Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, died Friday, September 18.
From Associated Press: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-at-87/ar-BB19bVYx?OCID=ansmsnnews11:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a towering women’s rights champion who became the court’s second female justice, died Friday at her home in Washington. She was 87.
"Ginsburg died of complications from metastatic pancreatic cancer, the court said."
"Her death just over six weeks before Election Day is likely to set off a heated battle over whether President Donald Trump should nominate, and the Republican-led Senate should confirm, her replacement, or if the seat should remain vacant until the outcome of his race against Democrat Joe Biden is known. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said late Friday that the Senate will vote on Trump’s pick to replace Ginsburg, even though it’s an election year."
"Just days before her death, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that her "most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," according to a new report."
"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement Friday night that Trump's next nominee "will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."McConnell said last year that he would seek to confirm another justice to the bench if the opportunity arose, even in an election year. That statement of intent immediately drew accusations of hypocrisy. In 2016, after the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, McConnell had blocked then-President Barack Obama from filling that vacancy.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ruth-bader-ginsburg-filibuster_n_5f6570a7c5b6480e896ef995 Democrats have threatened to get rid of the filibuster if Ginsburg's court seat is filled prior to the start of a new term.
"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement Friday night that Trump's next nominee "will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."McConnell said last year that he would seek to confirm another justice to the bench if the opportunity arose, even in an election year. That statement of intent immediately drew accusations of hypocrisy. In 2016, after the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, McConnell had blocked then-President Barack Obama from filling that vacancy.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ruth-bader-ginsburg-filibuster_n_5f6570a7c5b6480e896ef995 Democrats have threatened to get rid of the filibuster if Ginsburg's court seat is filled prior to the start of a new term.
Just in case we were running short of drama in 2020.
Not every Democrat is in favor of getting rid of the filibuster, because it could mean that only a 51% majority was needed to get rid of Obamacare, or SNAP extension, among a lot of other things.
I expect many Catholics are doing their happy dance at the prospect of a Trump-appointed anti-abortion judge.
ReplyDeleteOne might argue that an anti-abortion judge rammed through before election day would remove the reason so many single-issue voters feel compelled to support Trump. If that's what it takes to loosen the his stranglehold on white Catholics, let him have his nominee.
As for RGB, I think she might be remembered more for her tart dissents than anything else. I hope Catholics can give her some props for at strong stance on civil rights. That, too, is a core belief of the Church.
https://www.bustle.com/articles/30059-4-epic-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dissents-that-prove-shes-a-badass
Jean, that thought occurred to me, too, that if a possible SCOTUS appointment were the only reason some people were going to vote for Trump, to have that off the table would be a silver lining. In spite of what some people think, I still believe that who is president matters more than who is on the SCOTUS.
DeleteAn anti-abortion majority on the Court is a symbolic victory. Abortion law will revert to the states, but it might take the blinkers off the single issue voters who can't see any other evils.
DeleteOtoh, three Trump appointees and a conservative majority would bode ill for a contested election.
I think it would be hard for them to ram through an appointment before the election with only 6 weeks to go. And you are right about abortion law reverting to the states if Roe goes down.
DeleteThey don’t have to ram it through. The new congress won’t be seated until January.
DeleteIf Trump gets away with this, then when Biden assumes the Presidency he can increase the size of the Court by 2 or 3 or how many he wants. All it needs is for congress to vote to do so and the President to approve it. (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/packing-the-supreme-court-explained)
DeleteHere are some interesting proposals that have been made in the past:
https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/supreme-court-expand-ideological-balance-20200317.html
And brings up a good point. Even if Trump loses the election, he is still Prez and Congress is still in power until January.
DeleteI suspect The Don is of two minds here. One route would be to nominate a lightning rod before the election and let the hearings begin, then run, scream, yell and shout against Democratic opposition. That risks losing the nomination, but what does he care? And if he wins the election he can name someone else. Sen. Addison M McConnell will want to go for confirmation before the election, though.
ReplyDeleteAnother route would be to hold back the name and let folks like Tailgunner Ted and Tom (I Wish I Was In the Land of) Cotton think maybe daddy likes them best. Sen. McConnell might be induced to go along with that. The problem there is, if he loses the election Sen. McConnell loses the seat.
Another way to go is try to hold hearings and a vote before the election. The Ds will howl, but why should The Don care? That would make Sen. Addison M. McConnell is a howling hypocrite, but everybody knew that already.
The flies in the ointment include the usual Republican suspects. Sen. Susan Collins will be torn seven ways to Bangor over how to vote, but in the end she will follow Sen. Addison Mitchell McConnell through hell and high water, writhing all the way. The joker may be Jean's buddy, Chuck Grassley, who may have a feeling somewhere that the comity and mores of the Senate are being trampled.
Whatever happens, when the Rs have once again filled six seats -- as they did once before since Roe -- and when all the sworn to be open minded can come out from behind what it takes to get voted in, and when Roberts can forget about the Court's reputation (which will be pretty much gone anyway), I would hope the U.S. Confernce of Catholic Bishops would be able to issue a statement saying, "We have supped with the Devil years to defeat Roe v Wade, and we have been successful, yee-haw. Now that the means has achieved the end, let us tell you: That was the sleaziest, vilest, most dishonest and hypocritical bunch of crap any body of lace-flaunting churchmen have ever eaten."
But they won't.
It's almost diabolical, isn't it? Mobilize half of the Church in America behind something that won't work anyway, make them consider it almost doctrine to vote Republican, and then the Republicans, without doing anything to actually stop abortion, can slip all kinds of other things into their platform that Catholics would never normally vote for.
DeleteGrassley won't do it. Every time he starts quacking about Trump, Trump fiddles around with some bio-fuel thing to shut him up.
ReplyDeletePlus, he's distracted with his Corn Watch last I checked.
Obamacare is up for some kind of Supreme Court ruling, not sure when. This would be the Repubs' chance to chop off its head and implement their elusive alternate health care plan that gives every American the right to die in the street.
So Schumer needs to breathe into a paper bag, calm down, and start making back room deals with any Repubs who might want to buy some goodwill in the event of a Biden win and a flipped Senate. Or any Repubs in states where O'care is popular.
We may be heading for a day where women are forced to have children and no O'care to pay for obstetrics and pediatrics care.
ReplyDeleteBut at least we won't have socialism like Venezuela.
I keep seeing anti-abortion advocates claim that 20, 40, 60, 65 million abortions have occurred in the US since Roe v Wade almost half a century ago. It is referred to as a holocaust. Republicans claim to be the anti-abortion party. Yet for half a century, their actions have simply been to wait for the death of Supreme Court justices while making abortion as inconvenient as possible. I doubt that in half a century Republicans have stopped a single abortion in the United States.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that there is no anti-abortion party in the United States. Even if Roe v Wade is overturned, it will still only send the question to the states. Anyone who wants an abortion will still be able to easily obtain one. The whole effort is one mass of hypocrisy where people claiming to be "anti-abortion" get to vote Republican every two years and pat themselves on the backs while calling their opponents "baby killers".
I oppose abortion. But I know that in this day and age, this movement will fail to stop it. To end abortion one must address the things that cause people to have them. I think that most of the reasons are economic and social. I see Democrats address these thing, but I don't see Republicans addressing them. The cases I have witnessed in my own life where a Christian actually prevented someone else from having abortions were, in every case, situations where that Christian vowed to help the mother overcome the things that were driving her to consider having an abortion.
The issue is said to divide the people. Frequently it is said to divide people into the "good" Republicans and the "bad" baby killing Democrats. In fact it divides people by creating a false narrative that the whole abortion issue can be solved by a statute or by overturning a single Supreme Court decision. One can hardly imagine someone standing before God on Judgement Day, when asked what they did to oppose the killing of 65 million fetuses, saying with a straight face "I voted Republican in every election".
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree that economics are a factor in a lot, maybe most, abortions. Statistics indicate that 75% of those who have them are below the poverty line.
DeleteHowever there are two elephants in the living room. The other one is societal acceptance of casual sex without commitment. The consequences of which just *might* interfere with one's education or career plans. Contraception is more responsible than not using it under those circumstances. But people often fail to think of what their backup plan is in case of method failure or "operator error". If abortion is a backup plan, that is a problem.
