Author Topic: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings  (Read 35755 times)

Richard Johnson

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10675
  • Create in me a clean heart, O God.
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #105 on: October 14, 2020, 12:34:59 PM »
Judge Barrett seems nice.
In addition, she is intelligent beyond belief ... thus far her testimony before the senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday and now Wednesday have been without notes.  Citing cases and opinions without notes is astounding.

I've read it's because she has seven kids. She's used to being asked a lot of stupid questions.

 ;D ;D
The Rev. Richard O. Johnson, STS

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19808
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #106 on: October 14, 2020, 12:39:32 PM »
https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/10/14/merriam-webster-alters-definition-sexual-preference-say-offensive-hirono-attacked-barrett-using/

Interesting. Politicians, including Joe Biden have used the phrase "sexual preference" in speeches this year. Yesterday two senators berated Barrett for using the "outdated and offensive" term, and just today the good people at merriam-webster frantically updated their dictionary to agree with progressive talking points. 

Richard Johnson

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10675
  • Create in me a clean heart, O God.
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #107 on: October 14, 2020, 12:46:25 PM »
I suspect in the "me too" era the Senator sees some benefit to asking the question publicly--both to raise awareness, and to assure the public that these things are asked.
The Rev. Richard O. Johnson, STS

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12430
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #108 on: October 14, 2020, 12:52:53 PM »
I suspect in the "me too" era the Senator sees some benefit to asking the question publicly--both to raise awareness, and to assure the public that these things are asked.

Agreed.
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it’s not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19808
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #109 on: October 14, 2020, 01:04:25 PM »
Ben Sasse just used the word "catechesis" in his questioning of Barrett. I really hope he runs for president some day.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19808
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #110 on: October 14, 2020, 01:11:23 PM »
Ben Sasse just used the word "catechesis" in his questioning of Barrett. I really hope he runs for president some day.
Now he just used the phrase "liturgical act." The man is just stud, plain and simple. 

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44883
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #111 on: October 14, 2020, 01:30:07 PM »
In Tuesday’s hearings, Sen Hirono, D-Hawaii saw fit to interrogate Judge Barrett asking her if she is a sexual predator.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrat-amy-coney-barrett-sexually-assaulted-someone.amp

Why are progressives obsessed with sex???

Hopefully questions such as this will not replace the personal attack and mobbing tactics similar to the unfounded accusations of anonymity used by liberals/progressives to attack forum members and/or derail fruitful and beneficial forum dialogue and discussion.

Edit:  Regrettably the above post is incorrect ... Rev Bohler pointed out the error of my post here.

http://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7622.msg490436#msg490436
Such questions should be routine during the vetting process for such an appointment. As I recall, before a pastor can accept a call to certain states they must pass a criminal background check with an emphasis on criminal behavior against children. To ask about such things is not the same as accusing her of such.


Y'mean a question can simply be a question without a hidden attack?
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3636
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #112 on: October 14, 2020, 01:42:30 PM »
Ben Sasse just used the word "catechesis" in his questioning of Barrett. I really hope he runs for president some day.

I heard him earlier in the week interviewed on NPR Morning Edition, without knowing at first who it was (came in late to segment).  I was extremely impressed how he was answering the interviewer and pushing back at implicit assumptions about the role of the judiciary, making a very good case which the interviewer conceded along the way.  The best sign that your messaging is working.

Frankly didn't know he was that smooth, and in light of the NY Times rebellion his op-ed caused (EDIT/CORRECTION: it was Tom Cotton who wrote op-ed, not Ben Sasse)...yes, I'd like him to run for president some day.  They say every senator harbors that ambition and thinks himself presidential worthy, though strangely few actually succeed in the recent era.  Of course, he'll have to get by his fellow senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) who is clearly angling for the post-Trump populist mantle on the national stage.  Hawley strikes me as a more traditional run-of-the-mill pol demagogue like pretty much everybody else, so not a fan.  Especially with his recent grandstanding (pre-RBG's passing) that he would not vote for any Supreme Court nominee who would not affirm they would overturn Roe v Wade.  Yeah buddy, like you would certainly be the deciding vote to tank getting to replace Notorious RBG.  Insincere demagoguery playing for headlines, thinking the next nominee would come from a Democratic president.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2020, 02:05:25 PM by MaddogLutheran »
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3636
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #113 on: October 14, 2020, 01:45:26 PM »
I suspect in the "me too" era the Senator sees some benefit to asking the question publicly--both to raise awareness, and to assure the public that these things are asked.

Certainly a reasonable, salutary tactic in the "Me Too" era, but I think it really goes back to why Bill Clinton lied in his Paula Jones deposition.  If you can get someone on the record committing perjury, it makes for an easier justification for impeachment removal.  Except of course when you're the first black president with NOW standing shoulder to shoulder with you.
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3636
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #114 on: October 14, 2020, 01:47:27 PM »
https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/10/14/merriam-webster-alters-definition-sexual-preference-say-offensive-hirono-attacked-barrett-using/

Interesting. Politicians, including Joe Biden have used the phrase "sexual preference" in speeches this year. Yesterday two senators berated Barrett for using the "outdated and offensive" term, and just today the good people at merriam-webster frantically updated their dictionary to agree with progressive talking points.

This is literally Orwell's 1984 playing out.  Weaponizing the language on steroids, and gaslighting anyone who objects.  I despair.  Looking forward to the comforting message of Reformation Day and Psalm 46.
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

Mike Gehlhausen

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #115 on: October 14, 2020, 02:01:05 PM »
Ben Sasse just used the word "catechesis" in his questioning of Barrett. I really hope he runs for president some day.

