Author Topic: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings  (Read 7958 times)

jebutler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #30 on: October 12, 2020, 04:45:17 PM »
Barrett should recuse herself.  Her qualifications for the position. are thin. The speeding confirmation express train should be red flagged and come to a stop.

53 law professors from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and other schools released a letter supporting her nomination.

Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman, who clerked with her at the Supreme Court, has written that all of the clerks agreed that she was the best of them and they all support her nomination.

I'm surprised that men and women of such standing would support a person whose qualifications for the court are "thin." Maybe you have a different definition of the word.
These are things that we can discuss among learned and reasonable people, or even among ourselves. (Luther, SA III, paraphrased).

DCharlton

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 6783
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #31 on: October 12, 2020, 04:52:07 PM »
No, Pastor Fienen, I am saying that itís OK for her to be a Roman Catholic even if she is not in lock-step with every single detail of church teachings. I doubt that there are very many ďcanon law Catholics.Ē That is, people who know and accept every point of canon law.
As noted upstream, there are quite a large number of Missouri Synod Lutherans who donít accept every declaration from your CtCR or every resolution passed at one of your conventions.

Can a person who accepts the dogma of her church be trusted to apply the Law fairly?  That's the question you are avoiding.

I would say, "Yes."  In fact, I would expect that person to be more trustworthy than others.  She apparently believes that a true Catholic accepts the dogma as it is, rather than modeling it according to her own preference.  I would expect her to bring the same attitude to the practice of law.  I.e., she would not think it was her place to mold the law to her own wishes, but rather to interpret it with integrity. 

On the other hand, a person who thinks that he need not accept the dogmas of the Church to which he belongs, but only those parts he agrees with is likely to bring the same attitude to the practice of law.  He would feel free to pick and choose. 

I know which person I would prefer. 
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12295
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #32 on: October 12, 2020, 04:58:03 PM »
Let us be honest.
For those making the nomination, the only "qualification" that mattered was that she opposed the Affordable Care Act and was firmly firmly firmly "pro-life." (Since Roman Catholics aren't fully on board with the kind of charismatic communities to which she belongs, her "standing" among some Roman Catholics might be edgy.)
The endorsement from the legal community, usually ready to circle the wagons unless one of their number is a total jerk or miscreant, just means she doesn't score very high on the jerk-or-possible-miscreant scale.
It might be interesting to line up her experience and background and performance on the bench with those of other nominees over the years.
But it doesn't matter. She was nominated for narrow reasons. I'm sure that other candidates with better experience and qualifications were snipped off the list because they had not spoken against what the President and Republicans don't like.
And, Pastor Charlton, do we agree that she can and should stick with the law and the Constitution in her rulings, placing those things above Roman Catholic canon law and her interpretation of her religious faith?
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Now in Minnesota. Missing NY/NJ and trips to Europe. I despise Daylight Savings Time which serves no purpose, disrupts my quotidian body clock and (I am reliably told) severely troubles cows and other huggable farm animals.

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3961
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #33 on: October 12, 2020, 05:20:11 PM »
I suspect that every nomination to the Supreme Court comes with political expectations, regardless of the side nominating.  If the Democrats were doing the nominating, they no doubt would expect the candidate to assure them they would protect the ACA and Roe v. Wade. 
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

jebutler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #34 on: October 12, 2020, 05:20:33 PM »
Let us be honest.
For those making the nomination, the only "qualification" that mattered was that she opposed the Affordable Care Act and was firmly firmly firmly "pro-life." (Since Roman Catholics aren't fully on board with the kind of charismatic communities to which she belongs, her "standing" among some Roman Catholics might be edgy.)

Well, I see that you've bought the "she's opposed to the ACA" soundbite. Good job of carrying water for the DNC.

Now, can you substantiate that fact? Can you document where she has actually stated that she is against it?

She has said that she thought Robert's "well, really it's a tax" argumentation was wrong. But now that the "tax" has been brought to zero, the ACA seems to merrily chug by without it. This is called "severable." The courts can rule that one section of a law is unconstitutional without bringing down the entire law.

But you did not make that argument. You stated that ' she opposed the Affordable Care Act.' So please, provide evidence.

