Home | About | Donate

Will Amy Coney Barrett Stand by Her Man? He’s Betting a Second Term On It

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/10/09/will-amy-coney-barrett-stand-her-man-hes-betting-second-term-it

1 Like

sigh—it truly seems that if Coney Barrett becomes a judge that the Constitution will be chewed up and any reference to the DNA people will NOT be retained, BUT it might add that only the corporate persons will have any power.
Secondly, to replace RBG with this strange handmaid judge as a Supreme Court justice is truly a travesty. Taking away the people’s rights does not create A MORE PERFECT UNION.It certainly does not ESTABLISH JUSTICE ( which we are sadly lacking everywhere. ) I also can’t see how anyone could INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, with a Coney judge who is against the Affordable Care Act, and the right to women to control their own bodies --and I read somewhere that she doesn’t think that social security is allowed to exist. I also have no idea why PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE actually means----is that something for ALL people or just for the military? And as the Coney does not seem to favor women having control over their own bodies and there is that distinct possibility that non white persons could lose rights too, as I don’t think that PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE will be recognized, nebulous as the phrase is.
I am worried that this rabbit woman will chip off the rights of all Americans, and do much damage to the poor, the children, and the future of all of us. It seems that we are heading toward what happened when the 30 tyrants took over ancient Greece.
On the other hand we have France to look to in 1789-------and sometimes when all is lost , the People actually do rise as one and change the course of their world.

2 Likes

“She isn’t being selected to be fair, she is being selected to be unfair” says it all about every GOP appointment of the past half centrury.

1 Like

Bill Moyers and Lisa Graves bring integrity to the voting process and the need to protect our postal service. Thank you very much.

3 Likes

She will indeed be a “handmaid of the Lord” - and her Lord is Trump. What a travesty …

How low have we sunk. They say when you hit bottom, the only way is up, but the question is, have we hit bottom yet …

So we, the “progressives”, will keep voting LOTE - but has anyone else noticed that each Dem LOTE is worse than the last and ushers in a Rep GOTE, worse than the last - who’da thunk that anyone could make Bush look “good” by comparison … But hey, we can always “pressure” a new LOTE, right? That has worked sooo well in the past … with our marches and our chants and clever signs or memes that go “viral”. But has anyone else noticed that the thing that has really gone “viral” is killing us.

Mother Nature has pretty much had it with us - she is voting with her wind and her flame and her water - and she always bats last.

1 Like

Indeed, we have become less concerned with all the little messages/reminders about the world around us so the messages become larger and louder.

I think this could have been boiled down to one paragraph and that is, progressives, the environment, fairness, equality, women’s right----- all screwed with this WASF Amy Coney Barrett, ram through.

But now much of the focus is on Biden/Harris not answering the question of “packing the Supreme Court”. Not a focus on the pathology of trump, Mitch and the nutcase white men (and a few nutcase white women) of the Senate who are literally ramming ACB in place.

Funny how that worked.

Not really.

Editorials in Wapo and other MSM:

“For the good of the country, Biden must answer the court-packing question”(h-ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/10/good-country-biden-must-answer-court-packing-question/)

I could not read this is it is paywalled.

WTF?

Can someone tell me in simple terms what is going on?

This is the Atlantic’s take:
“Reform the Court, but Don’t Pack It
The goal shouldn’t be to make the Court less ideological, but to make it less powerful”.
h-ttps://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/reform-the-court-but-dont-pack-it/614986/

How the hell is anyone going to make the “court less powerful” after ACB is securely in place?

Can someone just whittle this down in plain English?

there’s this (which I tend to agree with even though it’s Forbes)

h-ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2020/09/27/if-the-democrats-regain-power-they-should-pack-the-supreme-court-heres-why/#5a57c2683644

And then there is this:
(h-ttps://www.thedailybeast.com/should-democrats-pack-the-supreme-court-yes-if-they-want-to-commit-political-suicide)

Caroline, I think I can boil it down to three words. Screw McConnell, hypocrite

Oh, the wailing, the gnashing of teeth, and the rending of garments: the Democratic angst is so palpable that it can be perceived with all five (and possibly even more) senses and bursts forth in interminable drivel such as this assessng just where the blame for this intolerable situation can be placed.

