Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (2 Viewers)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[MT15]

It is clear the more I read that she should have included it. This nomination process is being rushed through, clearly, when it should not be.



One angle I hadn’t thought of is that if she could she would outlaw IVF procedures. This is radical and personal to me.

 

[MT15]

 

[SaintForLife]

This is at least the second time you have dishonestly characterized the allegations against Kavanaugh. Credible allegations which were not allowed to be truly investigated.

Credible? Yeah okay sure. Ford couldn't even remember where it happened or when and Swetnick was as credible as a crackhead.

 

[MT15]

So will you concede that she definitely should have reported it, given the level of reporting expected? It’s not clear whether she intentionally left it out, but it certainly points to a certain sloppiness brought on by the unnecessary haste in the process.

 

[SaintForLife]

It's damn shame them Democrats did that to Neil Gorsuch.

I guees we should be grateful that the Democrats took it easy on Gorsuch after smearing Bork, Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh. I'm guessing that was only because a lack of material to distort.

 

[Ayo]

I agree with yout last paragraph.

 

[SaintForLife]

So will you concede that she definitely should have reported it, given the level of reporting expected? It’s not clear whether she intentionally left it out, but it certainly points to a certain sloppiness brought on by the unnecessary haste in the process.

Nope. She didn't write or edit the ad so she didn't break the rules.

 

[MT15]

Well, thanks for confirming what I thought. It’s reassuring, actually.

I should probably say what I mean by the above. SFL, superchuck quoted the actual regs to you to show you that your statement from WH communication person was not right or at very best that it cherry picked a portion of the regs without considering the entire context. I found a person who had been through the same process who said in her opinion she would have had to disclose such participation. Then I showed that Gorsuch included very similar participation in exactly the same situation.

Yet, you refuse to consider changing your mind. So do you see how that could show that you are so biased that you’re unable to consider facts when they are laid out for you?

 

[zztop]

I’ve seen a couple new things lately. She evidently signed a statement saying that Roe must be overturned a few years back that was published. She didn’t disclose that, which she should have according to the rules. Someone found it because I saw a comment about it.

And the somewhat controversial religious group she belongs to has scrubbed her name off of their entire website, also without any acknowledgement that they were doing that. Once again, people were able to see previous versions because nothing is ever truly deleted.

I don’t have a good feeling about her.

I've read that too. It doesn't matter though, she is going to get in, no matter if she is batshit crazy, part of a cult religion, and unqualified (like Kav was - that part was clear with his red-faced partisan rant he gave). Speaking of cult, I've read comments from ex-members of the church she is part of, and they all say essentially it is a cult. Oh and that women are second to men, and should submit to them.

Barrett tied to cult that believes women should "submit" to husbands

Barrett's connection to the extremist quasi-Catholic cult People of Praise is once again coming under scrutiny

www.salon.com

 

[JimEverett]

I've read that too. It doesn't matter though, she is going to get in, no matter if she is batshit crazy, part of a cult religion, and unqualified (like Kav was - that part was clear with his red-faced partisan rant he gave). Speaking of cult, I've read comments from ex-members of the church she is part of, and they all say essentially it is a cult. Oh and that women are second to men, and should submit to them.

Barrett tied to cult that believes women should "submit" to husbands

Barrett's connection to the extremist quasi-Catholic cult People of Praise is once again coming under scrutiny

www.salon.com

I think there are valid criticism of both the process of this nomination as well as her credentials and statements/writings. But this one seems a little ridiculous to me.
A female law professor, federal appeals court judge, and now SCOTUS justice nominee is being criticized for thinking women take a "backseat" to men?

 

[JimEverett]

I do not know what the facts are surrounding this petition Barrett signed. SO I could be wrong in these thoughts - but it seems like another instance where the White House has sort of boxed themselves in. This strikes me as a small issue - important perhaps, but still relatively small. But by coming out and making the claim that she did not have to report it seems to exacerbate the issue - allowing Democrats to spend time on it in committee if they choose and does nothing more than put Barrett on the defensive.
Had the WH said something more along the lines of "this got through the cracks [again, have no idea what actually happened, so maybe the cannot] and we are going back through to see if we left anything else out." then it would seem not to box Barrett in so much. Perhaps even, if you can, push the idea/fact that Barrett considered/considers this group political and in favor of a constitutional amendment as opposed to advocating for particular judicial decisions.
I don't know - it just seems like the WH takes another very aggressive stance, whereas some more tact might help themselves out a lot more currently and in the future.

 

[DaveXA]

I do not know what the facts are surrounding this petition Barrett signed. SO I could be wrong in these thoughts - but it seems like another instance where the White House has sort of boxed themselves in. This strikes me as a small issue - important perhaps, but still relatively small. But by coming out and making the claim that she did not have to report it seems to exacerbate the issue - allowing Democrats to spend time on it in committee if they choose and does nothing more than put Barrett on the defensive.
Had the WH said something more along the lines of "this got through the cracks [again, have no idea what actually happened, so maybe the cannot] and we are going back through to see if we left anything else out." then it would seem not to box Barrett in so much. Perhaps even, if you can, push the idea/fact that Barrett considered/considers this group political and in favor of a constitutional amendment as opposed to advocating for particular judicial decisions.
I don't know - it just seems like the WH takes another very aggressive stance, whereas some more tact might help themselves out a lot more currently and in the future.

Well, this WH has never been know for nuance...so...

 

[zztop]

I think there are valid criticism of both the process of this nomination as well as her credentials and statements/writings. But this one seems a little ridiculous to me.
A female law professor, federal appeals court judge, and now SCOTUS justice nominee is being criticized for thinking women take a "backseat" to men?

Well I personally am a huge proponent of separation of church and state, and she is already basically on record saying her religious beliefs take precedence over anything else. Thats going to result in her voting based on her beliefs. They could have picked someone more in the middle, but didn't. Why? You can't tell me out of everyone else out there, she was the "most qualified", no. It was because of her religious beliefs and near-guarantee that she is a lock for voting a certain way

 

[LA - L.A.]

Nope. She didn't write or edit the ad so she didn't break the rules.

That's her supporters interpretation of the rules and it's far from a definitive and consensus interpretation.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I think there are valid criticism of both the process of this nomination as well as her credentials and statements/writings. But this one seems a little ridiculous to me.
A female law professor, federal appeals court judge, and now SCOTUS justice nominee is being criticized for thinking women take a "backseat" to men?

A backseat is still a seat in the car, is it not? She can participate in society, law and government as a woman and take a backseat to men at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[DaveXA]

That's her supporters interruption of the rules and it's far from a definitive and consensus interpretation.

I think we're splitting hairs over a relative non-issue. There are other larger issues I have with her as a nominee for the Court.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I think we're splitting hairs over a relative non-issue. There are other larger issues I have with her as a nominee for the Court.

I don't agree that I'm hair splitting over a non-issue, because I think it's one of the larger issues with her as a nominee. I respect your right to think how you think.

 

[DaveXA]

A backseat is still a seat in the car, is it not? She can participate in society, law and government as a woman and take a backseat to men at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

A SCOTUS judge takes a backseat to no one outside the court. Not necessarily mutually exclusive, but it doesn't apply in this situation imo. Not only that, being a part of any organization doesn’t necessarily mean you agree with everything the organization espouses. When i was a minister, I didn't necessarily agree with everything my church taught.