Who will win the prize behind the door? Contestant number 1, contestant number 2, or contestant number 3?
The prize behind the door is, of course, to be Trump's pick to fill the seat on SCOTUS which was vacated by Anthony Kennedy. The whole scenario is classic Trump show biz; he is in his element with things like the Miss Universe contest, and game and reality shows. I'm sure he has already decided whom he is going to name, days or weeks ago.
Updated: Just announced; Brett Kavanaugh is the nominee.
From an article on the CBS site:
"The president's top contenders
-- Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Raymond Kethledge -- have
distinct records and focuses from which Mr. Trump can weigh his
decision. Barrett has the least experience on the bench and has
emphasized social issues; Kavanaugh has extensive experience working in
D.C. courts and its political scene; and Kethledge has built his
conservative judicial credentials in federal court in Michigan, removed
from Washington's politics.
Mr. Trump could still pick a wild card from the original list of 25 contenders his administration released last year."
There has been much wringing of hands that all the candidates are quite conservative. To which I say, "No Shinola, Sherlock!" There was never any pretense of ideological diversity. And all the candidates were vetted by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. It is rather like asking a three year old, "Do you want to wear your red t-shirt or your green one?" The question you don't ask, is "Do you want to get dressed?"
Much of the rending of garments seems to be centered on the fear that Roe vs Wade will be in the crosshairs with these candidates. I feel that this is a distraction, and am more concerned that the track records of all three disproportionately involve decisions favoring big business and big money, and not so much the rights of workers.
Amy Coney Barrett in particular seems to draw feminist and liberal lightning, though her record seems to be pretty much in keeping with that of the others. She is Catholic, but so is Kavanaugh. Much is made of her membership in an organization called People of Praise. But it isn't clear that she is presently very involved in it. A lot of people go through youthful enthusiasms that they later grow beyond (speaking here of People of Praise, not Catholicism), It is hard to see her as a sellout to the patriarchy after having been a law professor at Notre Dame for several years. One possible concern is that she is less experienced than the other two, having been on the appellate bench less than a year.
For better or worse, we'll find out on Monday who the winner is. I have several reasons why I am less filled with angst than I have been with some other Trump appointments. The first is that these people are actually qualified for the job they are being considered for. They have impressive records of service, and they are not awful people. They don't hate the institution that they are going to work for, and don't appear interested in dismantling it from the inside. However I still think that SCOTUS appointments need to be term-limited.
Boy, am I ever tired of all the wannabe track handicappers trying to figure the morning line. Trump is playing Simon Cowell on "America's Got Legal Talent," another ego trip. I predict he will say he is "honored" to name whomever. In the end, Whomever will be a screaming Federalist Society conservative, probably nearer the Alito end of that limited spectrum, AND THE DEMOCRATS CAN'T DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT. Nevertheless, being brain dead, they will over-emote and once more raise and then dash the hopes of their eagerly aroused base.
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested in the rationale for term limits on Supreme Court justices. I'm not sure that I think it's a bad idea to have one branch that serves for life. Term limits have not been a great idea in state legislatures.
ReplyDeleteLike Katherine, I am more concerned with the labor and business decisions coming out of the court than with Roe.
To well-off professional women who lean left, Roe is a shorthand for gains (real or imagined) that women have achieved since the early 1970s: Control over reproduction is wrapped up with control over career and family, control over pay and earnings.
Personally, I think the "control over our bodies (and, by extension, destinies)" aspects of Roe are exaggerated. None of us truly has control over our bodies. Our bodies are constantly betraying us through illness and age. But, having bought into the whole Roe kit and kaboodle for many decades, I do understand what it represents to others and why the prospect of its reversal is frightening.
Jean, There is something to be said -- but not much, imo -- for legislative term limits to avoid groupthink. Istm legslative term limits deny me the right to vote for whomever I want by saying I can't vote for the devil I know but have to find a new one. But that is another issue.
DeleteIn theory, SCOTUS justices answer only to the law, not to the president or Congress. The court has often been controversial (read some of Andy Jackson's battles with it) but it was never politically partisan until fairly lately. Some say the unpleasantness started with Thomas (made it) or with Bork or Fortas (they didn't). Whenever, it's not good. SCOTUS justices should all lean in toward the center; you'd still get plenty of 5-4 decisions if they did.
