International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   (Ed) Justice Barrett (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=347282)

Bob001 10th October 2020 10:54 PM

Justice Barrett
 
There doesn't seem to be a thread about Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. This writer contends that focusing on her anti-abortion, anti-ACA positions are a distraction. He calls her a Christian fascist.
Quote:

The legal calculus for the Christian right no longer revolves around the concept of universal human rights but around the tenets of "Bible-believing Christians" who supposedly authored the Constitution. Huge segments of the population are stripped of moral worth and legal protection. This process is incremental and often unseen. As the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels understood: "The best propaganda is that which, as it were, works invisibly, penetrates the whole of life without the public having any knowledge of the propagandistic initiative."
....
If you are poor, if you lack proper medical care, if you are paid substandard wages, if you are trapped in the lower class, if you are a victim of police violence, this is because, according to this ideology, you are not a good Christian and not blessed by God. In this belief system you deserve what you get. There is nothing wrong, these homegrown fascists preach, with the structures or systems of power.
https://www.salon.com/2020/10/08/tru...stian-fascism/

Senate hearing start Monday.
https://nypost.com/2020/10/06/mcconn...-begin-monday/

Skeptic Ginger 10th October 2020 11:12 PM

Do you mean Barrett?

angrysoba 10th October 2020 11:13 PM

Isn't her name Amy Coney Barrett?

Bob001 10th October 2020 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13254158)
Do you mean Barrett?

Yes. Brain fog. Fixed.

ETA: Hey, mods, looks like I can't correct thread title. Can you work your magic?

The Great Zaganza 10th October 2020 11:29 PM

Well, she is certainly not the kind of Catholic the Vatican would approve of.

She has also put her name to some very extreme positions on abortion and women'S rights.

All in all, more a 19th than a 21st Century pick for SCOTUS.

Stacyhs 10th October 2020 11:57 PM

The fact that she belonged to The Federalist Society is enough for me to oppose her.

Trebuchet 11th October 2020 11:15 AM

Quote:

The legal calculus for the Christian right no longer revolves around the concept of universal human rights but around the tenets of "Bible-believing Christians" who supposedly authored the Constitution.
Except that those "Bible-Believing Christians" are fundy protestants. Many of those don't consider the Papist Barrett to be an actual Christian, not that that'll stop them from making use of her to get what they want.

The Great Zaganza 11th October 2020 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 13254528)
Except that those "Bible-Believing Christians" are fundy protestants. Many of those don't consider the Papist Barrett to be an actual Christian, not that that'll stop them from making use of her to get what they want.

She isn't a papist, she is part of a weird mixed church which has members of different denominations - more Cult than anything recognizable as Catholic or Protestant.

BobTheCoward 11th October 2020 11:45 AM

I think if she gets in, supreme court decisions will be more correct (based on a heuristic).

There is a single correct conclusion in every supreme court case. The only question is if we can know what it is.

angrysoba 11th October 2020 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13254546)
I think if she gets in, supreme court decisions will be more correct (based on a heuristic).

There is a single correct conclusion in every supreme court case. The only question is if we can know what it is.

You mean there is some divine Truth? Maybe she has the Holy Grail. Someone must have the Holy Grail, after all.

Stacyhs 11th October 2020 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13254546)
I think if she gets in, supreme court decisions will be more correct (based on a heuristic).

There is a single correct conclusion in every supreme court case. The only question is if we can know what it is.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...38ba6de6e9.jpg

BobTheCoward 11th October 2020 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 13254722)
You mean there is some divine Truth? Maybe she has the Holy Grail. Someone must have the Holy Grail, after all.

It is about time traveling back to the 18th century and subjecting yourself to the same prejudices and limitations.

We must force ourselves to wear this coat from our childhood.

angrysoba 11th October 2020 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13254792)
It is about time traveling back to the 18th century and subjecting yourself to the same prejudices and limitations.

We must force ourselves to wear this coat from our childhood.

Huh, what?

BobTheCoward 11th October 2020 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 13254882)
Huh, what?

It was a parody of something Mayor Pete said on MSNBC today.

alfaniner 12th October 2020 06:17 AM

The initial hearings are starting now. I can think of little else that I would care less about watching, due to its foregone conclusion.

I do think it's in bad form to have her young kids there in the front row, even without the virus risk. Bad enough they were at the superspreader announcement event without masks, but it's not "Take Your Kids to Work" Day. Granted, the lewdness of the subjects of previous candidates will probably not occur. I'll be surprised if they're there a second day due to sheer boredom.

