Amy Coney Barrett

[formermav43 4599]

5 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Whatever. She will vote to ban abortion. If you support that then by all means support her nomination. If you don’t then don’t. It’s not any more complicated than that.

Given that that has nothing to do with either my comments or the comments I responded to, I’d say it is quite a bit more complicated than that. 

[Mole 4320]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Sound like commies to me . . . 
 

“But Lent said the group was also deeply inspired by the communitarian ethos of the 1960s counterculture. Group members often make an effort to live near each other in certain neighborhoods. Single people sometimes live with families, and there are some households of single men or single women living together.”

 

I've been associated with similarly minded groups. There were always a certain amount of disaffected old hippies and people on the fringes of society. See the Jesus movement/Jesus freaks.

[Anastasis 23394]

5 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Y’all do as you like on the religious angle. Boring.

She penned a worrying dissent to me on the 6th Amendment right to counsel which tells me she’s exactly the wrong kind of justice to help reform our broken criminal justice system. Of course we knew that when she became a darling of the cons. And no, I won’t find any discussion on her civil rights attitudes interesting either. Nor her dismissiveness of Starr decisis. It’s noise past learning who she is. She’ll get on unless it’s revealed she thinks tax cuts violate the third amendment or something equally bizarre that would spook cons. 

Thanks softly. I was hoping to hear more substantive criticism like this from the law dogs in the thread. If you care to elaborate on any of her writing would like to read it. 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Anastasis

[JimmyJames 12271]

4 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Given that that has nothing to do with either my comments or the comments I responded to, I’d say it is quite a bit more complicated than that. 

Your comments are a distraction from the real issue here.

[GRHorn 105]

3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

they think it'll help them with suburban women.  it's like they don't understand how women work at all.

I think they pick a woman for that reason, and also because it’ll be much tougher to smear a woman and drag out the proceedings. Way less likely to have made gang rape allegations with her.  Maybe they’ll find an old intern to say she said something racist? That’s probably the only angle to go. 

[Anastasis 23394]

35 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Meaningless noise isn’t interesting. 

Political theater isn’t interesting? Maybe entertaining? Meaningless? Yes. Noise? Yes. But I’ll have it on in the background. 

[Anastasis 23394]

4 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I think they pick a woman for that reason, and also because it’ll be much tougher to smear a woman and drag out the proceedings. Way less likely to have made gang rape allegations with her.  Maybe they’ll find an old intern to say she said something racist? That’s probably the only angle to go. 

You don’t expect “clown car vag” to come up?

[JimmyJames 12271]

Trump was already gonna lose bigly but this might absolutely clinch it. Democratic turnout will reach record levels because of this. 

[Parliament 14138]

She's as far left as Justice Ginsberg was right. Seems fair. Elections have consequences.

[JimmyJames 12271]

11 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I think they pick a woman for that reason, and also because it’ll be much tougher to smear a woman and drag out the proceedings. Way less likely to have made gang rape allegations with her.  Maybe they’ll find an old intern to say she said something racist? That’s probably the only angle to go. 

She will vote to ban abortion. When asked about it in confirmation hearings she will either admit that or lie. It’s up to each individual senator to like Ted Cruz said one time, vote their conscious.

BTW, is it snowing in San Antonio yet? I always love snow on the river walk.  

[Bama Chick 28596]

[wildcat09 29258]

5 minutes ago, Parliament said:

She's as far left as Justice Ginsberg was right. Seems fair. Elections have consequences.

That’s gonna be our line when we expand the Court to 15.

[JimmyJames 12271]

7 minutes ago, Parliament said:

She's as far left as Justice Ginsberg was right. Seems fair. Elections have consequences.

Yes they do. In 2018 the Republican Party‘s  march towards fascism was halted. In 2020 it will be eliminated completely and the criminal organization known as the Trump Party will face those consequences.