One reason for favoring term limits (and I would favor a long-ish term, 18 years) is predictability. A president would know (assuming he or she was a two-termer) that he would get two appointments. Since it is unfortunately politicized, there wouldn't be the problem of any one president getting to stack the deck unfairly. And 18 years is long enough for the court to have the benefit of the person's experience. If someone died or had to step down for some reason, an interim justice could be appointed to complete the term.
DeleteAnother reason to limit the term is for the sake of the person filling the position. They wouldn't have to feel that they had to continue into old age and declining health until someone who was ideologically compatible was elected president.
And if we had had the 18 year rule in place, there wouldn't have been any problem with Merrick Garland getting a hearing. Obama would have had two nominations, and no nonsense about it being too close to an election year. Congress could decline to confirm the chosen candidate, but not refuse to have a hearing. And if they didn't confirm, the president would get to name someone else.
DeleteRe: the People of Praise: I don't think we should demean it by referring to it as a cult. From what I can tell (and I had never heard of it until Amy Coney Barrett's name surfaced as a possible Court nominee), it's a Charismatic movement. Seems most of its members are Catholic but they are ecumenical, both in their membership and in some of the work they do.
ReplyDeleteMore here:
https://peopleofpraise.org/about/who-we-are/
Perhaps some of you may have some experience with Cursillo? According to the link I've provided, People of Praise grew out of Cursillo.
There are charismatic Catholic groups around here. I haven't been immersed in charismatic spirituality, but I respect it as a particular stream of Catholicism.
Also, fwiw - of the different "flavors" of Christianity, charismatic, Pentecostal Christianity is experiencing the most explosive growth worldwide, especially in the Global South. I promise you that Francis is keenly aware, open and supportive of charismatic Catholicism, and probably of quite a bit of the non-Catholic Pentecostal activity as well.
I am a proud cursillista and made mine with one of the founders (later) of the Catholic charismatic movement. It is not a cult, although in a few dioceses it used to be a bit weird. Barrett's chief claim to an appointment, though, seems to be that Sen. Diane Feinstein inartfully asked if she would take orders from the pope last time Trump appointed her. The theocrats jumped all over that.
DeleteFeinstein phrased her question ineptly, but to my way of thinking, it's kind of a perennial question for any disciple: how to live out our "dual citizenship". It's almost not an exaggeration to say that Catholics take their orders from the pope.
DeleteI guess, if one wanted to give a disciple-y answer to that question in a Senate hearing, one could note that Jesus told us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. A Supreme Court justice takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, and a nominee could state that she intends to carry out that oath to the best of her abilities.
Btw, I would say that non-believers aren't (or shouldn't be) exempt from some of the same questions. Presumably, all of us have *some* sort of principles that guide our lives. If I'm not mistaken, there is case law that recognizes that First Amendment religious liberty rights apply to atheists, too.
Jim, you are right that it is unkind to refer to People of Praise as acting like a cult. Especially since I don't know that much about it. So I have edited the post to remove that part.
DeleteI will however explain some things that raise personal flags with me, with any sort of group: One is a seeming lack of meaningful accountability. Also an emphasis on spiritual headship, both in families, and in the organization; with an accompanying rigidity of gender roles. With the "spiritual heads" in the group sometimes doing counseling of members, when they have no training in counseling. An appearance of "group think" or insider-ness, with some Biblical fundamentalism. And I don't consider it a good sign when you type the group name into search, and a number of "survivor posts" from former members pop up. Of course these people could have had problems before they became part of the group, who knows. And spirituality isn't a one-size-fits-all thing; what is good for one person may be bad for another. I just think it is good to be a little skeptical sometimes.
I realize that Pentacostalism and the Charismatic movement are global phenomenon; and are a means of spreading the Gospel. The different groups vary all over the map as far as belief and practice. But as Jesus said, "..for whoever is not against you is for you."