It might be interesting to line up her experience and background and performance on the bench with those of other nominees over the years.

Let's try Justice Kagan. She had eight years of practicing law. Judge Barrett has over 12, including many years of judicial experience at the appellate level (which Justice Kagan did not have). Judge Barrett has taught law for over 20 years at Georgetown and Notre Dame. Justice Kagan was a Harvard Law Dean, but did not teach.

I could go on, but I think I made my point.

And your point was?

Apparently that you don't know what you are talking about.

And, Pastor Charlton, do we agree that she can and should stick with the law and the Constitution in her rulings, placing those things above Roman Catholic canon law and her interpretation of her religious faith?

Next thing you know, you'll be arguing that she will have a special hotline to the Pope who will tell her how to rule. Or maybe you'll just say "the dogma lives loudly in you."
These are things that we can discuss among learned and reasonable people, or even among ourselves. (Luther, SA III, paraphrased).

DeHall1

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #35 on: October 12, 2020, 05:41:58 PM »
No, Pastor Fienen, I am saying that itís OK for her to be a Roman Catholic even if she is not in lock-step with every single detail of church teachings. I doubt that there are very many ďcanon law Catholics.Ē That is, people who know and accept every point of canon law.
As noted upstream, there are quite a large number of Missouri Synod Lutherans who donít accept every declaration from your CtCR or every resolution passed at one of your conventions.

Funny...It sounds like you're saying "...itís OK for her to be a Roman Catholic ONLY if she is not in lock-step with every single detail of church teachings...."
A Joe Biden/Nancy Pelosi -type Catholic, if you will. 

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12295
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2020, 05:55:52 PM »
DeHall1:
Funny...It sounds like you're saying "...itís OK for her to be a Roman Catholic ONLY if ....
Me:
No, it does not sound like that at all. You want it to sound like that, but it doesnít.

And actually, jebutler, I might rather she got advice from the Jesuit pope than from republican party hacks.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2020, 05:58:46 PM by Charles Austin »
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Now in Minnesota. Missing NY/NJ and trips to Europe. I despise Daylight Savings Time which serves no purpose, disrupts my quotidian body clock and (I am reliably told) severely troubles cows and other huggable farm animals.

DCharlton

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 6783
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #37 on: October 12, 2020, 06:04:03 PM »
And, Pastor Charlton, do we agree that she can and should stick with the law and the Constitution in her rulings, placing those things above Roman Catholic canon law and her interpretation of her religious faith?

I don't think she should place Roman Catholic canon law above or below the Constitution.  Instead, I expect her to adhere to each one in its proper place.  As a judge, she is to stick with the law and the Constitution.  As a religious person, she should confess whichever system of dogma she believes to be true.  Its keeping the two distinct that is important.

I believe that she is a person of integrity.  In her life as a Catholic, she adheres to the dogma of her church.  In the same way, I expect her to discharge her duties as a judge with integrity.  On the other hand, I expect a person claims to be a Catholic while feeling free to pick and choose which parts of dogma to believe to do the same thing with the law and the Constitution as a judge.  A cafeteria Catholic will also be a cafeteria judge.

At the same time, I would like to ask left wing judges whether they will place their own political dogma above the law and Constitution.  No alien dogma should be placed above the law and the Constitution.  Dogma is dogma, whether it is religious or not.  If you were a judge, would you be willing to set your political dogma aside in order to do your job?
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

jebutler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #38 on: October 12, 2020, 06:07:39 PM »
DeHall1:
Funny...It sounds like you're saying "...itís OK for her to be a Roman Catholic ONLY if ....
Me:
No, it does not sound like that at all. You want it to sound like that, but it doesnít.

And actually, jebutler, I might rather she got advice from the Jesuit pope than from republican party hacks.

That's sweet.

Now, can you give evidence that she will strike down the ACA? You made the accusation. Back it up.

I'd bet you a steak dinner that she won't strike it down, but we know we know what would happen when you lose.
These are things that we can discuss among learned and reasonable people, or even among ourselves. (Luther, SA III, paraphrased).

DCharlton

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 6783
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #39 on: October 12, 2020, 06:10:34 PM »
Charles,

PS - A dogmatic Catholic will believe what the Church teaches.  One of those teachings is that it is a sin to lie.  Therefore, a dogmatic Catholic will believe that lying is a sin.  A cafeteria Catholic will feel free to ignore the dogma that says lying is a sin. 