So we have one party that has decided, erroneously, that the only thing that will stop abortion in the United States is the overturning of Roe v Wade and that if one does not embrace this particular position ahead of any other, one is not anti-abortion, nor is one a Catholic or a Christian. On the other side are people who believe that Roe v Wade won't end abortion and therefore if one wants to have an affect on abortion, one needs to address causes of abortion that the Roe v Wade party does not address.
DeleteIt is easy to get the impression that the Republicans think that abortion is simply an ethical issue that must be backed by the police and that people only get abortions because they are morally weak and need a cop standing behind them. More evidence of this is the way we see the term "baby killer" thrown around and the "real Catholics can't vote for Democrats".
I think that this distinction between abortion as only a moral problem versus abortion as at least partially a social problem is part of a general divide in our population. People on the Left will claim that Republicans are not really "pro-life" because there is a host of things they do not support in addition to their claims to be anti-abortion. But I think that they are, in fact, consistent. If abortion is only a moral issue, then so are other issues. If you are poor, it's a failing on your part to work hard enough to make money. Same for your lack of healthcare. Same if you are an illegal alien. All of these things are purely and simply individual failings. There may be things that happen that are out of an individual's immediate control. But this is why we have charity. And of course there is a great deal in Catholic doctrine about individual social responsibility.
But there is a lot in Catholic doctrine about social responsibility as well, that these people ignore. And the Left at least tries to include these things. While abortion is definitely an individual problem (and I agree with Katherine on this, I think) it is also a social problem. It's even a social problem when one thinks that it might interfere with one's education or career plans. We live in a society where in fact pregnancy CAN interfere with these things. But of course people also get abortions because they, because of things beyond their control, can't afford to support children.
Underlying all of this, I believe, is a libertarianism that has infected the Right. When Maggie Thatcher announced that there is no society and that there are only individuals, she showed that in Britain (too) the infection had gone all the way to the top. This isn't just bad political economy. It is a heresy.
Hello, a couple of observations.
ReplyDelete1. In 2016, McConnell and the Senate Republicans said "No (we won't take a vote on Garland)!", and Democrats answered with a resounding "Yes (you must)!" Now, in 2020, McConnell and the Senate Republicans are saying "Yes!". That sounds as though they are agreeing with the Senate Democrats of the 2016 era. But now the Senate Democrats are saying "No!". It is not just one party which has allegedly switched sides.
2. It is almost certainly true that superseding Roe v Wade case law won't end abortion in the US. (As I understand it, it didn't inaugurate legalized abortion back in the early 1970s, either). But there are other reason to oppose Roe. One is complicity; my tax dollars pay for abortions, and overturning Roe would seem to be one prerequisite for stopping that, or at least reducing it. Another reason is simple morality: abortion is wrong, and it doesn't seem to be one of those evils which a government should choose to promote and protect. Still another reason is that, on its legal merits, Roe would seem to be a bad decision; that there is a Constitutional right to abortion on demand strains credulity.
I believe that overturning Roe would also help the Democratic Party, inasmuch as fidelity to Roe currently is something to which all Democratic candidates must solemnly swear. If Roe is ended, then the thing to which Democrats must take a sacred oath of fealty will no longer exist. The party will have to formulate something else for its candidates to swear fidelity to. Working that through could be healthy for the party.
I'm not sure how your tax dollars pay for abortion, especially since the Hyde Amendment of 2009. Yes, it would be of concern, but I don't think it's happening.
DeleteKilling Roe v Wade would allow states that want to to ban abortion. I don't see this stopping any abortions. If one can just hop in the car and drive a few hours to the next state, people are going to do it. As I said, the Republican approach, masquerading as anti-abortion activism, has been to make abortions more inconvenient. This has not worked at all and again I would say that no Republican political effort to end abortion in the last 50 years has actually halted a single abortion.
But what I object to the most is the way that abortion has been cast as a sort of legal problem that can be solved by politicians. I think it is actually a social problem, one of many, that come from the same source. The social problem creates as spiritual problem as well, which is part of the problem of abortion as well. The practical problem that the abolition of Roe v Wade would end or even reduce abortions (it wouldn't) is coupled with the idea that this is the crux of the problem and that the only current provisional solution is to support the Republican Party. I find it akin to the idea that if we could just force everyone to go to Christian schools or have school prayer, everyone would suddenly become practicing Christians. It's a strange modern idea that allows people to think they are doing something (and congratulating themselves for it) while in fact they are doing nothing. Or, in the case of the Republicans, worse than nothing, because coupled with anti-abortion are a bunch of anti-life policies that are slip streaming along with it.
I think it makes things worse.
As I remember, Roe wasn't decided on a basis of a constitutional right to an abortion. It was decided on a right to privacy. Which still seemed a stretch, and not a well thought out decision. But I agree that having Roe off the table would be a healthy thing for both parties. However we know that wouldn't be the end of it. If there wasn't a constitutional right to an abortion before, I can see the activists pushing for an amendment to establish one if Roe went down. In which case our future situation would be worse than our present one. I
DeleteIt isn't that we can't legislate morality. Most of our laws are a version of that. It's that it's very difficult to legislate morality when a consensus doesn't exist. Consent of the governed and all that. Approval/disapproval of abortion rights appears on a chart as a bell curve, with a majority in the middle approving of it in limited circumstances, with small percentages on either end approving it in no circumstances or all of them.
Which leaves the church to make its case through moral formation and appealing to our shared humanity. And yes, supporting the social safety net also helps.
Good point, Katherine. And that is the point as far as Federal law is concerned. We could have long ago had a compromise embracing the center of the curve that would have banned abortions in many cases. But the Right's demand for purity has kept this from happening. (I think the demand for unlimited abortion on the Left is nowhere near as strong as the demand for no compromise on the Right).
DeleteWhat abortions would this have stopped? If we continue on the all or nothing route we are on now, people will simply go to another state that has the rules they want. If all states had restricted abortions (i.e. the bell curve), then there would be no place to get to easily unless one wanted to go to Canada or Europe. This would eliminate a large number of abortions I think.
But we go back to the start. The Roe v Wade game has produced a politics where many people want to be against abortion for "moral" reasons (and be seen doing it) but who don't want to really do much about abortion since pursuing something that doesn't claim to eliminate all of them is an impure and immoral "compromise". But that's the modern American way; to look for the big (managerial) fix. I think the Christian way is to go one soul at a time. But we no longer think that way.
Patrick, It's good to see you back and feisty. I agree with what you have been saying.
DeleteDon't you find it amusing that people don't want their tax dollars paying for abortions, but it is OK with them if their taxes go for nukes, space weapons and war in general; for border walls and detention of little children; for prisons to hold people who didn't do it but couldn't afford an attorney; for oil and gas companies to continue insulting God's creation, and for suchlike?
Oh, well. As Gao Lee Ji is reported to have said, "One can die a thousand deaths and still live in great comfort."
Yes, very good to see you back, Patrick! Hope you will be here more often.
DeleteI recently reread (because I'm crazy) Richard Evans history trilogy on the rise and fall of the Third Reich. This time I was particularly interested in the question on how a society could fall to a mass movement that in retrospect was so obviously against any possible interest they could have. Of course I was looking at parallels between us and Germany of that time (and there are many). But one thing that was lacking in Germany was the peculiar cult of individualism that exists here today. One could argue (and I have seen it argued) that one cannot have a Nazi style movement in the US because of our "individualism". But sitting on the outside of the Right, the Right does not look individualistic to me at all. They look to me to be hype conformist and their personal ideology of individualism is part of it. And in fact, to push it a bit, while Nazism explicitly claimed to be anti-individualistic, it also claimed that if one was a "real" German, one was entitled to violate certain laws and engage in certain acts on the basis of "rights of race".
DeleteWe can't quite do this the same way here. There is a racist undertone to the Right of course. But I think that there is an even stronger undertone of a certain definition of the American individualist. The individualism, combined with a definition of American, demands mass conformity to that definition and we can see that there is nothing particularly individualistic about it at all. It's made up. But it allows people to support all kinds of contradictions like the ones Tom lays out and still claim that they are for peace, law and order, justice, and......individualism.
