Author Topic: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings  (Read 22835 times)

James J Eivan

  • Guest
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #60 on: October 12, 2020, 10:24:07 PM »
My wife and I would like to see Kamala Harris question the nominee.  No one is making the nominee's religion  a  qualification for office. Nice try, Pastor Fienen.
Mr. Teigen: As you well know, CA Senator Dianne Feinstein (a Jew) made a big issue of judge Barrett’s religious background when she was confirmed for her current position… So yes Norman people have made a big deal about religion… Sticking your head in the sand does not negate that fact!

Is there some reason you thought it necessary to note Sen. Feinstein's religion?
PBS thought is necessary to mention it this morning broadcast ... thanks for not disappointing me ... I figured mentioning it would get a rise out of someone. 😎

jebutler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1743
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #61 on: October 12, 2020, 10:25:48 PM »
jebutler, I am not finding your snippy attitude very conducive to further discussion. I am inclined to give you another lesson in how to read and understand certain kinds of sentences, but I don’t believe I’m going to take the time to do that.
So let’s end the snippy shot and snap-back, and let this thread stay on topic.
I, personally, I don’t have any serious objection to the nominee. But I have strenuous objection to the timing of the appointment and attempted confirmation.

You wanna know what isn't conducive to discussion? Not answering a simple question.

You were the one who argued that one of her only qualifications was that she would vote to strike down the ACA. When asked to substantiate it, you suddenly pivoted to well, others said that.

Now you're arguing a) that I cannot "read and understand certain kinds of sentences" and I need a "lesson" in that. (And you complain about snippy? Projection much?)

But let's play your game. Please tell me I need to "read and understand" about the phrase, "For those making the nomination, the only "qualification" that mattered was that she opposed the Affordable Care Act..." As I read it, you are making a very clear claim: she opposes the ACA.

I don't think she does. I can point you to a couple of pundits on National Review that think she will vote to overturn the current case (they even think the current ruling will be overturned 9-0). But you think differently. What is the basis for your argument? What evidence do you have for your claim?

Apparently, you have none. So now you are changing the argument again to simply objecting to "to the timing of the appointment and attempted confirmation." That's pretty much par for the course in your discussions: you get caught making claims with no evidence and then you change the subject and attack those who point out that the emperor has no clothes.
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

jebutler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1743
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #62 on: October 12, 2020, 10:30:07 PM »
My wife and I would like to see Kamala Harris question the nominee.  No one is making the nominee's religion  a  qualification for office. Nice try, Pastor Fienen.
Mr. Teigen: As you well know, CA Senator Dianne Feinstein (a Jew) made a big issue of judge Barrett’s religious background when she was confirmed for her current position… So yes Norman people have made a big deal about religion… Sticking your head in the sand does not negate that fact!

Is there some reason you thought it necessary to note Sen. Feinstein's religion?
PBS thought is necessary to mention it this morning broadcast ... thanks for not disappointing me ... I figured mentioning it would get a rise out of someone. 😎

FWIW, I also was wondering how Sen. Feinstein being Jewish is in any way germane to the discussion. I don't think it was necessary for PBS to mention it and I don't think it necessary for you to do so either.
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

James J Eivan

  • Guest
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #63 on: October 12, 2020, 11:19:13 PM »
My wife and I would like to see Kamala Harris question the nominee.  No one is making the nominee's religion  a  qualification for office. Nice try, Pastor Fienen.
Mr. Teigen: As you well know, CA Senator Dianne Feinstein (a Jew) made a big issue of judge Barrett’s religious background when she was confirmed for her current position… So yes Norman people have made a big deal about religion… Sticking your head in the sand does not negate that fact!
Is there some reason you thought it necessary to note Sen. Feinstein's religion?
PBS thought is necessary to mention it this morning broadcast ... thanks for not disappointing me ... I figured mentioning it would get a rise out of someone. 😎
FWIW, I also was wondering how Sen. Feinstein being Jewish is in any way germane to the discussion. I don't think it was necessary for PBS to mention it and I don't think it necessary for you to do so either.
Pondering the question a bit more ... mentioning Jew as an ethnicity definitely was not necessary ... being of the Jewish faith may have been germane to the senator’s criticism of Judge Barrett’s religious beliefs in the same manner as forum members views of others may be affected by the various beliefs of other forum members.

JEdwards

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 662
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #64 on: October 13, 2020, 09:21:08 AM »
But let's play your game. Please tell me I need to "read and understand" about the phrase, "For those making the nomination, the only "qualification" that mattered was that she opposed the Affordable Care Act..." As I read it, you are making a very clear claim: she opposes the ACA.

