation in this forum very significantly, since every post he makes can be guaranteed to elicit at least ten in response--most of which are primarily insults and name-calling. School yard indeed.
The Rev. Richard O. Johnson, STS

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13570
    • View Profile
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #34 on: September 26, 2020, 03:15:54 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.” 😈
Sorry, my proofreading let me down. Darn comma.


I am also sorry that I missed your irony in saying that it is to evoke, that is to recall, Victorian decorum, but not to emulate it, Thus your usage of the Victorian appellation for yourself would just highlight by ironic contrast your discarding of that politeness.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

John_Hannah

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5724
    • View Profile
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #35 on: September 26, 2020, 03:23:17 PM »
Barret has an excellent reputation among her peers who respect her command of legal repertoire. Reputed to have the respect of liberal and conservative alike.

She probably will not bring about an end to Roe but may please conservative politicians on a host of economic and sociological issues. As I've noted, I believe that the "abortion carrot" is used to hook conservative Christians into supporting causes that have little to do with Christ but everything to do with Republican ideology.

Peace, JOHN
Pr. JOHN HANNAH, STS

James J Eivan

  • Guest
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #36 on: September 26, 2020, 03:37:19 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.

As far as I can see, if Charles were to leave, it would decrease participation in this forum very significantly, since every post he makes can be guaranteed to elicit at least ten in response--most of which are primarily insults and name-calling. School yard indeed.
Interesting observation ... Rev Hughes reference to an ‘expanded audience size’ was met with a reference to ‘response (or post ) count’.


On another thread there is a discussion on how to increase female participation.  If indeed we are serious about increasing our audience ... to include females as well, then it would seem that Rev Hughes’ observation on how to expand audience participation is far from ‘school yard’ conduct.

James J Eivan

  • Guest
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #37 on: September 26, 2020, 03:45:27 PM »
Barret has an excellent reputation among her peers who respect her command of legal repertoire. Reputed to have the respect of liberal and conservative alike.

She probably will not bring about an end to Roe but may please conservative politicians on a host of economic and sociological issues. As I've noted, I believe that the "abortion carrot" is used to hook conservative Christians into supporting causes that have little to do with Christ but everything to do with Republican ideology.

Peace, JOHN
While the SCOTUS may have minimal affect of Roe v Wade, the repeal of the Hyde Amendment espoused by the current democrat presidential ticket and party leadership will have a horrific effect on the number of unborn who are butchered. 

This has been mentioned on a number of occasions ... you continue to ignore and minimize that fact.  Continually actively advancing the cause of this barbaric party places you in a accomplice role for these additional unnecessary deaths. 

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 8078
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #38 on: September 26, 2020, 04:47:37 PM »
Barret has an excellent reputation among her peers who respect her command of legal repertoire. Reputed to have the respect of liberal and conservative alike.

She probably will not bring about an end to Roe but may please conservative politicians on a host of economic and sociological issues. As I've noted, I believe that the "abortion carrot" is used to hook conservative Christians into supporting causes that have little to do with Christ but everything to do with Republican ideology.

Peace, JOHN

If only there was a way to govern on the abortion issue without the Court rendering a "constitutional right" out of thin air on specious scientific and shoddy legal ground, perhaps we could avoid the trap.

You know the best way to get Republicans to stop voting Republican because of Supreme Court appointments and the abortion issue?  Overturn Roe and return the issue to the several states where it belongs.  That's also the best way to get Democrats to stop voting Democrat because of Supreme Court appointments and the abortion issue.  It's an interesting side effect of good law versus legislation by judicial fiat.  Back when the Court avoided "political questions," we didn't tend to worry so much about what a president might do in the event of a Supreme Court vacancy.  Back when they were all judges instead of activists, it didn't matter nearly as much.

As ever, Scalia put it best.  Ever a master of rhetoric, he cited to Dred Scott as an example of bad precedent which ought be overturned, and to the dissent by Justice Curtis predicting the very errors the Casey Court was making at the time of this dissent.  At the end of the dissent, he wrote the following:

"There is a poignant aspect to today's opinion. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation and of our Court. 'It is the dimension' of authority, they say, to 'cal[l] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.' Ante, at 24.