"I'm not sure how your tax dollars pay for abortion"
DeleteOne of the most straightforward ways is via Medicaid. My Illinois tax dollars fund Illinois' contribution to Medicaid in the state, and among the "benefits" for Medicaid in Illinois is abortion on demand - if websites are to believed, with no out-of-pocket expenses to the mom.
Of course, inasmuch as money is fungible, the separation between my federal Medicaid tax dollars and my state Medicaid tax dollars is fictitious. Medicaid is paying for the abortions.
To be sure, putting an end to Roe won't immediately stop the State of Illinois from funding abortions. But there is virtually no way of stopping it as long as Roe is in effect. With Roe no longer in effect, many other things become possible. One of those would be a change to federal law that prohibits federal Medicaid funds from going to states which use state Medicaid funding to pay for abortion.
"If there wasn't a constitutional right to an abortion before, I can see the activists pushing for an amendment to establish one if Roe went down."
DeleteRight. This is why I think it's unlikely that Republicans will agree with various proposals to turn down the heat by setting any sort of condition on choosing RBG's successor. Republicans won't agree to any deal that risks extending the confirmation vote past January 20. They reason, correctly, that there is zero chance that Biden would nominate anyone who would take any approach on abortion jurisprudence other than further strengthening Roe's vice grip on constitutional law. That was RBG's own philosophy, too.
Republicans have the opportunity of a generation here. This opportunity is precisely why Evangelicals and many Catholic Republicans voted for Trump in the 2016 general election. It is, in a real sense, the reason for Trump's presidency. Many, probably most, of these Republican voters don't really give a rat's *ss about immigration and border walls. Abortion is what motivates them, and what unifies them.
As I've mentioned many times, I live in a deep blue state, so my vote in the presidential election doesn't matter. (FWIW, at present, I plan to write in Tim Scott's name on November 3rd.) But if I lived in a purple state and RBG's successor isn't settled by then, I'd have to think hard about voting for Trump. And I concede to nobody in my general detestation of the president.
What Patrick said yesterday 8:37 is relevant: "It is easy to get the impression that the Republicans think that abortion is simply an ethical issue that must be backed by the police and that people only get abortions because they are morally weak and need a cop standing behind them. More evidence of this is the way we see the term "baby killer" thrown around and the "real Catholics can't vote for Democrats".
DeleteIf the election is all about SCOTUS appointments and whether or not Roe v Wade goes down, but all along we really know it's not going to end or lessen abortion, and we may end up in an even worse situation, then it's a waste of one's vote to cast it for the Trump package. Which includes a whole lot which isn't supportive of life or the flourishing of democracy.
This may not be intuitive, but: if Trump's nominee is confirmed prior to the election, then I think the urgency on the part of pro-life voters to vote for Trump recedes - maybe dramatically. A 6-3 conservative majority has to be the high water mark, right? What else can Donald Trump reasonably be expected to deliver them?
DeletePerversely, the pull-out-all-the-stops Democratic reaction - which makes perfect sense from the point of view of getting out the vote on November 3rd - may serve to keep the pro-life base motivated to get out and vote for Trump. The various ideas being kicked around - court packing, abolishing the electoral college, admitting new states - will not play well at all with conservative Americans.
If the idea is to keep the Trump base from being motivated, then paradoxically, Democrats might be better-advised to cool the (relatively) radical rhetoric. That has been Biden's strategy all along, and so far it seems to have worked pretty well.
"If the idea is to keep the Trump base from being motivated, then paradoxically, Democrats might be better-advised to cool the (relatively) radical rhetoric." Jim, I agree with you there. Especially if the rhetoric includes beating up on a nominee about her religious beliefs. I am thinking back to the days when John Kennedy was campaigning, and some people were worried that he would be taking directions from the pope.
DeleteMcConnell's unilateral action in 2016 was outrageous and constitutionally suspect. But he could get away with it. Schumer's throwing his words back at him is just Gotcha games. He has no way to keep McConnell from running over him. 2016 was politics; 2020 is optics.
ReplyDeleteIn point of meaningless fact, the RBG opening came 46 days before the election. Scalia's opening in 2016 came 269 days before.
It will be ugly to, as Johnny Boehner always used to complain, cram this down our throats. But it can be done even though the Senate hasn't done anything for two months. If it can confirm a justice in 46 days, the public may wonder why it can't get any help to people and small businesses suffering from the pandemic in the country with the most inept response in the world. But the cult of The Don won't doubt.
FWIW, the shortest time between an opening and an election year confirmation so far is 27 days. That gave us Roger B. Taney who, in the illustrious Dred Scott decision, held that slaves were “beings of an inferior order . . . so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” BL didn't M to him,
I hesitate to mention the Blessed Virgin in this context, but this is a Hail Mary pass by the Republican Party. They are hoping that it will energize the Catholics and Evangelicals that are falling away from Trump around an anti-abortion justice and that this will carry through to the election. On the other hand, there's McConnell's flagrant hypocrisy and the (possible) fact that the electorate can't see this for what it is.
DeleteI think most people can understand "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". McConnell is making up his own rules as he goes along.
DeleteI wonder what would happen if they nominated a Republican version of Merrick Garland; a jurist who is slightly right of center with distinguished credentials. Someone not Ted Cruz or Tom Cotton. If people would be willing to live with that and concentrate on other pressing issues, which haven't taken a vacation.
I predict that the are going to nominate someone to the hard Right. This is about pulling in their fragmenting base, not pulling in moderates. It's too late for the moderates. As I keep reminding people, Trump is laboring under two major problems. His record and his mouth. And there is nothing he can do about either of them at this point.
DeleteIt seems tolerably clear that Trump will nominate one from a short list of women. Why it must be a woman, I don't know; why limit one's options? (I thought the same about Biden's search for a running mate). If history repeats itself, the Democrats will search for some way to run out the clock. Trump certainly is incompetent enough to nominate someone with enough skeletal material in the closet to make a handful of Republicans queasy about charging forward; and we already know, from the Kavenaugh hearings, that Denocrats in the Senate have no compunction about rubbing out and redrawing whatever line they previously thought should never be crossed.
DeleteI just watched Chuck Todd spend 10 minutes doing the equivalent of screaming, "You're a hypocrite!" at some Republican senator from Wyoming. The latter didn't bat an eye. The hides of Republican senators seem sufficiently thick to withstand the little stings and bites of the Chuck Todds of the world. If I had to make a prediction, I think the Republicans will get this done. But the ties that bind us will have frayed even more.
I read that Amy Coney Barrett (hope I spelled that right) was on the short list. Which wouldn't be so bad. I would have preferred her to Kavanaugh the first time.
DeleteAbout why Biden felt he needed to choose a woman for a running mate, and why Trump thinks he needs to nominate a woman for SCOTUS, both of them realize they can't win without getting women's votes. But we're not a monolith voting bloc. Most of us have already decided who we're going to vote for, based on other issues.
DeleteKatherine, I believe you will be right about Judge Barrett. Before Kavanaugh, both Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Diana Feinstein made it clear that they would barf if they had t consider her. The Don remembers everything. He will nominate Judge Barrett just to see them barf.
DeleteLet 'em barf. She's not "their" kind of woman, but she's a lot more qualified than Tom Cotton!
DeleteI heard somewhere earlier today that Biden now has promised to nominate a black woman.
DeleteMaybe Anita Hill? Since Trump has turned government into farce, why not turn the courts into reality TV?
DeleteWhat the Court does NOT need is another right-wing Catholic a la Amy Coney Barrett!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAs of this moment, The Don has promised us a woman. Biden has stupidly, sight unseen, promised us a black woman. Kanye West, who is running in some states to draw off votes from Biden, might be able to get elected by promising us a gay black woman. First things first.
DeleteAbout Barrett being a right-wing Catholic, we are going to get some flavor of right-wing. Is a right wing Evangelical any better? Though the Dems are justly spoiling for a fight, it could backfire badly on them to beat up on a nominee because of her religious beliefs. They need to stick to qualifications and judicial record.
Delete"They need to stick to qualifications and judicial record."
DeleteI don't think justices have been selected on its criteria for a very long time, if ever.
It would be best if neither the "devout" evangelical nor this particular "devout" Catholic is trusted with the issues of religious freedom, gay civil rights, and anything related to "women's issues" - contraception and abortion especially. Not convinced that they wouldn't rule based on their religious convictions instead of based on the Constitution.