Tom, I am a cursillista too, though not quite as enthusiastic a one as other people in my household :)
DeleteI made mine in '93. At that time (and still in that diocese) it was a "4 day" experience. In our archdiocese now it is a Friday night through Sunday thing. They got a lot more people to go that way, because many people had trouble taking time off work. But the for-real Cursillo people got mad about it and now we have to call it CEC, or Christians Encounter Christ. And we had to change all our materials and songs, because they are copyrighted. Can't even sing the little "De Colores" song anymore. We substituted "Gather the People" which in my opinion isn't nearly as good.
Charismatics seem to get some kind of high out of whatever is going on, and that's nice for them. I attended some charismatic prayer group sessions with a friend when I was a teenager. I was respectful, but it just seemed like boogity-boo to me.
DeleteStill, the Church accepts a wide variety of religious expressions, and some of my favorite beguines were a little out there. Christina the Astonishing, for one.
Although I'm not sure C Christina would have made a great Supreme Court jusge, what with the levitation and all.
Katherine - when I was a teenager, I attended a "Teens Encounter Christ" weekend. I wonder if "Christians Encounter Christ" is the same thing for grown-ups?
DeleteThere is Cursillo around the Archdiocese, but there is another program called Christ Renews His Parish (CRHP, pronounced "chirp") that was pretty widespread at one time. I attended a couple of CRHP weekends and was spiritual director for a couple of them. I have to say, I think they're good but I don't completely love all of the aspects. And I can see how it can turn into a sort of a "cult" (although not in the Jonestown sense) - a sort of insulated-group-within-the-parish. Especially when a group of on-fire people take control of it and try to run it themselves.
"Can't even sing the little "De Colores" song anymore." Whoinhell in the United States has any authority to even touch that song? Which Joan Baez recorded (another cult I've been in.) And which, when played by a mariachi band, is the Latin equivalent of "When the Saints Go Marching In" throughout Latin and South America! Keep those white gringo hands off De Colores kiri-kiri-kiri.
DeleteKatherine, you are '93. I was '64. I was also CRHP I in our parish. CRHP was invented by a bunch of Ohio tree-huggers who did Cursillo and concluded it was nice for them but didn't do a darned thing for the parish. So they removed the whoo-whoo elements, pointed it toward commitment to one of the parish activities and made it a parish thing. We went through 20 for me and 21 for women, then laid off for five years. We are bringing it back for new parishioners and unchildrened people who felt they couldn't do it while being soccer moms and dads.
I can't stay up that late anymore.
When we lived in Colorado in the '80s they were doing Renew in the parish, which must have been similar to CRHP. We don't have CRHP yet, at least in our parish. Acronym looks like it ought to be some kind of gene editing technology.
DeleteI had a sort-of close encounter with a group like People of Praise that is located located near where I live. I did not know who they were when going to a "bible study" advertised by flyer on the bulletin board of the parish. At the first meeting, I was then invited to the home (shared) of two of the women leading the bible study. It became clear after a while that the bible study was a sort of ruse to attract mainstream Catholics (which I was at the time). The longer I spoke with these two women about their community, the more uncomfortable I felt. The members often share homes - along with everything else - and single people often lived with families. Their dating lives were also closely watched, even controlled, by the group, I was completely creeped out by these two normal seeming women. Later this group was investigated by Cardinal Hickey and the leadership was forced out. Since then they seem to keep (barely) on the line of legitimacy. There was a charismatic prayer group at my parish and it did not operate at all like this charismatic community acted.
DeleteSo I am less sanguine about her membership in this group than most of you seem to be. Is it a cult? It seems dangerously close to being one at least based on my reading and past experiences and study about charismatic communities that operate as this one does. Barrett grew up in it. Her father has been a leader in it. Her brother, her husband. The notion that the members must be "mentored" by someone who directs their spiritual and moral lives. They claim that of course they wouldn't try to influence her on the SC. Balderdash.
Even Pope Francis in 2014 warned lay-led groups like Barrett’s about “usurping individual freedom” and “delegat[ing] important decisions about their lives to others.” (Washington Post article in Acts of Faith)
This group demands secrecy about some of its activities, and requirements (such as the "oath of covenant"). This kind of secrecy is always a red-flag. One finds it in another Catholic cults, like Opus Dei. The Legionaries of Christ demanded absolute loyalty to Maciel, and also demanded that its priests maintain secrecy about some matters.