Stacyhs 12th October 2020 02:30 PM

I'm not watching it either. Why bother?

Gulliver Foyle 12th October 2020 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13254171)
Well, she is certainly not the kind of Catholic the Vatican would approve of.

You'd be surprised. The current pope once endorsed the killings of LGBT+ people when visiting the Philippines.

Craig4 12th October 2020 05:46 PM

I'm going to laugh is Graham comes down with Covid and he's the reason there's no quorum. Mike Lee may have done the nation a great service today. He's showed up while still symptomatic.

Stacyhs 12th October 2020 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle (Post 13255546)
You'd be surprised. The current pope once endorsed the killings of LGBT+ people when visiting the Philippines.

I'd like to see some evidence of that.

thaiboxerken 12th October 2020 07:31 PM

Republicans are arguing against straw-men. They're trying to make the case that Democrats hate her because she is religious or because she's a woman.
Of course, all Republicans have are lies.
This hearing is all about convincing to public that this lady is or isn't a good choice. We all know she's a shoe-in because the Republicans have all the votes. I'm certain that the majority of people understand that this lady is a poor/dangerous choice.

Bob001 12th October 2020 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle (Post 13255546)
You'd be surprised. The current pope once endorsed the killings of LGBT+ people when visiting the Philippines.


That's extremely unlikely.
https://time.com/3975630/pope-francis-lgbt-issues/
https://people.com/human-interest/po...utism-flowers/

Norman Alexander 12th October 2020 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken (Post 13255739)
Republicans are arguing against straw-men. They're trying to make the case that Democrats hate her because she is religious or because she's a woman.
Of course, all Republicans have are lies.
This hearing is all about convincing to public that this lady is or isn't a good choice. We all know she's a shoe-in because the Republicans have all the votes. I'm certain that the majority of people understand that this lady is a poor/dangerous choice.

First question: Given her previous public stances on healthcare and abortion, will she recuse herself from any SCOTUS cases involving these subjects? Because if she recuses herself from any decisions it becomes a hung SCOTUS again and it is possible the SCOTUS will not rule to overthrow legislation, i.e. "make policy".

This question allows fully that she may have religion and gender based positions on these subjects. Nobody is denying her that, so the question is hardly objectionable.

But these are the exact subjects and reason why she is being fervently courted and thrown into this bear-pit by the GOP: They want her to rule in their favour. Lindsay Graham is casting the last remaining shreds of his integrity to the winds and turning himself inside-out to make it happen (aside: someone has something on him, surely...). Why else is the GOP trying to put her there? To beautify the SCOTUS bench with her presence? Impress everyone with her fine turn of a legal phrase?

The Great Zaganza 12th October 2020 09:51 PM

If Dems manage to make her commit on recusing her from critical subjects, and then she doesn't when a case comes up, that would be a reason to impeach her.

Bob001 12th October 2020 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13255791)
If Dems manage to make her commit on recusing her from critical subjects, and then she doesn't when a case comes up, that would be a reason to impeach her.

There's no chance that she would make such a commitment. She has no reason to.

The Great Zaganza 12th October 2020 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13255802)
There's no chance that she would make such a commitment. She has no reason to.

She actually has made such a commitment in the past, when she wrote an opinion that her faith would demand that she should recuse herself from hearing cases involving the Death Penalty.
Since anti-choice advocates claim that abortion is the same as murder, that might be another case where she, according to her own standards, should recuse herself.

But I agree - she is too smart to do more than dog-whistling.

TragicMonkey 13th October 2020 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13255811)
She actually has made such a commitment in the past, when she wrote an opinion that her faith would demand that she should recuse herself from hearing cases involving the Death Penalty.

Why would the nation benefit from appointing someone who refuses to do the work to an important job? If her religious beliefs prevent her, in advance, from doing some of the work she should decline the position entirely.

The Great Zaganza 13th October 2020 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 13255959)
Why would the nation benefit from appointing someone who refuses to do the work to an important job? If her religious beliefs prevent her, in advance, from doing some of the work she should decline the position entirely.

exactly.

JoeMorgue 13th October 2020 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 13255959)
Why would the nation benefit from appointing someone who refuses to do the work to an important job? If her religious beliefs prevent her, in advance, from doing some of the work she should decline the position entirely.

Because for some reason a lot of people think "Religious Freedom" means that religious people should never be forced to choose between their religious opinions and their other opinions.

Somehow if your "deeply held religious principles" means you can't process or handle birth control but you still want to be a pharmacist it's society's job to square the circle for you.

And if we don't do that we're "biased" against religious people, as has already started in the discussion about Barrett.