DeleteThere is too much "religious freedom for me but not for thee" going on in the Catholic and Evangelical worlds these days.
As far as the Catholic candidate goes, perhaps they also need to look into the implications of her affiliation with a "covenanted" Catholic group which sounds a bit like a cult.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/prospective-supreme-court-nominee-puts-spotlight-people-praise
Jim P made a good point above: If it was wrong for Repubs to block Obama's nominee on the grounds that it was too close to the election, then it's wrong for Dems to do the same.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if the Republicans had been sincere about their excuses for not considering Garland, then, as principled elected officials, they would be waiting until after the election to consider a replacement for Ginsberg.
They're not.
So I can only assume that they were simply stealing a nomination from the Democrats in the event Trump won, which he did. In that case, they owe the Dems an appointment in the event Biden wins.
I don't think much of Jim's tu quoque. When McConnell (let's leave the Republicans out of it for a moment because this, like everything else these days, is one powerful man's ego) invented a reason for not giving the Black president's nominee a hearing he could stop it. Today the Ds can't stop him from giving the crazy president's candidate a hearing. As I said above, 2016 was politics; this is optics.
DeleteI note Sen. Murkowski says she believed in the principle in 2016 and still believes in it and so does not favor a vote. Susan Collins said approximately the same thing, but she is famous for her round heels. Murkowski has an out; she could oppose holding a vote but then, when McConnell calls it, she could vote aye since it is being held even though she doesn't like it. I suspect, though, that she will be reminded of Alaska oil leases long before it comes to that. Mitt Romney has not been heard from. But it would take four Republican defections to block a nominee, and I can't see four that don't include Sen. Roundheels.
The rest of the Republicans will do a 180 on Supreme Court timing, as they are told. Which, btw, is what they must do as Billy Barr reads the Constitution, and as the Federalist Society -- which is about to get its sixth member on the court -- preaches that the Constitution must say because the Society thinks it should say that. The senators will make lovely potted palms when The Don makes major announcements during his second and third terms -- as the Founders would have intended if they had been as smart as Sam Alito.
Tom, I think Jim's argument falls apart on close examination of the specifics: The president is the president, and the president has the privilege, right, and obligation, to fill vacancies on the Court.
DeleteMcConnell's argument against the Garland nomination was specious and motivated by his vow to prevent Obama from doing his job. His vow to get a confirmation before the election this time proves that he was acting out of spite in the Garland nomination, not principle.
I do object to calling Collins "Senator Round Heels." Aside from the lewd and sexist nature of this moniker, no Republican senators besides her, Murkowski, Mitt Romney, and the late John McCain have bucked, Trump at all. You can say they haven't bucked him enough, but they're the closest thing that the GOP has to sanity at this point.
Jean, I have often heard round heels applied to a cave-in during business negotiations. In fact, that is the first way I heard the term used. (Late puberty?) I can think of only one issue on which Collins didn't make noises until the last moment and then decide aye. That was the effort to forthrightly get rid of the dreaded Obamacare. Before and after her big moment (with McCain and Murkowski) she has had lot and lots of TV face time adding up to ... one more cave in to Mitch and The Don. I'm soooo tired of it.
DeleteThe reason she gets so much face time is because she DID buck Trump on Obama care and the media are hoping she'll do it again. Also she wrote a pretty strong WaPo editorial before the 2016 election explaining why she would not back Trump.
DeleteA gentleman does not refer to women as round-heeled in a public forum. Google it.
I withdraw the heels.
DeleteI appreciate it, and I hope we all (meaning you) learned something here today.
DeleteGinsburg was no doubt a competent, smart lady. But after Obama was elected, she should, at some point, have seen the direction things were going and resigned so that the Democratic president and Senate could have appointed someone younger and healthier and, yes, female. In other words, she needed to take one for the country. Her deathbed wish for the appointment to be delayed is just that and will have no effect on the cold-blooded Turtle. That is why I can't enthusiastically join in all the praise for Ginsburg after her death. This situation could and should have been avoided.
ReplyDeleteStanley, who in 2016 did not expect President Hillary Clinton to choose Ginsburg's successor?
DeleteI agree with Stanley. You can't predict which way an election is going to go with certainty. And you can't predict if a fight against cancer is going to be successful. She had started having health problems well ahead of 2016. It would have been better if she resigned before the Senate got flipped. Merrick Garland could have been nominated and seated, and we could have been spared this additional drama in this year of COVID, racial turmoi, corrosive election politics, and America literally being on fire.
DeleteThe network news reported that Ginsberg planned to retire after Hillary won. She wanted to be replaced by the first woman oresident. Apparently, she was shocked at the 2016 outcome. Like most limousine liberals, she suffered from a failure to understand just how awful the American underbelly is and what happens when they crawl out of their bunkers and turn out to vote.
DeleteThere were Dems at the time who thought Ginsberg should have retired during Obama's administration. I pretty much agreed.
Tom, after the Tea Party Rise of the Loud and Stupid, I was not surprised the Senate flipped Republican. Obama attempted to work with them, even cracking down on immigrants. Nothing budged them, even cracking down on immigrants to appease their nasty souls. They only wanted the whole game, gameboard and pieces. The election of black Obama stirred all the deplorables that resent being called deplorable. I was not terribly surprised when Hillary lost to Trump. I'll be an optimist when the Republican Party no longer curses the face of the earth.
ReplyDeleteI am glad to see that the round-heels controversy has been resolved. Had never heard the term; according to one dictionary which Google popped up, it can refer either to a boxer who gets knocked down frequently (presumably Tom's metaphor) or a woman of easy virtue. Anyway, I learned a new term, which apparently I'm not able to use. That used to happen nearly every day in 2nd grade!
ReplyDeleteBack to the topic at hand: I'm grateful that our republic can put forth for public service such talented and distinguished persons as Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If it is to pan out as Trump and McConnell apparently are maneuvering, let's hope the president's team identifies someone of similar caliber as RBG, even if the politics won't be identical on every point.
Neil Gorsuch has not turned out to be an abject horror on the court. It remains to be seen whether Beer Boy Brett will grow into his role. FWIW, I think it's probably good to have fairly conservative people on the bench, unwilling to push law and precedent too far, and to make it clear that there are some inequities in the law that must be addressed by Congress. The Dred Scott decision was a travesty ... but it was a fair construction of what the law said, and for abolitionists, it threw into high relief exactly why the law needed to be changed.
DeleteI'm sorry (for you) if you felt the round heels digression was frivolous and off-topic. I just get sick and tired of women being called sluts for caving in too easily and bitches if they don't. And of men using these slurs and then gaslighting women if they complain by saying, oh, they're just old boxing terms.
I highly doubt whether you would tolerate someone calling your wife or daughter(s) Ms. Round Heels for compromising or caving on an issue.
However, if you really want to use your new term, my guess is that you can find a men's locker room where this type of speech is lovingly preserved.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"I think it's probably good to have fairly conservative people on the bench..." So do I. But these conservatives aren't. They are members of the Federalist Society, where the official position is closer to the jurisprudence of Robert Barr than of John Marshall. Since 2007, when Chief Roberts discovered that Brown v Board of Education forbids school integration planning (Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education), it has been one disregard for stare decisis after another. I'd call them disrupters.
DeleteOn the metaphor that dare not speak its name, I first heard it while being driven to 7th or 8th grade by a neighbor in the real estate business. He mentioned a competitor who claimed to fight for his clients but joined the opposition as soon as the other side rolled its eyes. Then he invoked the metaphor. Which I immediately recognized as one of those things we just learned about in school and internalized it. We are talking 1946, '47, around there.
Yes, right-wing culture warrior (or left-wing ditto) does not = judicial conservative.
DeleteI didn't think the round-heels discussion was frivolous, and I don't mind when the discussion meanders off-topic. I really didn't know what the term meant; had never heard it before. Now that I know what it means, I don't have any particular yen to use it. I try not to speak of women in demeaning ways.