[henrygandorf 29177]

11 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I think they pick a woman for that reason, and also because it’ll be much tougher to smear a woman and drag out the proceedings. Way less likely to have made gang rape allegations with her.  Maybe they’ll find an old intern to say she said something racist? That’s probably the only angle to go. 

the legitimacy of the candidate will have nothing to do with his/her backstory or qualifications.  the proceedings and if/when they move forward will have nothing to do with his/her backstory or qualifications.

this won't be held up, halted, or dragged out because of "smearing" of a candidate or someone coming" forward telling "lies" about that candidate.  they could be squeaky clean or jack the fucking ripper.  this is about mcconnell's bullshit hypocrisy and partisanship and trump's insistence on everything being "us vs them".  it will end up costing him the presidency (among other things) and them the senate, but hey, i'm sure they'll take solace knowing they put a 3rd person on the court when they're out of power.

[henrygandorf 29177]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i'm sure they'll take solace knowing they put a 3rd person on the court when they're out of power.

and to add, trump gives zero shits about what his appointments actually stand for or vote for.  he cares because he thinks it adds to his legacy, even though it's completely coincidental and has nothing to do with him.  even more coincidental considering he'll be a one-term president.

in four months, he won't care at all what a conservative or liberal justice says, because he shares none of these convictions.  his stance on abortion is based on him getting votes.  nothing more.

[workswithseed 2037]

1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

Not a religious test. The ability to put the law above faith. Two separate spheres - dogma v. law. See Iran. 
 

Yeah, every Christian/Jew said that when they were being killed by Japan, Rome, Germany, and Russia.

[GRHorn 105]

18 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Blessed be the fruit 

[RomaVicta 29794]

4 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

The very concept of them nominating a female is a fucking troll job. Pisses me off even more. 

It's so Clarence Thomas. Roll up a Trojan Horse and the Dems just pulled it in. That's my second example of Dem weakness after knuckling under on the Iraq invasion. They couldn't just vote Thomas down, they had to go to the Anita Hill issue which, frankly also should have been enough to say no to him. 

But no, the Dems were their usual divided, yet collectively timid selves.

A lot has changed since 1991. They may get their way, but it won't because of Dem fear of losing the female vote.

[skeeter 453]

1 hour ago, zork said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/19/amy-coney-barrett-emerges-as-a-front-runner-to-fill-ginsburg-supreme-court-seat.html

She's got that "goddamn dominionist look" in her eyes ...

[TheStoicPaisano 9904]

Are people like Bachmann and Noem clones from some Midwestern base, hidden under a hotdish factory?

[Gil Bang 25898]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Did not really expect you to bite on that low hanging fruit wash. 

This looks really really scare and dark. Not my cup of tea, but doesn't throw up red flags, unless you are just categorically opposed to a Christian being nominated. 

 

https://peopleofpraise.org/

What is the People of Praise?

The People of Praise is a charismatic Christian community. We admire the first Christians who were led by the Holy Spirit to form a community. Those early believers put their lives and their possessions in common, and "there were no needy persons among them."

 We are Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals and other denominational and nondenominational Christians. Despite our differences, we are bound together by our Christian baptism. Despite our differences, we worship God together. While remaining faithful members of our own churches, we have found a way to live our daily lives together.

Like hundreds of millions of other Christians in the Pentecostal movement, People of Praise members have experienced the blessing of baptism in the Holy Spirit and the charismatic gifts as described in the New Testament. This is a source of great joy for us and an important aspect of what God is doing in our world today.

Founded in 1971 in South Bend, Indiana, the People of Praise has grown into a community of about 1,700 members. We are currently in 22 cities across the US, Canada and the Caribbean.

How does the People of Praise serve the broader society?

In 1981, in response to a call from God, we established Trinity Schools—private Christian schools in South Bend, Indiana, Falls Church, Virginia, and Eagan, Minnesota. These middle/high schools have received a total of eight Blue Ribbon awards from the U.S. Department of Education. The Trinity curriculum has also served as a model for more than 30 private and public charter schools nationwide. Additionally, members of the People of Praise founded Trinity Academy, a middle/high school in Portland, Oregon, as well as Praise Academy, an elementary school located in an impoverished neighborhood of Shreveport, Louisiana.