I heard him earlier in the week interviewed on NPR Morning Edition, without knowing at first who it was (came in late to segment).  I was extremely impressed how he was answering the interviewer and pushing back at implicit assumptions about the role of the judiciary, making a very good case which the interviewer conceded along the way.  The best sign that your messaging is working.

Frankly didn't know he was that smooth, and in light of the NY Times rebellion his op-ed caused...yes, I'd like him to run for president some day.  They say every senator harbors that ambition and thinks himself presidential worthy, though strangely few actually succeed in the recent era.  Of course, he'll have to get by his fellow senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) who is clearly angling for the post-Trump populist mantle on the national stage.  Hawley strikes me as a more traditional run-of-the-mill pol demagogue like pretty much everybody else, so not a fan.  Especially with his recent grandstanding (pre-RBG's passing) that he would not vote for any Supreme Court nominee who would not affirm they would overturn Roe v Wade.  Yeah buddy, like you would certainly be the deciding vote to tank getting to replace Notorious RBG.  Insincere demagoguery playing for headlines, thinking the next nominee would come from a Democratic president.

I think Sasse would make an excellent president as well.  Which is probably exactly why he won't run any time soon at least unless Trump crashes and burns this election.  I do not see him fighting the uphill fight in the Republican party against the Trumpian populism Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton represent.

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3636
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #116 on: October 14, 2020, 02:07:59 PM »
Ben Sasse just used the word "catechesis" in his questioning of Barrett. I really hope he runs for president some day.

I heard him earlier in the week interviewed on NPR Morning Edition, without knowing at first who it was (came in late to segment).  I was extremely impressed how he was answering the interviewer and pushing back at implicit assumptions about the role of the judiciary, making a very good case which the interviewer conceded along the way.  The best sign that your messaging is working.

Frankly didn't know he was that smooth, and in light of the NY Times rebellion his op-ed caused...yes, I'd like him to run for president some day.  They say every senator harbors that ambition and thinks himself presidential worthy, though strangely few actually succeed in the recent era.  Of course, he'll have to get by his fellow senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) who is clearly angling for the post-Trump populist mantle on the national stage.  Hawley strikes me as a more traditional run-of-the-mill pol demagogue like pretty much everybody else, so not a fan.  Especially with his recent grandstanding (pre-RBG's passing) that he would not vote for any Supreme Court nominee who would not affirm they would overturn Roe v Wade.  Yeah buddy, like you would certainly be the deciding vote to tank getting to replace Notorious RBG.  Insincere demagoguery playing for headlines, thinking the next nominee would come from a Democratic president.

I think Sasse would make an excellent president as well.  Which is probably exactly why he won't run any time soon at least unless Trump crashes and burns this election.  I do not see him fighting the uphill fight in the Republican party against the Trumpian populism Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton represent.

Thanks for the comment, as it prompted me that it was Tom Cotton, not Ben Sasse, who wrote the controversial op-ed (now corrected).  Tom Cotton doesn't bother me as much as Hawley, but I would prefer Sasse to either, and agree it's unlikely for the reasons you give.
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

Voelker

  • Guest
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #117 on: October 14, 2020, 02:39:47 PM »
https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/10/14/merriam-webster-alters-definition-sexual-preference-say-offensive-hirono-attacked-barrett-using/

Interesting. Politicians, including Joe Biden have used the phrase "sexual preference" in speeches this year. Yesterday two senators berated Barrett for using the "outdated and offensive" term, and just today the good people at merriam-webster frantically updated their dictionary to agree with progressive talking points.

This is literally Orwell's 1984 playing out.  Weaponizing the language on steroids, and gaslighting anyone who objects.  I despair.  Looking forward to the comforting message of Reformation Day and Psalm 46.
Don't despair. Instead, use terms such as these, extensively, since they have been weaponized. This is what too many on the Right simply can't grasp: ceding territory only eggs on the monsters.

James_Gale

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4117
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #118 on: October 14, 2020, 05:02:16 PM »
Julio writes:
In addition, she is intelligent beyond belief...
I comment:
No, not "beyond belief." I think there are lots of people as intelligent or more intelligent than she is. I think I - and some others here - may know some.

Julio:
 ... thus far her testimony before the senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday and now Wednesday have been without notes.  Citing cases and opinions without notes is astounding.
Me:
Ever been in a courtroom? It's not astounding at all. Lawyers trying cases have either used the opinions so often it is as familiar to them as John 3:16 is to some here or they have memorized them as they rehearse their questions and closing arguments.
Judges seeking confirmation and knowing what questions are likely to come can certainly bone up on and memorize the cases and opinions they can rattle off as they answer questions. That blank sheet of paper? Maybe she planned to take notes; or maybe it was a prop to hold up at the appropriate time. Or maybe not.

Every lawyer I know uses a trial notebook, and has their case meticulously organized.


I don't think that it's possible to represent a client at trial without documents at hand (either in notebooks or on a computer).


Appellate advocacy is different.  I generally sought to have a single page in front of me as a crutch.  Former SG Paul Clement, still an active SCOTUS practitioner, famously argues with no notes and somehow remembers key quotes and important page numbers. 


I personally think that it's impressive that ACB is appearing with no notes.  But I also think that this fact is being overplayed by some.  It does not influence even a little my opinion regarding her suitability for Supreme Court service.

Julio

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
  • Still awaiting the Certified Election Results!
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Amy Barrett Confirmation Hearings
« Reply #119 on: October 14, 2020, 05:16:17 PM »
You got to keep moving in California or they will tax you.😷😎🤓

Senator John Kennedy ... in today’s SCOTUS Hearings 🤑