DeleteTweets from Chuck Grassley within the hour don't sound like he is leaning toward putting off a court homie hearing:
ReplyDelete--Democrats don’t like that the American ppl elected Pres Trump & GOP Senate in 2016+2018 Democrats threatening to eliminate the filibuster/pack the courts bc Republicans are doing as the Constitution allows shows they will say/do anything if they don’t get their way
--With a divided govt in 2016 there was ambiguity about what the American ppl wanted for the direction of the Supreme Court/ voters expanded republican majority in 2018 election after 2 Trump scotus confirmations There’s no ambiguity now w Republican Senate & president
But enough about that. Over the wwekend, Grassley found a dead "pidgin" on his farm. The bird (burd?) was banded, and Sen. Grassley published tell banding info. He learned this afternoon that
--The pidgins life that ended near Grassley farm this wknd hailed from the Sheboygan flying club in Wisconsin I stand corrected it wasn’t a “pet” it was a racing pidgin thx to my followers for the info
So at least that's cleared up, thank God.
Gosh, and just a couple of months ago, Chuck said if he were running the Judiciary Committee, he wouldn't hold hearings under these conditions. Another case of where you stand depends on who is sitting on you. Senate Republicans can't stand up to The Don, who can't stand up to Putin. Maybe we should call the Senate the Duma.
DeleteImportant as the Supreme Court is, I have been thinking about how little it has to do with actual governance. Its input isn't on the front line. For instance it is likely that it will be asked to rule on the constitutionality of this or that aspect of immigration policy. But the stuff that's going on where the rubber meets the road here and now is being implemented by the administration. The SCOTUS has no impact on immediate foreign policy, or COVID response. It didn't have anything to do with dissolving a response group whose job was to stay on top of possible epidemics. It doesn't have anything to do with the president's interactions with Putin or Xi Jinping. What I am saying is that SCOTUS appointments are one issue among many. The court is downstream from decisions made in real time by a president.
ReplyDeleteI get your point, but overturning Obama care could have direct effect on a lot of people in the midst of a pandemic. And getting rid of pre-existing coverage means that those who have long-term covid effects will be up a creek.
DeleteWhether you see it as good or bad, overturning Roe will have an effect on people. The info I keep hearing is that Clarence Thomas claims to have some ironclad argument all set that will overturn it and has been biding his time, waiting for the right makeup on the Court and the right case.
Good point about Obamacare and pre-existing conditions. I am more concerned about that than which way they go with Roe. Based on what I've seen of Thomas, I remain to be convinced that he has anything brilliant up his sleeve.
DeleteAll the elections cases will go to the Supremes, too. A thumb on the scale against counting blue ballots in purple states is all it takes. As 2000 taught, the voters count for nothing once the candidates' lawyers take over.
DeleteShould someone with Ms Barrett’s background be put in a powerful position which involves making decisions about the rights of gays and women? Will she really be able to make decisions based on the Constitution and set aside her religious beliefs?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-people-praise-group-inspired-handmaids-tale-1533293?fbclid=IwAR31EAkap5adUYrWb1ULLFBYHXj2m-vsaOXs42sFN4cPhSPwE7mJJtJjoL8
It is unclear how involved Barrett still is with People of Praise. It is odd that she is (and has been for many years) a working wife and mother, and is in a position of authority as a circuit judge in a court of appeals, if she is still actively involved in the group. P of P is a group which promotes male headship and that sort of thing, which would seem a contradiction with her professional life.
DeleteI am more worried about how she or any Trump appointee would vote on anything to do with the ACA.
It should be noted that Barrett is one of five people being considered. She may not get it and she may not be the worst candidate among the five.
This nomination is going to be made by a Republican president, and naturally he will nominate someone whose views are consonant with his own and his party. Whether is it Barrett or someone else, it will be someone who is expected to be skeptical of Roe v Wade.
DeleteI'd be very surprised if Barrett or any other Trump nominee would be looking to overturn Obergefell. I don't think there is much air in that particular balloon in Conservativeland. I guess we may find out, sooner or later.
Every judge has to hear cases and make rulings on laws with which s/he may personally disagree. Most judges manage it without a problem. The Senate already has vetted Barrett on this point - in the case of a few Democrats, in the most disturbingly anti-Catholic way possible. That incident won't have been lost on Trump, who is entirely capable of thinking more about the short term and his personal gain (looking to instigate Senate Democrats in a way that may help him the upcoming election) than in the longer term and for the good of the country.
"Every judge has to hear cases and make rulings on laws with which s/he may personally disagree.... The Senate already has vetted Barrett on this point - in the case of a few Democrats, in the most disturbingly anti-Catholic way possible." Jim, you are of course right about that. And Biden has thus far resisted any urge to wind up those Senate Democrats.
DeleteAbout Republican presidents nominating someone with Republican views, I understand that. It's actually constitutional for them to nominate who they want. What shouldn't have been accepted as constitutional was McConnell's action in 2016, denying that a president couldn't nominate someone in an election year.
Now there are proposals floating around to amend the Constitution to prevent future Senates from doing what McConnell did in 2016; the idea is that the Senate would be given a certain amount of time, e.g. 60 days, to vote on a president's nomination. If the deadline passes, the nominee is considered to have been confirmed.
DeleteThis has been compared to a pocket veto, but I admit it's not entirely clear to me why that is; it seems more like the opposite to me. Or maybe the idea is that McConnell exercised the equivalent of a pocket veto in 2016, and wouldn't be permitted to do that anymore.
The alternate possibility, back in 2016, would have been for McConnell and the majority Republicans in the Senate to consider Garland's nomination and then reject it. I don't understand why they didn't just go down that path. If the idea was that simply refusing to take up the nomination would result in less furor, then - I don't think it was a good idea. It didn't pan out that way. Perhaps it spared Garland the public humiliation that Kavanaugh was dragged through.
"Should someone with Ms Barrett’s background be put in a powerful position which involves making decisions about the rights of gays and women?"
DeleteI don't think that Barrett, or probably any of the conservative judges, would look to overturn Obergefell because they are anti-gay-marriage. What they object to is the tendency of the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench. Among the philosophical tenets of the Federalist Society - and I agree with this - is that it is the job of Congress, not the Supreme Court, to make laws to improve society.
One way to think of this is that, if the justices are being true to this philosophy, then any decision, whether it is considered liberal or conservative, could be subject to this critique. For example, if these justices deemed Citizens United to fall prey to the same judicial lawmaking tendency, then to be consistent, these same justices would wish to roll that back, too.
Another way to think about this is, if the Supreme Court is asked to rule on a law which was passed in the approved legislative way, then they wouldn't invalidate it on that basis, even if the law itself decrees something which these justices detest (e.g. that abortion is legal). I think we've seen some instances of this in the last couple of years from the Roberts court; presented with a couple of recent opportunities to roll back abortion availability in particular states, they've declined, because there was nothing defective about the laws in question.
For all of Kavanaugh's public humiliation he was nevertheless seated on the Supreme Court. Was it fair to use him for payback time for Merrick Garland? No. But Garland should have at least had a hearing.
Delete"Will she really be able to make decisions based on the Constitution and set aside her religious beliefs?"
DeleteI am not concerned about that. Justice Brennan, serious Catholic, voted with a liberal tendency, and Justice Scalia, serious enough Catholic, voted with a different tendency. Brennan didn't march to the bishops' trumpet on abortion, and Scalia publicly said the Church was hysterical and wrong about the death penalty. I am more concerned about their pre-existing judicial cabalism in the Federalist Society, which we didn't have when presidents chose from the broader American Bar Association.
Katherine, she was part of an extremist religious organization. Do you have evidence that she actually has rejected her former views?
ReplyDeleteThere are evangelical christian women whose professional careers seem to be in conflict with their nominal religious views - look at Paula White for example. I don't trust religious extremists to make impartial rulings in controversial areas such as gay rights, women's rights, or religious "freedom" - which very often means "freedom for my religious views but not for yours". This definitely is an important factor when ruling on abortion. I was horrified by both the Hobby Lobby and cakemaker opinions. Someone like her could also threaten workplace rights for minorities - racial, gender, and sexuality.
She is only 48 - selecting her could spell deep trouble for those minorities for a very long time. The workplace could become even more hotile towards women than it is now.
Unless you have evidence that she has rejected her former extremist views?
Anne - al Qaeda and ISIS are extremist religious organizations. I don't think this little group of charismatics is the same category.