With Trump, of course! For exercising his Constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court replacement for RBG - how dare he?! Any decent human being would have left that to the obviously far less partisan (though Trump isn’t exactly a model partisan, he’s actually made the party come to him more than the reverse) judgment of the impeccably objective establishment Democrat who will likely represent The Will Of The People far better than a president who had the gall to be elected by a voting minority (as was Clinton in 1992, though in a slightly different manner) according to the process specified in the Constitution.

And that blame is certainly shared by the reprehensible Republican-dominated Senate which will likely confirm Trump’s nominee in a disgusting display of political power and thus pollute the Court’s unimpeachable (well, not literally, despite Ms. Graves’ incorrect characterization of this confirmation as being ‘irrevocable’) objectivity in manners only seen for at least the past half-century. How dare they act so blatantly against The (presumed in the article) Will Of The People who elected them?!

And then Moyers comes out with the surprising observation that

The Republicans have long treated control of the Supreme Court as a very important political issue. Electoral issue. Election issue. The Democrats have not.

I’d have to go back more than two decades to find a presidential election where the Democrats did NOT emphasize control over Supreme Court nominations as a very important issue, and my recollection is that it goes back farther than that.

Then the article descends into scare tactics about the shadowy organizations which try to affect judicial appointments. Well, wow - whoever would’ve thought that powerful individuals and special interests would use their power to try to influence political activities to their own advantage? Unless they’re completely ignorant of most of our country’s history, that is.

The balance (more than half) of the article simply babbles on about the participants’ impressions about what is actually happening with this nomination, and why. It sounds rather like right-wing drivel about the efforts of the Democratic party to impose socialism (better yet, communism) on the country. So let’s instead return to the question of where blame for this lies.

Could it be with The People who elected the prime perpetrators of this brouhaha? Oh, no: The People are (putatively) clearly opposed to it,so it can’t be their fault. How about the Democratic establishment which has so abjectly failed to address the desires of The People that they got manipulated (or just sufficiently frustrated) into electing these horrible Republicans? Oh, no: the Democrats are the Good Guys, obviously. How about the party loyalists who sat on their butts for decades (however unhappily but not yet sufficiently uncomfortably) as the Democratic establishment became increasingly corrupt and unresponsive until enough people got tired of waiting for ‘change we can believe in’ and ‘an end to business as usual’ that they took matters into their own hands and voted for change - even if its nature was hardly guaranteed?

I lean toward the last explanation but won’t otherwise attempt to promote it. Since The People (as already noted) really don’t have any control over this process at this point perhaps better to focus on what They (or at least those who consider themselves progressive) might consider doing in the future to avoid a repetition of it.

  1. They could join the Democratic establishment in a full-court-press to Dump Trump, Flip The Senate, and return to the Pre-Trump Utopia that prevailed not so long ago but which arguably got us Trump and could do so again. Many who were not yet too uncomfortable four years ago will likely do that.

  2. They could ignore the Democratic establishment (which hasn’t offered them a damn thing better than the above, as per Joe ‘nothing would fundamentally change’ Biden) and commit to organizing for actual progressive change during the coming presidential term (possibly throwing Democrats their votes in the process, since Trump and the Republicans really are awful). I wish I could believe that many will do this, but since the Democratic establishment has more than adequately proven itself implacably opposed to real change I’m not sure it would do too much good unless enough of its members got defeated that it would be significantly weakened.

  3. They could do their best to weaken that establishment by voting progressive third party or even Republican, to try to achieve the required pre-condition for effecting change inside and/or outside the Democratic party. Probably too radical for most.

Or something else: suggestions are welcome.