Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (4 Viewers)

[GrandAdmiral]

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

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[LA - L.A.]

This is an appalling answer, how hard is it to say that all involved should commit to a peaceful transition between administrations? I don’t care how you’re coached. The answer is “yes” and that’s all you have to say. This makes her look like either a craven political pawn or a fool.

Believe people when they show and tell you who they are.

 

[DaveXA]

None of the people you are responding to have assumed any of what you said there.

They are working off of the fact that Barrett has said and written that when applying the law, she puts her Catholic values ahead of the law. No one is assuming that she will impose her faith on her legal arguments, she said she does. It's irrational to ignore or try to rationalize an excuse for her own words.

Her being of the Catholic faith is not the issue. The issue is that she said she puts her faith first. It's not acceptable regardless of what her faith happens to be.

I need to look again, but the way I read what she said was her faith comes first, in context of her personal life, but when it comes to the law, she interprets the law as written.

 

[The moose]

This is an appalling answer, how hard is it to say that all involved should commit to a peaceful transition between administrations? I don’t care how you’re coached. The answer is “yes” and that’s all you have to say. This makes her look like either a craven political pawn or a fool.

that is not it.

she has the orange guy to make happy or he will pull her and will never get the job.

she has a fine line to walk

 

[LA - L.A.]

I need to look again, but the way I read what she said was her faith comes first, in context of her personal life, but when it comes to the law, she interprets the law as written.

She did not say the bold part. She said almost the exact opposite.

None of this changes the fact that the posters you responded to made it very clear that they were not assuming she would put her faith first "just because she's Catholic," but that there concerns were based on things she said and wrote in the pass.

 

[SystemShock]

But, her specific beliefs are assumed becuase she's Catholic. At least that's what seems implied. Otherwise why bring it up in the first place?

Because she has said as much?

Fwiw, I'm not Catholic, but it seems like the assumption is that because she's Catholic, it's assumed that she'll impose her faith onto her legal arguments.

Not at all. It is the statements she's made.

But many Catholics or people of various faiths can and are objective when it comes to interpreting law.

Of course. But Barret doesn't seem to be one of them.

 

[DaveXA]

None of the people you are responding to have assumed any of what you said there.

They are working off of the fact that Barrett has said and written that when applying the law, she puts her Catholic values ahead of the law. No one is assuming that she will impose her faith on her legal arguments, she said she does. It's irrational to ignore or try to rationalize an excuse for her own words.

Her being of the Catholic faith is not the issue. The issue is that she said she puts her faith first. It's not acceptable regardless of what her faith happens to be.

I was speaking to the below post specifically when I initially responded. I've bolded what I took issue with. I think the comments speak for itself. I've said my bit and made my point. That's all I got.

I kinda do.

First, i want to be clear- i dont have a problem with her beliefs ‘in a vacuum’.. Life is hard, and i think if something like religion helps you get through day to day, while doing good works- then it is generally a good thing... But when we are discussing a possible Supreme Court justice, i only have problems with her specific beliefs, becuase i myself attended Catholic schools for most of my childhood.. I was also an alter boy, went to Communion, Confession, the whole nine.. I’ve been to the puppet show, and i have seen the strings... Fortunately i was unscathed, but UNfortunately i did have friends who were diddled (and worse) by a leader in our community ... I say all that, to say this- What *I* was taught in Catholic school is that your #1 obligation, before family, before country , or anything else- is GOD... The laws and doctrine of Catholicism , and serving god, HAVE to be first... So there is no possible way that Barrett could concievably put those beliefs aside to rule by the law, or by the Constutuion, or anything else if there is even the slightest conflict with her faith... To do so, to her, would be sealing her fate, burning in Hell for all eternity... I know this becuase many of the people i love still believe exactly this way.

 

[MT15]

that is not it.

she has the orange guy to make happy or he will pull her and will never get the job.

she has a fine line to walk

That’s not a walking a fine line. That’s just being a moral coward. If she hasn’t the courage to say the right thing about the peaceful transition of power in this country, which is the linchpin of our nation, then she’s not the right person for the job, it’s just that simple.

 

[DaveXA]

She did not say the bold part. She said almost the exact opposite.

None of this changes the fact that the posters you responded to made it very clear that they were not assuming she would put her faith first "just because she's Catholic," but that there concerns were based on things she said and wrote in the pass.

Do you have the quote handy? I'd like to be sure we're reading the same quote from Barrett.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I was speaking to the below post specifically when I initially responded. I've bolded what I took issue with. I think the comments speak for itself. I've said my bit and made my point. That's all I got.