DeleteMy only evidence is her professional life which seems incongruous with the charismatic group. Her parents are also members of the group and she may retain membership more for family ties than anything else.
DeleteI am unwilling to label them as "extremist" when it seems like they are your pretty much typical evangelical or conservative Catholic lay focus group. In spite of Newsweek's rather sensational article linking them with "Handmaidens", since they weren't even the group which inspired that novel. Would I join that group or one like it? Not with a ten foot pole. But I think there is too much focus on that and not enough on judicial record.
What Jim said about Isis or al Qaeda. Or Hillsboro Baptists.
DeleteKatherine, have you looked into her record? I haven't - not yet.
ReplyDeleteIf you have, I would be interested in knowing. When I have more time, I will look into it.
It seems that both you and Jim may be partial to her because she is Catholic, looking past the ref flags that her form of Catholicism raise for those who don't share them. For Jim, abortion is the bottom line. For me, and many others, there are other issues of great importance that deal with the rights of women,racial minorities, homosexual rights, immigrant rights, etc. I am not a one-issue voter.
I left the RCC partly because it - like the evangelical churches - teaches "complementarity" - code for "God has deigned that women are to be subservient to men. Men are to 'lead" - in the church and in the family." JPII basically wrote that women are to be passive partners in marriage - women are meant to passively "receive" and men are meant to "act". This patriarchal view in the RCC and evangelical churches translates into meaning "Men have the divine right to determine what women may choose to do in their lives." Some people used to point out that there were now women theologians in the RCC, women teaching theology even.
I would point out that those women can only teach the theology that has been mostly developed by men, and must always be approved by men. Hence some women theologians have lost their jobs - especially those who have demonstrated that there is no biblical or theological justification for denying a sacrament to someone because of their genes. So, in the theology of religious complementarity, women may only do what men ALLOW them to do.
Apparently Ms. Barrett subscribes to this view - at least she did. She has had a significant career - would she have if her husband hadn't "allowed" her to pursue it?
They may not seem extremist to you now, because all of us were indoctrinated from birth with this belief. Men are priests, women may not be ordained. The RCC isn't usually as forthright about men being the family authoritarian decision maker - but the evangelicals are VERY explicit about that. This is also the view of the group that Ms. Barrett was (is? Is she still?) affiliated with who seem to be just as extreme as the evangelicals on this count. Plus, the way the group operates is very cult like.
No, I very much hope that this woman is not chosen. If she would openly disavows some of these views, I would be more comfortable with it. If she openly says she is opposed to discrimination against gays in employment, housing etc, it would be good. But the trump people are advancing the idea that people can discriminate if it's against their personal religious beliefs. So if someone bakes cakes, they can refuse to do so for people who are gay because it's against their religious beliefs. Organizations funded by US tax money - such as Catholic Charities - can legally discriminate against gays in employment, or in adoptions, if they wish.
I consider this type of religion to present a danger to women's rights and to gay rights, and even to the rights of racial minorities. The argument that a business open to serve the public can discriminate against gays means that they could, perhaps, refuse service to my son and daughter-in-law because my son is white and she is black - it's only a bit more than 50 years since Virginia's law against inter-racial marriage was overturned.
The Judge in Virginia said that interracial marriage was against divine law.
The Hobby Lobby and cake baker cases (it less than Hobby Lobby because they ruled on something not directly related to religious freedom but it will come back again in a different form and the Supremes will be on the spot to rule) clearly demonstrate that there are judicial threats to freedom of religion for those who don't share conservative Catholic/evangelical Protestant views. Amy Barrett's past affiliation raises red flags.
I think we should wait for some actual evidence before we conclude that she's some sort of handmaiden zombie.
DeleteHave you seen any indication that she rejects the views of the group she belonged to? Has she clearly indicated that gay civil rights should not be subject to the individual religious beliefs of businesses and tax-supported nonprofits with the “religious freedom” arguments?
DeleteI didn’t pay close attention last time, because it seems her candidacy then never gained traction.
So I am open to learning her views on religious freedom. But if she is nominated, she will be confirmed. The questions will be pro forms - a charade. And Americans could be stuck with her for at least 30-40 years.
Somehow her views should be made known before there are hearings. Not sure how that will happen though
Abortion and gay rights overwhelm the debate on this candidate. If Roe is overturned, it might mean a bus ticket stands between a woman and her procedure. At worst, it may mean gay couples can't buy cakes (with human bodily fluids as ingredients) from people who hate them.
ReplyDeleteI want to know how this woman will rule on unions, employee rights, right to peacefully demonstrate. Haven't heard much about that.
Stanley, yes, and the ACA. And pre-existing conditions. These things may ultimately affect everyone.
DeletePeaceful assembly will be a dead letter in four years if The Don is re-elected. I am trying to put together a post on that very point, but demands on my attention (and patience) are multiplying.
DeleteTom, I look forward to reading your post. The way that Trump has conflated "protesters" and "demonstrations" with "anarchists" and "riots" is disturbing. Especially since the right is totally silent about the guns-and-ammo counter-protesters who show up loaded for bear.
DeleteA protest may be loud and obnoxious without resulting in violence to persons or property. I attended many once upon a time. I may do so again if things get worse and I can get The Boy to push my wheelchair. I may not be very ambulatory, but my ability to be loud and obnoxious will be the last one to go.
Sorry for length:
ReplyDeleteI understand the concerns about Barrett (do we even know if she is the official candidate yet?). And, full disclosure, I tend to think of charismatics as hysterics whose speaking in tongues is a very dubious manifestation of the Holy Spirit because it does nobody any spiritual or material good. I accept that the Church gives charismatics wide latitude and that I must tolerate them, even if I have pretty much closed my mind about them.
If Barrett is unable to apply precedent and accepted legal means of to her opinions and instead starts talking in tongues at court proceedings, quotes the CCC as a higher authority than the U.S. Constitution, tells people that angels have told her to rule a certain way, or starts acting like her covenanted membership in P of P is trumps her oath of office--then I think it's likely she would be removed from the bench.
I presume that she has kept her seat in her current jurisdiction because she is NOT doing those things.
Fine by me if Dems want to grill her about her personal stance on abortion, gay marriage, dog licensing, childhood vaccinations, and the correct way to make pancake batter (tip: no sugar). Get her on record and give her a good going over. That's what hearings are for.
But as far as affiliations with religious groups and events go, I honestly think the National Prayer Breakfast is a far more insidious institution than People of Prayer, and nobody blinks an eye when elected officials, judges, and other influentials show up to that and break out into secret little conclaves where cameras are banned.
The bigger travesty in this situation isn't that Trump is nominating a candidate to the Supreme Court, which is his job. And it isn't necessarily that he's appointing a possible religious nut to the bench. It's that Mitch McConnell refused to even consider Merrick Garland, which was his job, in 2016.
My view is that Mitch McConnell is the proven threat to our constitutional freedoms, not Judge Barrett. At least not at this point.
Even McConnell doesn’t have 40 years in a guaranteed job to wreak havoc on our country. The Republican will confirm her even if she does speak in tongues during the hearings.
DeleteBelonging to a group whose official “laws” include accepting male “headship” scares me to death because of the implications for potential rulings on a wide range of issues. We have no votes. But I see danger ahead for women, gays, racial minorities, labor and the entire country if “religious freedom” is defined through a conservative evangelical Protestant or conservative Catholic viewpoint.
Jean - no argument from me on any of your points. Although the pancake batter tip intrigues me. Must try it ...
DeletePancake batter: Adding sugar to the batter makes the cakes heavy and soggy. You're going to drown everything in syrup, anyway, so you don't need more sweetener.
Delete1 cup flour
1 cup milk (plus a little water if you like thinner batter)
1 egg
2 tsp baking powder
2 tbsp light cooking oil
Measures approximate.
Mix with a wire whisk. Mixing with a spoon leaves too many lumps. Mixing with an electric mixer screws up the baking soda. This batter works in the waffle iron, too, and you won't have to throw the first one away.
That's pretty close to what I do. I use a little less milk, a little more oil and a little more baking powder. And 2 tbsp sugar. I almost always add fruit, too - there is always some sort of berry or stone fruit or some such in the fridge that I want use up before it dies. And when I add fruit, I add cinnamon, too.
