Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court Justice

[jeannetherese]

“It was actually Thomas Jefferson himself who said that ‘We might as well ask a man to still wear the coat which fitted him when he was a boy as expect future generations to live under’ — what he called — ‘the regime of their barbarous ancestors.’”

I wonder if Mr. Jefferson might not have been critiquing the monarchy in this quote?
The Constitution offered an alternative to the concentration of power under the monarchy. Creating checks and balances through the separation of powers helps to uphold this alternative.
Perhaps as an originalist, Mrs. Coney Barret will uphold the independence of the judiciary, when confronted by those who wish it to sway before the winds of public opinion or the pressures brought to bear by powerful individuals.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Pete Buttigieg:

“At the end of the day, rights in this country have been expanded because courts have understood what the true meaning of the letter of the law and the spirit of the constitution is,” he said. "That is not about time-traveling yourself back to the 18th century and subjecting yourself to the same prejudices and limitations as the people who write these words. The constitution is a living document because the English language is a living language. And you need to have some readiness to understand that in order to serve on the court in a way that will actually make life better.

“It was actually Thomas Jefferson himself who said that ‘We might as well ask a man to still wear the coat which fitted him when he was a boy as expect future generations to live under’ — what he called — ‘the regime of their barbarous ancestors.’” Buttigieg quotes. “So even the founders that these kind of deadhand originalists claim fidelity to understood better than their ideological descendants — today’s judicial so-called conservatives — the importance of keeping with the times. And we deserve judges and justices who understand that.”

This guy is clearly the most intelligent, and the most articulate, of all the erstwhile Democratic candidates in the 2020 primaries. During the primaries, I referred to him, in speaking with my family, as “gay white Obama”. If the black voters in South Carolina — the first bellwether state in the primary season with a large black Democratic population — could have gotten past “the gay thing” (but isn’t that “homophobic”, people?) and his dodgy past on urban issues in South Bend, it’s hard telling how far he could have gone in the nominating process. But Biden was falling flat on his face, Congressman Jim Clyburn stepped in and played kingmaker, and the rest is history.

Smart guy, but potentially a real Pied Piper of Hamelin. Something about “if it were possible, even to deceive the elect”?.

 

[christofirst]

I’ve been impressed with her as well. At their best, these hearings remind me of a chess game, with the senators and the nominee trying to outmaneuver and outsmart each other. Judge Barrett has held her own, and never appeared at a loss. I don’t necessarily agree with her approach to the law (I’m in the living document Constitution camp), but I can’t fault her answers, qualifications or composure.

 

[christofirst]

I’m just an electrician, but is there something about being an originalist or textualist judge that stops them from also being an economic populist? Why do they tend to favor the interests of business and corporations over environmentalists and working people?

 

[PaulinVA]

I’m just an electrician, but is there something about being an originalist or textualist judge that stops them from also being an economic populist? Why do they tend to favor the interests of business and corporations over environmentalists and working people?

I’ve said here that I’m an originalist, but I’m rethinking that, because of the point you bring up. I’m not sure I want to hold a position that people I disagree with in other areas hold.

 

[goout]

“It was actually Thomas Jefferson himself who said that ‘We might as well ask a man to still wear the coat which fitted him when he was a boy as expect future generations to live under’ — what he called — ‘the regime of their barbarous ancestors.’” Buttigieg quotes. “So even the founders that these kind of deadhand originalists claim fidelity to understood better than their ideological descendants — today’s judicial so-called conservatives — the importance of keeping with the times. And we deserve judges and justices who understand that.”

The regime of our barbarous ancestors.
Think about a politician invoking barbarism as if it were a thing of the dead past. Pseudo-populist progressives embrace the deceit that man is somehow more virtuous than those that came before us, as the bodies pile up outside their own windows.

I’m sorry, but these people have no clue as to the times they live in or the past that formed them.

This is the tragic thing. Ignorance.

 

[PaulinVA]

Think about a politician invoking barbarism as if it were a thing of the dead past.
I’m sorry, but these people have no clue as to the times they live in or the past that formed them.

You’re referring to Thomas Jefferson, you know.

 

[goout]

goout:

Think about a politician invoking barbarism as if it were a thing of the dead past.
I’m sorry, but these people have no clue as to the times they live in or the past that formed them.

You’re referring to Thomas Jefferson, you know.

I’m referring to Pete Buttigieg invoking Thomas Jefferson, and TJ by proxy.
Yes. Should have been pretty clear.

 

[PaulinVA]

Pseudo-populist progressives embrace the deceit that man is somehow more virtuous than those that came before us, as the bodies pile up outside their own windows.