I don't think she does. I can point you to a couple of pundits on National Review that think she will vote to overturn the current case (they even think the current ruling will be overturned 9-0).
Good point.  The current case turns on "severability", a narrow, technical legal concept, although you wouldn't necessarily know it from most of the commentary (across the political spectrum).  Ironically, conservative jurists tend to be more willing to "sever", that is, strike down the constitutionally objectionable portion of a law while leaving the rest intact.  Liberal jurists (in general, not 100% of the time) are more willing to speculate on what Congress might have done differently had it known that a specific portion of the law would be unenforceable.  In the current case, the argument that the individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the law is laughable.  Congress essentially severed the individual mandate on its own, by setting the "tax" to zero while declining to alter the rest of the law, so one need not even speculate about what Congress "would have wanted" in the absence of an individual mandate.  Congress already told us.

Peace,
Jon

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7357
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #65 on: October 13, 2020, 11:17:22 AM »
I'm still wondering how Judge, soon-to-be-Justice, Barrett's qualifications are "thin."

I'm guessing "qualifications" in this sense simply means "I don't really agree with her," but I remain willing to listen, here nearly 24 hours later.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Norman Teigen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1667
  • I intend to persuade no one.
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #66 on: October 13, 2020, 04:08:10 PM »
The nominee has only been in her current position for three years.  Other nominees have had more experience.   I am not suggesting that she is not intelligent, I am saying that her experience is thin.   Look it up for yourself. Don't take my word for it.
Norman Teigen

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17522
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #67 on: October 13, 2020, 04:16:36 PM »
The nominee has only been in her current position for three years.  Other nominees have had more experience.   I am not suggesting that she is not intelligent, I am saying that her experience is thin.   Look it up for yourself. Don't take my word for it.
Her current position is not her only experience or the limit on her resume and qualifications. You might as well say Tom Brady's qualifications for quarterbacking a team are pretty thin. After all, he's only been at his current position for less than a full season. 

John Koke

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #68 on: October 13, 2020, 04:21:39 PM »
The nominee has only been in her current position for three years.  Other nominees have had more experience.   I am not suggesting that she is not intelligent, I am saying that her experience is thin.   Look it up for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

Except you led off with this:
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.

"Qualifications" include more than experience on the bench.  Such as endorsement by law professors from Harvard, Yale, etc.  Not to mention serving as a clerk on the Supreme Court.

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7357
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #69 on: October 13, 2020, 04:32:35 PM »
The nominee has only been in her current position for three years.  Other nominees have had more experience.   I am not suggesting that she is not intelligent, I am saying that her experience is thin.   Look it up for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

How many years was Justice Kagan on the Court of Appeals before her nomination?  What other courts had she served on?
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

DeHall1

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 444
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #70 on: October 13, 2020, 08:20:46 PM »
The nominee has only been in her current position for three years.  Other nominees have had more experience.   I am not suggesting that she is not intelligent, I am saying that her experience is thin.   Look it up for yourself. Don't take my word for it.


The ABA has rated Judge Barrett “well qualified” (their highest rating).  Look it up for yourself.  Don’t take my word for it.

How does someone with “thin” experience get a “well qualified” rating?

RPG

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 260
  • Don't feed the trolls!
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #71 on: October 13, 2020, 10:59:55 PM »
The nominee has only been in her current position for three years.  Other nominees have had more experience.   I am not suggesting that she is not intelligent, I am saying that her experience is thin.   Look it up for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

How many years was Justice Kagan on the Court of Appeals before her nomination?  What other courts had she served on?

See also: Abe Fortas.
The Rev. Ryan P. Gage
Eureka, SD

James_Gale

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4082
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #72 on: October 14, 2020, 08:57:01 AM »
The nominee has only been in her current position for three years.  Other nominees have had more experience.   I am not suggesting that she is not intelligent, I am saying that her experience is thin.   Look it up for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

How many years was Justice Kagan on the Court of Appeals before her nomination?  What other courts had she served on?

See also: Abe Fortas.


I don't believe that Earl Warren had had any judicial experience before becoming Chief Justice.  He'd been in electoral politics before his time on the bench. 

Julio

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
  • Still awaiting the Certified Election Results!
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #73 on: October 14, 2020, 09:17:36 AM »
The nominee has only been in her current position for three years.  Other nominees have had more experience.   I am not suggesting that she is not intelligent, I am saying that her experience is thin.   Look it up for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

How many years was Justice Kagan on the Court of Appeals before her nomination?  What other courts had she served on?

See also: Abe Fortas.

I don't believe that Earl Warren had had any judicial experience before becoming Chief Justice.  He'd been in electoral politics before his time on the bench.
See also: Earl Warren.
In reality, Earl Warren was CA governor for 10+ years prior to becoming Chief Justice

Randy Bosch

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 508
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #74 on: October 14, 2020, 09:43:28 AM »
Justice Kagan was never a Judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court.  As to other experience in Court, she had only tried six cases, those while she was Solicitor General for a while under President Obama, with a large staff to do the preparatory work. 

At the time of her appointment, all eight of the other Justices had arrived on the Court with experience as Federal Appeals Court judges.
That isn't a necessary prequalification, either.  Justices Rehnquist and Powell hadn't gone that route, either.