DeleteThey come out pretty tasty, but they are different than restaurant style. I have never been sure whether that was because of the recipe or the cooking equipment (hard to replicate a restaurant's flat grill in a home kitchen), or maybe the cooking technique.
Not to go full-bore Betty Crocker. I'm all for making what works for you. Raber likes blueberries in the batter. I prefer to stir berries into ricotta cheese with some powdered sugar and top the pancakes or waffles with that. I tell myself it's healthier than syrup.
DeleteGriddles are tetchy. I have to keep adjusting the heat down as I go. Waffle iron is self-adjusting.
Now I'm hungry, but I haven't thought about Trump for 10 minutes. So. Yay.
My favorite pancake recipe is a lower carb one where you fold egg yolks, ricotta cheese, flour, and milk into whipped egg whites. Very fluffy and moist, but takes a little time, so I make a big batch and freeze some of them.
DeleteThey all sound delicious. All I have to do is find someone to make them for me.
DeleteHad some blueberries this morning to use up. Was going to try Jean's pancake recipe, but thought I had too many blueberries, so made a double batch of muffins instead. Then turn on the television and learned that today is National Pancake Day. D'oh!
DeleteStanley, women’s rights are not limited to abortion. We are already seeing trumps impact on issues related to sexual harassment, insurance coverage for contraception, on how to treat campus allegations of rape, including date rape etc. RBG worked to expand the rights of women, not convinced that Barrett will.
ReplyDeleteLetting public businesses get away with discrimination against gays is just as wrong as letting them get away with discrimination against racial minorities. You know darn well that the issue of religious freedom symbolized by suits against cake bakers, florists and photographers is very important- legalizing this kind of discrimination by claiming “religious freedom” will open the door to a whole lot worse situations than having to find another florist. Employee rights are tied up with both gay rights and women’s rights.
She could be a disastrous choice for those concerned about all these rights.
Anne, I haven't heard anything mentioned besides identity issues. I think this plays to Republican advantage. Abortion may be a no-brainer show stopper for many, but they better address other economic and broader rights issues if they want more people to care.
DeleteEJ Dionne had this to say in the WaPo today:
ReplyDelete"Conservatives use Roe v. Wade as a decoy. Of course Roe will continue to matter. But conservatives have brilliantly used the abortion question to distract attention from the core of their activist agenda. It involves dismantling regulation, gutting civil rights laws, narrowing voting rights enforcement giving moneyed interests free rein in our politics, strengthening corporate power, weakening unions, undercutting antitrust laws — and, now, tearing apart the Affordable Care Act."
This is late, but David Brooks didn't agree with me until today:
ReplyDelete"And to be honest about it, our worldly connections are usually more influential than our faith commitments when it comes to our political and professional decisions. If you want to know how Amy Coney Barrett is going to rule, pay more attention to the Federalist Society than to People of Praise, her Christian community."
I agree, Tom. The scariest cults today are the Trump cult, Republican cult and Federalist Society cult. The very fact that Ms. Barrett is cooperating in this naked power play is a disqualifier. The real reason that the Turtle is rushing this is to get her installed in time to make partisan decisions with respect to election results.
DeleteStanley, you are exactly right. This has little to do with trump's courting of the anti-abortion crowd. This is his strongest weapon in his battle to steal the election.
DeleteWell, Brooks may not understand much about these charismatic communities. Until recently he was Jewish and he may not have ever known a charismatic up close. We have friends who are charismatic - evangelical protestants (we don't see them anymore - they moved to Florida and are evangelical trump supporters and it's tough now to even have a conversation). The wife especially is totally nuts as far as I'm concerned. Friends for 35 years though, primarily because my husband and hers worked on some major projects together for years and they bonded over that and sailing.
ReplyDeleteI had a close encounter with one of the communities - probably in the late 80s. A couple of women came to my parish after something - don't remember - and were passing out sheets for a bible study. They would be happy to get your name and contact you. So I signed up.
I got a call a week or two later and was invited to coffee in their home (it turns out that they both lived in the same townhouse with their husbands and kids - two husbands, two wives and I don't know how many kids). I was puzzled but I went.
They started telling me about their community - The Mother of God Community. It is based in a large development of homes, townhouses, condos etc in a town about 15 minute drive from my house. It turns out that one of the women had moved there from her former home which was in my own general neighborhood. She had been in the same parish and we knew some of the same people. It was one of the largest homes in the community - 5 bedrooms, 3 1/2 baths etc. Now she and her family were sharing a townhouse with another family. OK, nothing wrong with simplicity. They talked a while and I think they mentioned that they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and that the HS had guided the community to follow Acts and share homes, tools, gardens etc, etc as a community.
To be honest, I was creeped out by the whole experience. They were saccharine sweet. This was before I had even heard much about cults, but with hindsight, I realized that the "love bombing" they overwhelmed me with is a typical tool to recruit new members. I got out of there as fast as I could. This was probably in the late 80s.
Eventually the archdiocese had to go in and forcibly remove the leadership and "reform" the group. It still exists, but apparently only have about 10% of the membership they had then - probably late 80s. I understand that many of these charistmatic communities in the country had similar problems. The WaPo covered the story in depth - nothing like a good Catholic scandal to get reader attention. Apparently Ms Barrett's group has survived. But frankly, the very fact that she is a member of one of these "covenanted" groups with vows to obey them above all, disqualifies her in my eyes as a SC justice.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/mog/mgod6.htm?p9w22b2p=b2p22p9w00098&tid=a_classic-iphone&no_nav=true
There was a charismatic contingent on our Episcopal parish, dominated by a woman who made an ass of herself smiling and waving to everyone from the choir, and doing musical riffs on her own. They were routinely disruptive during Prayers of the People. The ringleader often standing up and went on and on about an incarcerated individual named Hugh, who I later learned was a convicted pedophile.
DeleteShe was always trying to get others to come to their prayer meetings, "where the real magic happens!"
She was clearly an insane flake.
I have to remember Amy Barrett may be entirely different. I'm trying to remain open minded. John Garvey has a WaPo op ed supporting her. She was his student at ND. I want to believe the mother of a child with Down Syndrome would not rule against a program that provides health care for other women in that boat.
When I accepted the invitation for coffee, I assumed it was part of the advertised bible study. A small group meeting in a home. It was really an attempt to lure me into the community and, if I did that, then could attend their closed bible study.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubts about Barrett’s academic brilliance. I do have doubts that she can make decisions without incorporating her religious beliefs. Anyone who can be part of one of those secretive communities that demands a covenant of obedience cannot be trusted with issues of religious freedom for all as far as I’m concerned. But, she’s the nominee.
People in cliques do weird stuff. Charismatic talk in tongues and can be obnoxious proselytizers. Country clubs have black-balling the Jews and dress codes. The Masons have their white gloves and grandmothers who walk in the east (most of our Founders). The Knights of Columbus have their plumes and swords and their fair "lady" wives. There are pampered rich brats sent to Catholic school by their hover parents (Jusice Kavanaugh).
DeleteI can't stand any of these groups, but I'm not sure we want to impose a lot of purity tests before a hearing because pretty soon you've got nobody except me muttering alone in a corner.
So Barrett may not be any nuttier than others who want to beloved they've been singled out for something exclusive and special.
The K of C dropped their ceiling dusters and now wear berets when in full battledress.
DeleteTom, was that recent? They still dress like pirate kings or First Lord Admirals around here, at least they did the last time I saw them in full panoply.
DeleteJim, Sometime during the summer. There were news stories.
DeleteYeah, they look pretty paramilitary. Geez, Jim, don't you have copies of Columbia lying around he Bingo hall? They featured the new berets, but I think some of the higher ups still use the old garb for dress-up.
DeleteOur new priest is really pushy about membership in the Knights. He sets a quota of 10 new members every year from the two parishes.
I have to remind Raber occasionally that joining the Knights is a bridge too far for me. I'll stick with him through sickness, poverty, plague, and playing the ukulele. But not the Knights. I will gladly sign off on the annulment and let him marry some Good Catholic to be his Ladie Faire.
If the Knights are updating, perhaps they will replace their swords with AR-15's.