You mean the slave holders? The people who didn’t let women vote?

I think the human condition is a constant. Part of that condition is to strive to be better, strive to understand the world and the people in it. Virtue? Well, I hope we treat people better now than in the 1700s.

 

[goout]

goout:

Pseudo-populist progressives embrace the deceit that man is somehow more virtuous than those that came before us, as the bodies pile up outside their own windows.

You mean the slave holders? The people who didn’t let women vote?

I think the human condition is a constant. Part of that condition is to strive to be better, strive to understand the world and the people in it. Virtue? Well, I hope we treat people better now than in the 1700s.

Who’s thoughts are you disputing?

I’m noting that Pete Buttiegieg, by way of Thomas Jefferson, embraces the deceit that our ancestors were somehow more barbarous than we are. Which is patently false by any measure.
Body count being the primary measure I suppose. Do we want to count the bodies piling up?

Or do you want to talk about slaves? How many sex slaves do we have?
You want to talk about women’s rights? Do you really thing women are better off today because they can vote (a good thing for sure). It’s good to be a woman, except when Super Bowl sunday rolls around and your man’s team is losing, or when pornography makes you an invisible sex object.

We’ve come a long way, sure.

 

[Ender]

At the end of the day, rights in this country have been expanded because courts have understood what the true meaning of the letter of the law and the spirit of the constitution is…

This is from “The Constitution means whatever I want it to mean” school of jurisprudence, and explains why the nomination process has become the spectacle we see now.

 

[jeannetherese]

I’m not sure I want to hold a position that people I disagree with in other areas hold.

I wonder if the tendency to assume that, because one has disagreed with another in the past on a particular issue, means they are wrong on every issue might be problematical, or even predjudicial? Surely, one would desire one’s own arguments to be evaluated on their merits?

 

[PaulinVA]

I wonder if the tendency to assume that, because one has disagreed with another in the past on a particular issue, means they are wrong on every issue might be problematical, or even predjudicial? Surely, one would desire one’s own arguments to be evaluated on their merits?

I’m afraid that means I’m not being consistent in my thought/positions.

Not well-thought-out on my part yet.

 

[PaulinVA]

I’m noting that Pete Buttiegieg, by way of Thomas Jefferson, embraces the deceit that our ancestors were somehow more barbarous than we are. Which is patently false by any measure.

Okay, I tend to disagree. I certainly hope we’re not as barbarous as our ancestors.

Or do you want to talk about slaves? How many sex slaves do we have?

The government doesn’t endorse sex slavery, It did support enslaving people from Africa. It used to endorse segregation and disenfranchising Black people.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Rhetorical question,I assume?Of course they wouldn’t question those of the faiths you mention.

 

[Polak]

Yes, it was.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

What if you promised to sell the man a pit bull — I’m told they make lovely pets — found out that the man was going to starve and beat the dog to make the dog mean, and then enter the dog in a dogfight?

I know this is off-topic, but I can’t help it since you had some misinformation there about pit bulls. You don’t have to read very far to see that they don’t always make great pets.
https://blog.dogsbite.org

Always gotta watch the “off-topic” thing… that kind of thing doesn’t fly around here.

But to your point, I fear this may be a case of one’s veiled “good” sarcasm, that is, saying one thing when it could reasonably be inferred that the speaker is actually arguing for the opposite thing, being so veiled that it is not obvious to anyone, possibly not even the speaker himself.

I realize that pit bulls are good in themselves and are part of God’s good creation. I get that. But note that I said “I’m told they make lovely pets” — I didn’t say “they make lovely pets”. For the life of me, I can’t fathom why anyone would want a pet who, when rankled or irritated, can take that powerful jaw of theirs and bite, shear, and tear you into oblivion. My working theory is that it is a “macho” or “tough guy/tough gal” thing, would-be “bad dudes/dudettes” who want to augment their intimidating lifestyle with an equally intimidating pet dog.

But that wouldn’t explain Ring (aka Pete or Petey) in the Little Rascals film shorts. Spanky and Alfalfa, call your office.

Let’s steer this back onto the pit bull whose name is Amy Coney Barrett. She’s far more attractive and far less threatening.

 

[Annie]

Why don’t you drink bleach?” “

He didn’t say that in the first place.

 

[Ridgerunner]

they can’t beat up on her for being Catholic because Joe said no

I feel confident he would not and did not tell them that.

This week, the Republicans are pretending that Judge Barrett won’t do exactly what they picked her to do.

And what’s that?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I hope we treat people better now than in the 1700s.

Tens of millions of people whose lives were cut short in Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia respond “No, you do not.”