JoeMorgue 13th October 2020 07:53 AM

This is lady sure is pleading the 5th a lot for someone who's not actually on trial.

Roe Vs Wade? "I don't want to give an answer."
Can Trump cancel the election? "Well if that happens I'll have to weight the pros and cons carefully..."
Is water wet? "I don't want to commit to answer right now..."

You are aware that making definitive, final decisions is literally going to be your only job right?

johnny karate 13th October 2020 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13256135)
Because for some reason a lot of people think "Religious Freedom" means that religious people should never be forced to choose between their religious opinions and their other opinions.

Somehow if your "deeply held religious principles" means you can't process or handle birth control but you still want to be a pharmacist it's society's job to square the circle for you.

And if we don't do that we're "biased" against religious people, as has already started in the discussion about Barrett.

See: Kim Davis.

BobTheCoward 13th October 2020 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13256135)
Because for some reason a lot of people think "Religious Freedom" means that religious people should never be forced to choose between their religious opinions and their other opinions.

Somehow if your "deeply held religious principles" means you can't process or handle birth control but you still want to be a pharmacist it's society's job to square the circle for you.

And if we don't do that we're "biased" against religious people, as has already started in the discussion about Barrett.

It seems society should have no say in who you choose to sell or not sell to regardless of reason.

Jim_MDP 13th October 2020 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13256188)
It seems society should have no say in who you choose to sell or not sell to regardless of reason.

Thats a strawman and you know it. Intentional? I won't say "that's like you" but... "aliens".
Will you acknowledge it and admit the nuanced reality of current retail regs?

Bob001 13th October 2020 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 13255959)
Why would the nation benefit from appointing someone who refuses to do the work to an important job? If her religious beliefs prevent her, in advance, from doing some of the work she should decline the position entirely.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Death penalty cases would be a small part of the job. It would be more honest and generally better to recuse herself in those specific cases than to remain on them and impose her pre-conceptions. Every judge might see some cases (previous experience, knowing the parties etc.) that would require recusal. That's part of the system.

BobTheCoward 13th October 2020 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim_MDP (Post 13256215)
Thats a strawman and you know it. Intentional? I won't say "that's like you" but... "aliens".
Will you acknowledge it and admit the nuanced reality of current retail regs?

It isn't a straw man....it is my position. I can't straw man my own position.

Bob001 13th October 2020 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13256139)
This is lady sure is pleading the 5th a lot for someone who's not actually on trial.

Roe Vs Wade? "I don't want to give an answer."
Can Trump cancel the election? "Well if that happens I'll have to weight the pros and cons carefully..."
Is water wet? "I don't want to commit to answer right now..."

You are aware that making definitive, final decisions is literally going to be your only job right?

Well, her answer would be that she has to make decisions based on the evidence and arguments presented in a particular case. That's different from making a blanket statement.

I haven't been watching all day. Did she really say Trump could cancel the election?

theprestige 13th October 2020 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13256188)
It seems society should have no say in who you choose to sell or not sell to regardless of reason.

Is this axiomatic for you, or derived?

BobTheCoward 13th October 2020 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 13256241)
Is this axiomatic for you, or derived?

Don't know

Bob001 13th October 2020 08:57 AM

Does Judge Barrett have a little bit of a valley girl vibe? She seems to say "you know" a lot, she referred to the Congress as "you guys," and she's a less compelling speaker than you might expect from a veteran university law professor and federal judge.

JoeMorgue 13th October 2020 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13256236)
Well, her answer would be that she has to make decisions based on the evidence and arguments presented in a particular case. That's different from making a blanket statement.

That's not an answer though, that's just her repeating her job back to us. She's a high level Federal Judge being speed laned to the highest court in the land. She should have some answers ready. That's not asking too much.

But no we're supposed to believe that she's been in high level law for years and where she stands on the biggest legal issues of the day have just never crossed her mind.

We're asking her opinion, not for her legal decisions.

It's like at a job interview to be a mechanic you were asked "How would you replace the fuel pump on a '87 Honda Civic" and your answer was "Well I would replace it according to the procedures for replacing an '87 Honda Civic fuel." It's a mathematician's answer, a non-answer.
Quote:

I haven't been watching all day. Did she really say Trump could cancel the election?
No when asked she started to hem and haw and refuse to commit.

TragicMonkey 13th October 2020 09:28 AM

If she expects to recuse herself from death penalty questions because of her religious beliefs, why wouldn't she then be expected to recuse herself from abortion questions for the same reason of religious beliefs? Isn't that inconsistent?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.