DeleteStanley, the Swiss Guard did.
DeleteTom, that's a relief. Don't bring a sword to a gun fight. Keep the cool costumes, though.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere are pampered rich brats sent to Catholic school by their hover parents (Jusice Kavanaugh).
ReplyDeleteOK< in defense of men who went to Georgetown Prep - I know from many years of personal experience with GP that the scenario laid out by Kavanaugh's accuser was utterly plausible. There definitely has always been a group of rich, entitled brat boys at that school who drank a lot, partied a lot, and bragged about their conquests of the girls at the local private girls' schools.
However, we know many Prep grads. Some are friends of ours and are our age. Some of them have (now adult) sons who went to Prep also who are good, normal people. Not mega-rich, but they did grow up as part of the 'upper middle class". Friends of our sons who went to the same RC elementary school also graduated from Prep - good, solid young men now. The brat boys get a lot of attention, but most of the students are decent kids from decent families.
We moved into our community 48 years ago. It was outside the beltway and most people considered it to be the "country". Now it's considered to be practically a neighbor of the White House! (we are 11 miles from the DC line, 15 miles from the WH). So our home prices skyrocketed over the almost half century we've lived here, as the area continued to develop, and the suburbs extended out out to the Pennsylvania and West Virginia lines. We have excellent public schools. If you drive by the parking lots of the local public schools you will see a sea of high end cars - the kids' cars. The same kinds of cars you might see at Prep. (Most of the Prep families we knew carpooled with parents driving, and didn't buy cars for their kids in high school). The public school kids here go to the same kinds of colleges and universities as the Prep kids. So, there are plenty of entitled brats in the public schools here too. Don't judge all Georgetown Prep kids by Kavanaugh!
So maybe don't judge Barrett by your experience with charismatics?
DeleteSorry, but I do. Not because she’s charismatic but because of the vows required and the secrecy of the group she belongs to. If she were just charismatic like our friends for decades, but not affiliated with a group that requires vows to people in the group, and which is not transparent but keeps some information about what goes on secret, I would be less concerned. Our friends do not belong to such a group. They just choose churches where speaking in tongues is ok and which have a lot of “praise music”. No vows to the group, no secrecy.
DeleteJean, people in country clubs who discriminate impact only a few people. If those people decide to take it to court, it could end up helping them and others who would be discriminated against. The Knights have silly rituals and look ridiculous in their costumes, and I don't like how they work to support uber-conservative politicians and prelates. But they don't have the impact of the Supreme Court, and, as far as I know, they don't take secret oaths of obedience to the Knights. Or do they? Should I be concerned if a K of C person is nominated? Are any of the current Catholic SC justices K of C?
ReplyDeleteEveryone, but everyone, says Ms. Barrett is brilliant. Most also like her as a person. Does that matter? How much?
My problem with Barrett is her affiliation with a group that is somewhat fanatic religiously, is not transparent, requires oaths to their authority, and is patriarchal. The secretiveness is a bad sign.
As brilliant as she may be, the fact that she has spent her life until now, from college to decades later, associated with this group does not give me confidence that her rulings on religious freedom for all (including Muslims), civil rights for minorities (especially gays and women), etc, will be good for the country. She can impact the entire nation. A member of a country cub who discriminates does not. Apparently the group took her name off their website in 2017. I assume that was to try to disguise the fact that she has supported this group since her college days. Fine for her if she wants to vow obedience to them, and she doesn't mind agreeing that husbands have the final authority in the families, but now she could be in a position to translate those beliefs into decisions that will hurt this country.
So, the questions is - can she separte her personal beliefs that are suspiciously close to those of a religious fanatic, from the constitution. Or will she read it in the way she wants to read it?
Worst of all, will her appointment move this country away from democratic freedoms by enabling trump to steal the election?
No, the K of C don't have any secret oath of obedience. And now they have opened up their induction ceremonies to the families, so there isn't anything secret. And my husband told me the supposed secret hand signal a long time ago. If any justices are members they might get asked to work a fish fry. I will give them credit that they pull their weight around the parish and don't palm off all the cooking and cleaning chores on the women.
DeleteI am a lot more concerned about ACB's position on "stare decisis" than her religious groups.
Katherine, Ruth Marcus has a column on stare decisis in the WaPo. She is apparently very willing to ignore precedent in her rulings.
DeleteLink to Ruth Marcus column, Sorry I forgot to include it in the comment.
Deletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-bombshell-consequences-of-amy-coney-barrett/2020/09/25/3531ab9c-ff6f-11ea-8d05-9beaaa91c71f_story.html
If I were on the Judiciary Committee I would have two questions for ACB. 1) Will you recuse yourself if this election -- one campaign of which you are now a conspicuous part -- comes before the court? 2) On the whole, do you think Pope Francis is up to his job?
DeleteThe reason for the first question is obvious. The reason for the second is that the "supreme authority" in her community is allegedly a panel of men. That won't do for Catholics, unless they think that, for some reason (usually not being anti-Semitic anymore) the see of Peter is "vacant," despite the body occupying it. In which event they are schismatic, and "devout Catholic" or "fervent Catholic" are not appropriate descriptors.
Tom, I'm no following you here.
Delete1) Are you saying that Barrett is actively working for Trump as his partisan? And that that disqualifies her from ruling on a contested election?
2) How does her view of Pope Francis have any bearing on her fitness as a justice?
I guess I could see asking her if she believes in male headship as it pertains to her job on the court, that is, will she feel compelled to do whatever the male justices tell her to? Or at least the Catholic men?
The Democratic questioning strategy should be to a) bait her politely but relentlessly so that she freaks out and can't be confirmed (unlikely--Kavanaugh and Thomas pitched fits in their hearings and were confirmed anyway); b) get anything on the record that might be grounds for impeachment; c) ensure that she looks bad enough to undecided voters such that they will turn against Trump for nominating her (always dicey if it just looks like bigotry against Catholics).
The purpose of the questioning, I surmise, is to throw her character and views into sharp relief. If she stands on her head and starts rapping, the Republican Senate will still confirm her.
DeleteOn the first question, everything Trump touches, including Air Force One and the White House(both of which belong to the nation, but he ignores that) is part of his campaign. But the timing and selection of Barrett is so blatant, she doesn't have to say his name, she only has to go along with his ploy. Which she will. So she is as much a part of the campaign as Eric (who is so busy campaigning he can't appear in court) or Billy Barr. C'mon.
DeleteI know the relation of the pope to your normal, everyday Catholics. But some Catholics these days are more Catholic than the pope. If they are honest, they will admit their allegiance to the Vatican is on pause and they are waiting for Francis to die and have successor more in the mold of JPII the great or Pio Nono. If that is the case, what I know about Catholics and the pope doesn't apply, and I have the old Protestant worry: Who is she taking orders from?
How Barrett feels about Pope Francis is of virtually no interest to most Americans, much less most Catholics, and I think you'd have difficulty asking a question like that.
DeleteI don't think her affiliation with charismatic is of much interest to anyone unless it can be demonstrated it interferes with her ability to interpret the constitution within normal parameters.
Jim P. mentioned "legislating from the bench," an accusatory phrase conservatives like to use against justices that upset the status quo. They should find a better one. ALL Supreme Court decisions are legislative in some way. Maintaining he stays quo is legislation of a sort. Even refusing to hear a case is legislative. The separation of powers ooze a bit, I think.
Here is a reflection by someone who actually did grow up in a charismatic renewal cult. And who describes the ongoing pain that has caused in her life. She also links a Twitter thread by Sam Rocha. Who also grew up in a charismatic cult. For what it's worth, neither of these people think People of Praise qualifies as a cult. But both describe the pain a cult causes, and why the suspicion of one raises flags with people.
ReplyDeleteAnd reading both accounts makes me very grateful that I didn't grow up in that kind of environment.
Katherine, the author says this: I don’t think raising concerns about somebody involved with a Charismatic Community is the same as applying a “religious test” to being a justice on the Supreme Court. It’s not a matter of Amy Coney Barrett’s Catholicism. It’s a matter of her being a member of a type of insular community that so often walks and quacks like a cult.
DeleteI agree with this statement. It affirms what I have been saying. While not calling People of Praise a cult, she indicates that this is a real possibility with that statement.