In 2002, inspired by the Holy Spirit, some People of Praise members began moving into some of America's poorest neighborhoods. Since then, we have lived closely with our neighbors and worked together to help meet pressing neighborhood needs. Our efforts include: running camps for hundreds of children, repairing neighborhood homes, hosting prayer meetings, growing healthy food on an urban farm. Longtime local residents have credited these efforts with lowering the crime rate and making the neighborhoods more beautiful and peaceful places to live.

People of Praise community life provides a natural support for marriages and families. This has led us to develop Marriage in Christ, a course for married couples. Marriage in Christ helps couples renew their love and affection for each other while building crucial habits of prayer, conversation and forgiveness. More than 1,300 couples have completed the program.

In addition, branches of the People of Praise in various cities have many local outreach activities, from running prayer meetings to serving the needy.

I am.  Most of the shit that is currently wrong with this country is because of "Christians".  

Some folks follow Christ, and I'm cool with that.  

 

Some folks wear neon T-shirts that say "I"m a CHRISTIAN".  Those are the guys that call me a sinner  and  tell me that I'm going to hell, and also jack off in the corner while their wife is getting it up the ass from a young cabana boy. 

Which one are you?

Edited September 19, 2020 by Gil Bang

[formermav43 4599]

4 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I am.  Most of the shit that is currently wrong with this country is because of "Christians". 

I actually respect the honesty here relative to those tap dancing around it.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

1 hour ago, softlynow said:

Y’all do as you like on the religious angle. Boring.

She penned a worrying dissent to me on the 6th Amendment right to counsel which tells me she’s exactly the wrong kind of justice to help reform our broken criminal justice system. Of course we knew that when she became a darling of the cons. And no, I won’t find any discussion on her civil rights attitudes interesting either. Nor her dismissiveness of Starr decisis. It’s noise past learning who she is. She’ll get on unless it’s revealed she thinks tax cuts violate the third amendment or something equally bizarre that would spook cons. 

Can you point me to that dissent?  I googled for it and couldn't find it.

A real conservative, not a hackjob lawnorder bullshit artist, should be strongly in favor of civil liberties, including and especially those reserved to criminal defendants.

[JimmyJames 12271]

20 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I actually respect the honesty here relative to those tap dancing around it.

Tap dancing around what? Do you really believe people oppose her because she is catholic? This isn’t 1960. 

[softlynow 1783]

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Can you point me to that dissent?  I googled for it and couldn't find it.

A real conservative, not a hackjob lawnorder bullshit artist, should be strongly in favor of civil liberties, including and especially those reserved to criminal defendants.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D05-29/C:17-1727:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:2162392:S:0

 

Her opinion starts on page 35. 

Edited September 20, 2020 by softlynow

[formermav43 4599]

26 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Tap dancing around what? Do you really believe people oppose her because she is catholic? This isn’t 1960. 

Nope. You’re missing the point, probably purposely. And I’m not engaging you on this thread anymore after this-you notice I didn’t reply to your previous post-because you aren’t really interested in the discussion.

Edited September 20, 2020 by formermav43

[TwiceHorn 31283]

26 minutes ago, softlynow said:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D05-29/C:17-1727:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:2162392:S:0

 

Her opinion starts on page 35. 

Well, that's not horribly egregious, but I think takes an unduly narrow and academic view of the whole thing, which makes sense given who she is.

We need more lawyers with broader legal and judicial experience on the Court.

[JimmyJames 12271]

20 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Nope. You’re missing the point, probably purposely. And I’m not engaging you on this thread anymore after this-you notice I didn’t reply to your previous post-because you aren’t really interested in the discussion.

I’m not missing the point on purpose. 

So is it not a catholic thing but a Christian thing? 

I don’t care if you don’t want to discuss it. Your previous post clearly implied that people opposed her because she is catholic just like they did with Kennedy. If I missed the point I guess i apologize but that’s how I took it. Seemed pretty obvious to me. I can admit when I’m wrong. 

[softlynow 1783]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, that's not horribly egregious, but I think takes an unduly narrow and academic view of the whole thing, which makes sense given who she is.

We need more lawyers with broader legal and judicial experience on the Court.

Agreed. She’s not satan and will be alright, probably. But the court rolled over and played dead when the war on drugs heated up, and she’s not carrying the defibrillator it needs.