Which person is more likely to uphold her oath of office, the one who accepts the dogma of the Church that lying is always wrong, or the one who feels free to reject that dogma?

Signed,

Evil Dogmatic Lutheran
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12295
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #40 on: October 12, 2020, 06:11:37 PM »
I think, Pastor Charlton, that you and I are in agreement on this. Those making a lot of noise about the matter are, I fear, people who donít understand religious faith and are, for stupid reasons, suspicious of it or fearful of it.

P.S. to jebutler: I donít contend that she will automatically strike down the ACA. But some who oppose her nomination do. So chill.
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Now in Minnesota. Missing NY/NJ and trips to Europe. I despise Daylight Savings Time which serves no purpose, disrupts my quotidian body clock and (I am reliably told) severely troubles cows and other huggable farm animals.

DCharlton

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 6783
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #41 on: October 12, 2020, 06:26:21 PM »
I think, Pastor Charlton, that you and I are in agreement on this. Those making a lot of noise about the matter are, I fear, people who donít understand religious faith and are, for stupid reasons, suspicious of it or fearful of it.

Wow.  I don't remember the last time we agreed about anything. 
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

Robert Johnson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 679
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #42 on: October 12, 2020, 06:27:51 PM »


Trump's promise to cut the payroll tax means that we would all lose the social security we've paid into.  It would also mean the closing of most any nursing home I know because they rely on Medicaid and medicare for a significant portion of their funding.  How will we care for those folks?  They cannot be cared for in the homes of loved ones.  They are too fragile.


Social Security and Medicare benefits are paid out of the general fund and would continue to be whether payroll taxes are cut or not.

I don't know whether to be amused or sad that people don't understand that there is no Social Security Fund anywhere.

To a first approximation, Social Security and Medicare resemble Ponzi schemes more than they do actuarially sound collection and dissemination.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 15994
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #43 on: October 12, 2020, 06:29:53 PM »
I think, Pastor Charlton, that you and I are in agreement on this. Those making a lot of noise about the matter are, I fear, people who donít understand religious faith and are, for stupid reasons, suspicious of it or fearful of it.

P.S. to jebutler: I donít contend that she will automatically strike down the ACA. But some who oppose her nomination do. So chill.
It should read, "But some who don't understand religious faith or the law and for stupid reasons oppose her nomination are making a lot of noise to vent their fears and suspicions."

James S. Rustad

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 817
  • μολὼν λαβέ
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #44 on: October 12, 2020, 06:37:31 PM »
Let us be honest.
For those making the nomination, the only "qualification" that mattered was that she opposed the Affordable Care Act and was firmly firmly firmly "pro-life." (Since Roman Catholics aren't fully on board with the kind of charismatic communities to which she belongs, her "standing" among some Roman Catholics might be edgy.)
The endorsement from the legal community, usually ready to circle the wagons unless one of their number is a total jerk or miscreant, just means she doesn't score very high on the jerk-or-possible-miscreant scale.
It might be interesting to line up her experience and background and performance on the bench with those of other nominees over the years.
But it doesn't matter. She was nominated for narrow reasons. I'm sure that other candidates with better experience and qualifications were snipped off the list because they had not spoken against what the President and Republicans don't like.
And, Pastor Charlton, do we agree that she can and should stick with the law and the Constitution in her rulings, placing those things above Roman Catholic canon law and her interpretation of her religious faith?

It appears that she has at least once put the law over her religious beliefs.

Her record as a federal appeals court judge offers some potential clues to her views. In two cases where a lower court ruled to block Indiana laws imposing limits on abortion, Barrett voted to hear arguments that could have potentially overruled the lower court.

But in a third case, involving buffer zones designed to protect abortion patients from protesters outside clinics, Barrett voted to uphold precedent allowing for those zones.

Two cases are inconclusive.  She voted to hear arguments from those who sought to uphold laws limiting abortion.  We don't know how those would have turned out.

In a third case, where the arguments were actually heard, she voted to uphold the buffer zone law.  This isn't the act of someone who puts her religious values over the law.