Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
I feel confident he would not and did not tell them that.
Click to expand...
From a practical standpoint, it is difficult for them to make “dogma lives loudly within you” type remarks when their candidate, whom they are running for President, is a practicing Catholic.
I am also willing to bet that even if his parish priest and bishop support him, they would not be happy to see him spearheading an anti-Catholic crusade against Amy Barrett.
He also did issue a statement to the media that her Catholicism should not be questioned in the confirmation hearing.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
Tens of millions of people whose lives were cut short in Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia respond “No, you do not.”
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by that. Yes, I DO hope that we treat people better now than in the 1700s.
 
Not to mention tens of millions of unborn children legally slaughtered (since 1973 in the US, as well as earlier and later throughout the world, I.e. China).

Were there possibly women who sought abortions in the 1700s? Possibly. Were they legislated and legitimated? Don’t think so.
 
PaulinVA said:
This week, the Republicans are pretending that Judge Barrett won’t do exactly what they picked her to do.
Click to expand...
Given that there is nothing in her history that even suggests she would do anything other than interpret the Constitution and the law as she understands them to have meant when they were passed, I think it is very likely that she will do exactly what they picked her to do.
 
Ender said:
Given that there is nothing in her history that even suggests she would do anything other than interpret the Constitution and the law as she understands them to have meant when they were passed, I think it is very likely that she will do exactly what they picked her to do.
Click to expand...
I think you know what that quote meant.

She was picked to overturn Roe and the ACA. Trump said he would pick a Supreme who would do that.
 
PaulinVA said:
She was picked to overturn Roe and the ACA. Trump said he would pick a Supreme who would do that.
Click to expand...
Can you cite where he made that comment?

If that is actually what he said then he’s going about it in a singularly poor way by nominating someone who believes laws mean what they meant when they were enacted. That may well lead to overturning Roe and the ACA, but if that is the case it would be because of the way the laws were written, and certainly not because of a predisposition on her part to eliminate them.
 
PaulinVA said:
She was picked to overturn Roe and the ACA. Trump said he would pick a Supreme who would do that.
Click to expand...
And what basis of objection can there be if that were to happen through honest and sound interpretation of the US Constitution?
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I am also willing to bet that even if his parish priest and bishop support him, they would not be happy to see him spearheading an anti-Catholic crusade against Amy Barrett.
Click to expand...
I would think that would be the least of their problems with him.
 
PaulinVA said:
Not sure what you mean by that. Yes, I DO hope that we treat people better now than in the 1700s.
Click to expand...
In the 20th Century, “we” (being the human race) clearly did not treat people better than in the 1700s.
stpurl said:
Not to mention tens of millions of unborn children legally slaughtered (since 1973 in the US, as well as earlier and later throughout the world, I.e. China).
Click to expand...
Agreed. Another condemnation of “now” versus the 1700s.
 
Our Catholic beliefs are supposed to influence the way we see things, aren’t they?
 
Last edited:
Aulef said:
Our Catholic beliefs are supposed to influence the way we see things, aren’t they?
Click to expand...
They indeed are, but we are called upon to see things as they actually are, not as we would like them to be — that’s the very nature of truth itself. Sometimes truth can be unsettling, and can force us into places in our minds that we’d rather not go. This gets back to my reductio ad absurdum example of finding prohibition on abortion where it just doesn’t exist, or finding rights (or lack of rights) in existing laws that just aren’t there.

I have a pet theory that Catholics and Jews make better Supreme Court Justices (and judges in general) because both faiths have a source of truth that is outside of the individual believer, and does not depend upon the subjective thoughts, feelings, or wishes of the believer.

Our present Supreme Court, if you count Justice Gorsuch, a Catholic who chooses to worship in the Anglican church (not condoning, just stating the fact), is entirely comprised of Catholics and Jews. I have to wonder if this is murmured against in fundamentalist Christian circles. If Jack Chick’s publishing house hasn’t yet had anything to say about this state of affairs, just wait, it’ll come sooner or later. Paul Blanshard would not be a happy camper if he were still alive today.