And her confirmation will highlight yet again the hypocrisy of “libertarians” like a few on this board who shrink from every opportunity to actually curtail state power in favor of guns rulings that mean little, fetus rulings that won’t mean much and rulings allowing the wealthy to hoard more wealth that are what this game is really all about. 

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

2 hours ago, GRHorn said:

I think they pick a woman for that reason, and also because it’ll be much tougher to smear a woman and drag out the proceedings. Way less likely to have made gang rape allegations with her.  Maybe they’ll find an old intern to say she said something racist? That’s probably the only angle to go. 

You make these kinds of posts and then in other threads cry about the level of discourse.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

19 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Agreed. She’s not satan and will be alright, probably. But the court rolled over and played dead when the war on drugs heated up, and she’s not carrying the defibrillator it needs.

And her confirmation will highlight yet again the hypocrisy of “libertarians” like a few on this board who shrink from every opportunity to actually curtail state power in favor of guns rulings that mean little, fetus rulings that won’t mean much and rulings allowing the wealthy to hoard more wealth that are what this game is really all about. 

Definitely agreed.  I'd really like to see Brown-Jackson.  She'd bring a much-needed perspective to the court and black woman is only a tiny fraction of it:  public defender; trial judge; sentencing commission with broad exposure to empirical criminal justice data.  She would be so good.

Sidenote, I got the author of that majority opinion reversed in a patent license dispute when he was a district judge.  Seems like a smart guy, but he fucked the dog on that one badly.

Edited September 20, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[atomheartbevo 89449]

6 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

How about this one Ana?

 People of Praise members are said to be accountable to a same-sex adviser, called a “head” for men and (until recently) a “handmaiden” for women, who gives input on a wide variety of personal decisions. They swear “a lifelong oath of loyalty” to the group. As one blogger put it, “Barrett is a dangerous religious extremist who believes a federal judge can subvert the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the United States in order to promote her own religious agenda.”

I can't speak for other groups, but Baptists love them some religious agenda, but it better be their religious agenda, and not some other Christian group's religious agenda.

Toss in the Mormons as well, her little group does not sound like something the Mormons, as kooky as they are, would be fond of.  And Mitt gets to vote on her.

When you read up on that group, it's a very risky move for Trump.  There's about to be a big ole spotlight shone on them.

Which means that Trump probably has somebody else waiting in the wings, and Barrett is just a stalking horse.

[pacman 7330]

57 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, that's not horribly egregious, but I think takes an unduly narrow and academic view of the whole thing, which makes sense given who she is.

We need more lawyers with broader legal and judicial experience on the Court.

Agree

Edited September 20, 2020 by pacman

[GRHorn 105]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

I am.  Most of the shit that is currently wrong with this country is because of "Christians".  

 

 

2 hours ago, formermav43 said:

I actually respect the honesty here relative to those tap dancing around it.

Can y’all elaborate?

[Burt 4062]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Some folks wear neon T-shirts that say "I"m a CHRISTIAN".  Those are the guys that call me a sinner  and  tell me that I'm going to hell, and also jack off in the corner while their wife is getting it up the ass from a young cabana boy. 

Which one are you?

Is it ok to say i'm the cabana boy?

[Bozo_Casanova 26284]

I think we need somebody with extensive work experience as in-house counsel in a publicly traded company on the court and I am not kidding at all. 

[Anastasis 23394]

1 hour ago, softlynow said:

And her confirmation will highlight yet again the hypocrisy of “libertarians” like a few on this board who shrink from every opportunity to actually curtail state power

Where is she at on civil liberties? Can we get some legal analysis of her positions?

[washparkhorn 9935]

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think we need somebody with extensive work experience as in-house counsel in a publicly traded company on the court and I am not kidding at all. 

We had Lewis Powell. Did you not get his memo?  
 

here’s a copy. It has been the playbook since 71. 
 

https://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/

 

 

Edited September 20, 2020 by washparkhorn

[Neonmoon 38127]

55 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

[Insert Religion Here] love them some religious agenda, but it better be their religious agenda, and not some other group's religious agenda.