I don't know a lot about Cursillo, but I did read a lot about these charismatic lay communities after meeting the people in the one near my home. I don't believe that Cursillo and some of these groups are as similar as some here seem to believe, but I don't really know. Those of you here who have participated are not extremists. Even my protestant sister-in-law participated in an Episcopalian cursillo once. I never asked her about it, but will sometime when I see her next.
I think Cursillo is not a cult, but some of these charismatic communities where everyone lives with or near each other and takes direction from a lay leader, and is asked to keep some aspects of the group's activities secret.....well, draw your own conclusions. Most of the charismatic covenant communities I have read about share several characteristics - very conservative religion and politics, authoritarian, patriarchal, along with demanding secrecy about some of what they do.
A couple of people at NCRonline have something to say about this group.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/prospective-supreme-court-nominee-puts-spotlight-people-praise
https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/raising-questions-about-amy-barretts-beliefs-not-anti-popery-riot
I read somewhere that there is a rumor or leak or some such that Barrett didn't do well in her interview with Trump (that may be a badge of honor?), so the two guys supposedly are the two being considered. FWIW.
ReplyDeleteBut then, another school of thought is that it would give liberals conniptions for a conservative woman to be nominated, and that prospect may be too tempting for the Troll in Chief to pass up.
Here's Ross Douthat's take on Barrett: "But her interview with Trump apparently went quite badly (I’m not exactly shocked that the Catholic mother-of-seven and the president didn’t hit it off),..."
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/opinion/sunday/the-supreme-court-trump.html
Everyone is hammering Barrett about Roe. How about the fact that she suggested Catholic judges refuse themselves in religious grounds in death-penalty cases? I applaud her stance there. Perhaps she would recuse herself in abortion cases?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/02/justice-barrett-amy-coney-feinstein-692199
*refuse = recuse
DeleteWhatever else she may be (don't know), she's probably a straight shooter (oops!) I mean her own woman--not susceptible to male whimsy.
DeleteShe and Sotomayor might hit if off....
Hammering Barrett on Roe? All of those men would be for politely overturning it as long as they never have the chance, as well. It's hard to know what anyone, including Barrett, would do about Roe's main principle while looking down the barrel of public reaction and what it would do to the status of the court when it rules on really important things -- like whether corporate persons have to honor contracts with people persons. Chances are, whomever Trump appoints will go after Roe with the small blades of the Swiss Army knife and stay away from the heart of the issue.
Delete...And take an ax to anything that might limit the reach and power of our very own oligarchs.
Delete"Small blades of the Swiss Army knife." That seems to be where Barrett is at--less about overturning Roe and more about focusing on choking off funding for abortion.
DeleteThat doesn't really promote a circumstance approach to abortion (e.g., are you going to die without one?), which is what I support, but if people feel that abortion is unilaterally wrong in every case, then I guess it's a valid way to go.
Add another name to the finalists list, Thomas Hardiman. The smart money is now saying he and Kethledge are the front runners.
ReplyDeleteWell the smart money was wrong!
DeleteI think the way Merrick Garland was treated was shameful. And I don't blame the Democrats for wanting to do a similar thing with Kavanaugh. But I hope they will resist that temptation and remember the adage "Don't get mad, get even." The ones they need to get even with are Mitch McConnell and his minions. They're not going to do that by wasting time and energy trying to block Kavanaugh. Sure, ask the tough questions, and vet his record. But absent something criminal they can't stop his confirmation. And even if they did, we would just end up with someone from the same list. Get revenge on McConnell with a blue wave and end his tenure as Senate Majority leader.
ReplyDeleteGood grief. Roe Death Panel Looms. And 5 Men Could Overturn Legal Abortion. The headline writers need to breathe in a paper bag, or something, before they hyperventilate.
ReplyDeleteHow absolutely unthrilling: yet ANOTHER conservative Catholic on the SCOTUS! Atheists/Humanists/Nones unite!!!
ReplyDelete