There comes vividly to mind a portrait by Emanuel Leutze that hangs in the Harvard Law School: Roger Brooke Taney, painted in 1859, the 82d year of his life, the 24th of his Chief Justiceship, the second after his opinion in Dred Scott. He is all in black, sitting in a shadowed red armchair, left hand resting upon a pad of paper in his lap, right hand hanging limply, almost lifelessly, beside the inner arm of the chair. He sits facing the viewer, and staring straight out. There seems to be on his face, and in his deep set eyes, an expression of profound sadness and disillusionment. Perhaps he always looked that way, even when dwelling upon the happiest of thoughts. But those of us who know how the lustre of his great Chief Justiceship came to be eclipsed by Dred Scott cannot help believing that he had that case -- its already apparent consequences for the Court, and its soon to be played out consequences for the Nation--burning on his mind. I expect that two years earlier he, too, had thought himself 'call[ing] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.'

It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to think that an issue of the sort they both involved--an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation -- can be 'speedily and finally settled' by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in hisinaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be. See Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 126 (1989). Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.

We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining."

Indeed.  Would that even one of the plurality have listened back then.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Buckeye Deaconess

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3047
    • View Profile
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #39 on: September 26, 2020, 05:37:34 PM »
That she is part of a group called "People of Praise." Which, supposedly, degenerates women. If that is true, then they obviously do a very bad job of it.

Now this gave me a chuckle.  So true.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19815
    • View Profile
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #40 on: September 26, 2020, 05:43:48 PM »
That she is part of a group called "People of Praise." Which, supposedly, degenerates women. If that is true, then they obviously do a very bad job of it.

Now this gave me a chuckle.  So true.
What do you mean? She's 48 and only just now getting nominated to the Supreme Court. Were she more of a liberated feminist she would have been appointed just out of high school.

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 15097
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #41 on: September 26, 2020, 06:01:05 PM »
I’ll say it again. Go ahead. Investigate her and confirm her if that’s what those voting want to do. I don’t care. I will not object. I might wish it would be somebody else, but that’s not going to happen. And BTW my not caring and not objecting doesn’t mean a damn thing, just like the noises of those thumping the tub for her Don’t mean much.
Get on with it. It’s not the most important thing happening these weeks.
Retired ELCA Pastor. Parishes in Iowa, Nw York and New Jersey. LCA and LWF staff. Former journalist. Now retired, living in Minneapolis.

James S. Rustad

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1286
  • μολὼν λαβέ
    • View Profile
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #42 on: September 26, 2020, 06:07:10 PM »
Judging by your frequent forays into condescension and scorn your idea of Victorian politeness and gentility differs from mine.

If you think that Victorian politeness and gentility prohibited condescension and scorn, you are mistaken and need to look further.  There were rigid rules, even on how to express your scorn.

https://www.history.com/news/cutting-was-the-brutal-victorian-version-of-throwing-shade

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13570
    • View Profile
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #43 on: September 26, 2020, 06:08:01 PM »
Was Binging "People of Praise" and came across this opinion piece from USA Today. (I don't believe that they are considered part of the far right wing extremist press {anyone to the right of CNN}.)  "Amy Barrett: If Democrats Attack Her over 'People of Praise' Membership, They'll Regret It," by opinion columnist for the Kansas City Star, contributor to  USA Today, and Notre Dame graduate. One quote from her opinion piece reads, "You cannot fight bigoty with bigotry. Indulging it won't get us a more tolerant America." By the way, People of Praise is an ecumenical parachurch organization with a primarily charismatic Catholic membership. Women in the organization are call "handmaids" but the reference is to Mary's response to Gabriel rather than Margaret Atwood. She also points out the irony of Joe Biden making his Catholic faith a campaign point with the anticipated attack on Barrett's Catholic faith.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

B Hughes

  • Guest
Re: Female Supreme Court Nominee
« Reply #44 on: September 26, 2020, 06:12:11 PM »

Likely this informed group has already watched it, but here is her nomination. Pick it up at 19 min, 30 sec if you desire to skip past the president. A very impressive candidate and human being.

https://youtu.be/KDSfMpuSck0