Fixed it 

[Anastasis 23394]

4 hours ago, Captainant said:

Except in in this case, they have literally sworn an oath of loyalty to their fringe group.

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable...

CaptainAnt: Fuck yes!

We admire the first Christians who were led by the Holy Spirit to form a community. Those early believers put their lives and their possessions in common, and "there were no needy persons among them"...We have lived closely with our neighbors and worked together to help meet pressing neighborhood needs. Our efforts include: running camps for hundreds of children, repairing neighborhood homes, hosting prayer meetings, growing healthy food on an urban farm. Longtime local residents have credited these efforts with lowering the crime rate and making the neighborhoods more beautiful and peaceful places to live.

CaptainAnt: But what about the oath of loyalty to a fringe group!

 

Edited September 20, 2020 by Anastasis

[Bozo_Casanova 26284]

5 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

We had Lewis Powell. Did you not get his memo?  
 

here’s a copy. It has been the playbook since 71. 
 

https://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/

 

 

Reading not so good? In-house counsel. Not outside counsel. Working stiffs. People in the business line. 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

I say this as a Christian:  I think we need fewer Christians on the Supreme Court.

[Anastasis 23394]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Reading not so good? In-house counsel. Not outside counsel. Working stiffs. People in the business line. 

In my own experience they kick the tough questions to outside counsel as a security blanket.  Maybe bring your point a little more close to ground, cause I am sincerely interested. 

[Anastasis 23394]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Too many catlicks.  Need some ratfuck babtis.

Didn't actually realize how many were Catholics.  I mean the whole court is basically Catholics (one catholic lite) and Jews. Makes a bit of sense from a religious history perspective if that is how you want to frame it as both groups have very legalistic sets of canon and religious laws. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26284]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

In my own experience they kick the tough questions to outside counsel as a security blanket.  Maybe bring your point a little more close to ground, cause I am sincerely interested. 

Indeed they do, because their job is risk containment. 
Outside counsel thinks like advocates and views businesses they represent as clients. In-house counsel are employees , with all the hard won practical understanding and skepticism that comes with that. 
 

decisions like Citizens United and Leegin come from a place of cultivated naïveté. Only outside counsel has that luxury. 

Edited September 20, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[Captainant 27465]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable...

CaptainAnt: Fuck yes!

We admire the first Christians who were led by the Holy Spirit to form a community. Those early believers put their lives and their possessions in common, and "there were no needy persons among them"...We have lived closely with our neighbors and worked together to help meet pressing neighborhood needs. Our efforts include: running camps for hundreds of children, repairing neighborhood homes, hosting prayer meetings, growing healthy food on an urban farm. Longtime local residents have credited these efforts with lowering the crime rate and making the neighborhoods more beautiful and peaceful places to live.

CaptainAnt: But what about the oath of loyalty to a fringe group!

 

The southern baptist church I grew up in had all the same shit on their pamphlets too. And sure, they did do a fair bit of it - but it was closer to Jesus camp than kum bye yah. So I'll stick with expecting the worst

[Anastasis 23394]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Indeed they do, because their job is risk containment. 
Outside counsel thinks like advocates and views businesses they represent as clients. In-house counsel are employees , with all the hard won practical understanding and skepticism that comes with that. 

I am not sure that punting on the tough questions is the quality I would particularly look for in a SCOTUS nominee, but will acknowledge that I am kinda pissy at in house counsel at the moment for dragging out something that should have taken less than a week into a three month delay because they decided to punt to outside counsel. 

Edited September 20, 2020 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23394]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The southern baptist church I grew up in

Ah, I see now. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

In my own experience they kick the tough questions to outside counsel as a security blanket. 

I can confirm this 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am not sure that punting on the tough questions is the quality I would particularly look for in a SCOTUS nominee, but will acknowledge that I am kinda pissy at in house counsel at the moment for dragging out something that should have taken less than a week into a three month delay because they decided to punt to outside counsel. 

Only three months?  Lucky bastard.  You could get what's coming to you, though.  You might be in for another year of this.  Yay, legal processes!

(I was fortunate to deal almost exclusively with patent issues, which while dry and incredibly boring, don't lend themselves to the same degree of delay.)