And to add insult to injury (from their point of view), Vice President Pence regards himself as a Catholic, he just doesn’t perceive a need to live and embrace his Christianity in an exclusively Catholic way, nor to worship exclusively in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Michael and Karen were married in the Church. In other words, he’s really just an extreme example of a “cafeteria Catholic”, and heaven knows there are enough of them running around in the world.
 
40.png
PaulinVA:
“If I win the presidency, my judicial appointment will do the right thing unlike Bush’s appointee John Roberts on Obamacare.”
Click to expand...
“Do the right thing”, not quite as seditious as advertised. “Unlike…John Roberts on Obamacare.” If it is out of bounds for a presidential candidate to register disapproval with a Supreme Court decision then what are we to make of Biden’s comment last month about the Heller decision: “If I were on the Court I wouldn’t make the same ruling”? So far this is all pretty standard stuff, and “Do the right thing” is not really the same as “picked to overrule the ACA”

But I will grant that he expects her to do exactly what he picked her to do: the right thing. Assume he does believe Barrett will vote to end the ACA, what is his expectation based on, and is it an unscrupulous intent? Well, if you believe the original decision was wrongly decided, as he clearly does, and you believe that someone who adheres to the actual meaning of the Constitution, as Barrett clearly does, will vote to end it (whatever that means) then where is the problem? Can we seriously take exception to nominating someone who believes the Constitution means only what it meant when it was adopted?

As with virtually everything related to Trump it is manufactured outrage.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
Our present Supreme Court, if you count Justice Gorsuch, a Catholic who chooses to worship in the Anglican church (not condoning, just stating the fact), is entirely comprised of Catholics and Jews. I have to wonder if this is murmured against in fundamentalist Christian circles.
Click to expand...
Just interjecting here, the current SCOTUS is 5/8 sourced from the conservative and libertarian Federalist Society. With Barrett it will be 6/9. Religion is secondary, tertiary or irrelevant. A conservative ideology is the overriding result of Federalist Society member’s legal arguments and decisions.
 
Last edited:
There is an extremely interesting interview with Judge Barrett and Judge Amul Thapur held at Notre Dame in the spring of last year. The first 6-8 minutes give a good indication of how Judge Barrett thinks and how she would behave on the court. There was also a question about whether the SCOTUS confirmation process would itself cause some qualified candidates to recuse themselves from consideration rather than endure it. It’s at the 1:01:xx point in the interview.

 
Ender said:
There is an extremely interesting interview with Judge Barrett and Judge Amul Thapur held at Notre Dame in the spring of last year. The first 6-8 minutes give a good indication of how Judge Barrett thinks and how she would behave on the court. There was also a question about whether the SCOTUS confirmation process would itself cause some qualified candidates to recuse themselves from consideration rather than endure it. It’s at the 1:01:xx point in the interview.
Click to expand...
If Trump can win a second term (not looking likely), and if the Republicans can retain control of the Senate (that’s also kind of shaky), Amul Thapur needs to be the next Supreme Court nominee — South Asian and a convert to Catholicism. I would dearly love to see the Democrats have to argue against a nominee of color… oh, wait, they did that already, just ask Clarence Thomas. Nil novi sub soli.

If Stephen Breyer would all of a sudden leave the Court… nah, too good to hope for. And a 8-1 Catholic majority on the Supreme Court — well, I probably wouldn’t be posting on CAF anymore, because I would have died of sheer joy!

(I count Gorsuch as a Catholic, all he would need is to abandon that Anglican business and make a good confession. To paraphrase Tom Bodett, we’ll leave the sanctuary lamp on for him.)
 
Last edited:
I don’t think this veers too far off topic, but I have just finished watching the “cold open” from tonight’s Saturday Night Live (Saturday 17 October), and it was sheer genius. They flipped back and forth between the Trump and Biden town halls. Jim Carrey is back as Biden. Not to ruin it for people in other time zones (not sure whether they run it “live” on the West Coast), but if you haven’t already seen it, check it out, on Peacock in a few days if you have to. (I always DVR SNL myself, in case I miss it.)

The “cold opens” on SNL that deal with political issues — and they usually do — are one of the finer things about living in the United States. Neither side escapes without being skewered and lampooned. Truly a work of art.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top