As expected, and she’s pro-birth/anti-choice on reproduction issues. I didn’t expect him to select a Latina (the other woman from FL). And there’s Feinstein who has no legal training or law degree (she has a Bachelor of Arts degree in a completely unrelated field) who will be running the hearings. Shouldn’t someone with a JD or some legal training be running the confirmation hearings for the highest judicial court in the country?..using logic after all? Considering the Ds record on impeachment and how pathetically run that was – Pelosi has no legal training or law degree either! – and how there was so little standing up for the truth. I’ve read that some are concerned about Feinstein being the chair of the hearings as she is quite frail, in her 80s. After Barrett is seated, why doesn’t the thug just cancel the election and have his base on the Supreme Court select him – that’s why he’s rushing to get Barrett on the court – for how many terms he wants? Since he doesn’t plan to honor the results of the election.
The Democrats will stop it! They are fierce! They are … the resistance.
Ha! Your sarcasm is noted.
Is she also opposed to capital punishment? Gosh I hope at least that she is consistent on her Thomistic doctrines.
(Yes. I know Thomas Aquinas was a supporter of capital punishment. But his teaching on this point has been rejected by the Catholic Church, on grounds that modern penal institutions make capital punishment obsolete. Today, the Catholic Church is firmly opposed to capital punishment.)
An article on Ms. Barrett at Vox noted that:
"She signed a 2012 statement claiming that an Obama administration policy requiring employee health plans to cover contraception was ‘a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand’.”
Apparently Ms. Barrett believes that, like thinking from the 1950s, a woman’s primary purpose in life is to make as many babies as possible. Her motto would seem to be: Keep them in the kitchen and make sure that they are barefoot and pregnant as much as possible. If Barrett becomes the nominee then the Democrats [make that the spineless Democrats] need to hold her feet to the fire on this issue. At times, if not many times, this country seems to going backward instead of forward.
“Seems to be going backward” ?
Based on many metrics, the high water mark for the 99% was 1973. From the 99%'s perspective its been going backward for nearly half a century. From the 1%'s perspective the 19th century gilded age was barely a training era for the 21st century gilded age and even better times to come.
Isn’t Barrett the model in the Cialis ads ?
Perhaps this will help:
While a professor at Notre Dame, Barrett co-authored an article called “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” which examines the competing obligations of Catholics when asked to rule in a death penalty case. It suggested there might be some instances in which a Catholic judge should recuse himself or herself from such proceedings.
“Catholic judges must answer some complex moral and legal questions in deciding whether to sit in death penalty cases. Sometimes (as with direct appeals of death sentences) the right answers are not obvious. But in a system that effectively leaves the decision up to the judge, these are questions that responsible Catholics must consider seriously. Judges cannot – nor should they try to – align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge,” the article says. “They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard. Perhaps their good example will have some effect.”
I agree while her asinine statements are not helping matters at all.
Anyone who accepts Trump’s nomination to the United States Supreme court should be immediately disqualified from consideration. The nomination comes with the implicit assumption that it was made by the most disreputable, narcissistic, anti-democratic, anti-Constitutional political figure in all of American history. Any candidate who accepts a Supreme Court nomination from a “president” who is so morally vapid also clearly lacks the moral character to be a Supreme Court justice who can be trusted to defend the Constitution against its enemies.
In her religious sect (Prayer Promise of Indiana), she and the other women members self-identify as “Handmaidens”. I think that that says it all.
That being the case one would then logically think that Barrett’s strong religious beliefs would be a valid reason for both Democrats and Republicans to reject her nomination as her views on many issues are clearly biased in favor of her conservative Catholicism. Unfortunately logic, objectivity, and rational thinking appear to be in short supply these days.
“If you can’t be a good example then you’ll just have to be a horrible warning.”-Catherine the Great, Russian empress [1729-1796]
I wonder who might have the temerity and/or integrity to refuse the nomination from the abomination.
Trump is looking for the youngest possible Candidate he can find. At 48 she would likely be a supreme court justice for the next 40 years. taking you to 2060 there about. Lifetime appointments are just a bad idea all round.
Breyer is likely the next one to go (82), considered a Liberal and if Trump remains as president very likely during his Presidency. This would lock in a majority of Conservatives for a LONG time.
What is interesting is that many right wing critics of the US Supreme court suggest that Roberts and Gorsuch are too far to the left this suggesting the Republicans will pull from the far far right. If the Democrats prevail under Biden , they would have to stop nominating centrists just so as to appear “non partisan”
1973 was around the time all of those Billionaires decided the USA had to be forced back to the right wherein they started funding all of those think tanks that preached the Gospel of the “Free market” and neo-liberalism.
They poured hundreds of millions of dollars into both the Republican and Democratic party so as to ensure they controlled both of them. Even Jimmy Carter bought into the swill they were selling as he started the de-regulation process.
Gestation slavery. Religious cultist. Michelle Bachman eyes.
Forced, fake smile. The look of a sinister person trying to appear normal.
I hope someone can stop Trump from placing anyone on SCOTUS, especially this nutball.
Isn’t US Catholic dogma church something along the lines of: Life is Sacred from the moment of conception until birth. But once born, everyone is a sinner and can go to Hell.
“People of Praise are quite controversial within Catholicism. Founded in 1971, the group incorporates elements of fundamentalist Pentecostal Protestantism (such as speaking in tongues) and is considered a cult in mainstream Catholicism. Its practices include requiring members to swear an oath of loyalty to the group and teaching that wives must be submissive to their husbands, and in the past, People of Praise called its female leaders “handmaidens”—which is downright chilling if one is familiar with Margaret Atwood’s 1985 novel “The Handmaid’s Tale” and the 1990 film and 2017/2018 television series it has inspired. People of Praise embrace a highly patriarchal ideology, believing that while women can have some leadership positions, they ultimately must submit to male authority.”
“Meet People of Praise: Here’s Why This Far-Right Cult Shouldn’t Be Allowed Anywhere Near the Supreme Court”, Rawstory, September 21
On the positive side, at least Trump is getting some folk to see the futility of reform and the need for revolutionary change to the entire system of governance in the US.
I feel sad and afraid. We’re seeing the worst dystopic sci-fi come true fast.