I see your point on what you are referring to, but that was not the only reason they gave for having issues with Barrett and not trusting her.

You didn't just take issue with that one thing they said. You framed your response as if that that was the only issue they had with Barrett. Maybe that's not how you meant to frame it, but that's how you seemed to have framed it to me.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Do you have the quote handy? I'd like to be sure we're reading the same quote from Barrett.

I do not have it handy. What I read was linked earlier in this thread somewhere.

 

[DaveXA]

I see your point on what you are referring to, but that was not the only reason they gave for having issues with Barrett and not trusting her.

You didn't just take issue with that one thing they said. You framed your response as if that that was the only issue they had with Barrett. Maybe that's not how you meant to frame it, but that's how you seemed to have framed it to me.

That’s how I framed it because that's the only part I was speaking to. I know and understand people have more complex and nuanced opinions on Barrett. There are a lot of valid reasons for not liking her as a candidate. Previous speaking engagements, connections, statements that make you wonder about motives, even whether her experience is extensive enough. We've discussed several of them throughout the thread.

I was addressing the specific post, not what others have said about it.

 

[DaveXA]

I do not have it handy. What I read was linked earlier in this thread somewhere.

Ok, I think I know what you're referring to. I'll see if I can find it.

Edit: I went and looked a bit. There are a couple of posts on page 10 that might be possible sources. On was an article she co-authored and the other was a speech to Notre Dame graduates. But I'm not sure if either of those are specifically what we're talking about.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

On Roe, I think it's possible that in consulting with the justices that she or some of the other justices might be persuaded to uphold Roe vs. Wade. Even adding her to the court, I wouldn't say it's a done deal. There would need to be a convincing case before the justices for that precedent to be overturned IMHO. The court doesn't just willy nilly overturn precedent.

I know a lot of people are passionate about the subject, and right now it seems to me we're in sort of a middle ground on the issue and making big changes to that in this environment could cause a lot of upheaval. Who knows where this leads.

The issue is not overturning Roe, the issue is allowing it to be slowly restricted to the point where it ceases to function in practice. That's much more likely to happen.

 

[The moose]

That’s not a walking a fine line. That’s just being a moral coward. If she hasn’t the courage to say the right thing about the peaceful transition of power in this country, which is the linchpin of our nation, then she’s not the right person for the job, it’s just that simple.

I agree with you completely.

I was just saying that the orange guy at the top is extremely moody and loves to replace people. If something is ever said to offend him he could pull the nomination.

The only real problem that could happen from this dog and pony show going on is trump gets offended and pulls the nomination. She or someone else is getting pushed thru.

 

[wardorican]

That’s not a walking a fine line. That’s just being a moral coward. If she hasn’t the courage to say the right thing about the peaceful transition of power in this country, which is the linchpin of our nation, then she’s not the right person for the job, it’s just that simple.

Honestly, I don't see an issue with what she said. She's not going to comment about Trump's comments. That's not the place of any judge. The question was phrased not about the hypothetical, but about Trump's words. Blame Booker for being too obvious.

 

[DaveXA]

Honestly, I don't see an issue with what she said. She's not going to comment about Trump's comments. That's not the place of any judge. The question was phrased not about the hypothetical, but about Trump's words. Blame Booker for being too obvious.

I thought the same thing. I'm seeing it in a lot of the questioning where they're asking questions they know ACB can't answer and trying to paint her as being evasive. Not a single other SC nominee would answer that question imo. Its tantamount to flying to close to the sun imo.

I don't blame Booker though. They're not there to treat her with kid gloves, but to test her competence and understanding of her role as a SC Justice.

 

[B4YOU]

How Conservative Is Amy Coney Barrett?

Just how conservative is Amy Coney Barrett? It’s a question we’ve asked before with other appellate judges who have been nominated to the Supreme Court — most r…

fivethirtyeight.com

She is the most conservative judge in the 7th district. I think she will mirror Alito.

The SC will need 2 R appointments to swing for any ruling in the Ds favor. The swings could be Roberts and Gorsuch. Tomas, Alito, Kav, and maybe Barrett appear to be unmovable objects.

 

[DaveXA]

Tbh, this is a little surprising. The Kavanaugh hearings were a complete shirtshow and circus. These hearings have been pretty tame by comparison. I'm kind of shocked. Maybe with the election being days away, you've got senators who don't want to rock the boat too much. Maybe they don't want to stub their toe and make any unforced errors that could swing the election the other way. It feels a little weird.