Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court Justice

[HomeschoolDad]

Thanks for posting the bumper sticker!

I always liked something Bono of U2 said when asked if he believes in Karma.

He said, “I don’t believe in Karma. I believe in Grace”.

Thanks. I have had to wonder — and I don’t intend this to come across as anti-Semitic, that’s not where I want to go with this — whether we might be able to respond to Senator Feinstein, “yes, and insofar as you adhere to the Jewish dogma that the unborn conceived entity is not fully human, might we not be able to say that this dogma ‘lives loudly’ within you — your pro-choice stance seems to bear this out, correct me if I’m wrong — and might you be able to understand why that is ‘a concern’ for us?”.

Or it might be good to add “And Senator, you say ‘the dogma’. Which one? We have many. Could you be more precise in what you mean by ‘the dogma’?”

 

[HomeschoolDad]

From Wikipedia’s article on “Judaism and Abortion”:

The fetus as less than fully human​

Rabbinic Judaism does not regard the fetus as a full human being. While deliberately killing a day-old baby is murder, according to the Mishnah, a fetus is not covered by this rule.[4] In the reading of Biblical homicide laws, rabbinic sages argue that homicide concerns an animate human being ( nefesh adam from Lev. 24:17) alone, not an embryo… because the embryo is not a person ( lav nefesh hu ).[5] An embryo is not deemed a fully viable person ( bar kayyama ), but rather a being of “doubtful viability”.[6] Hence, for instance, Jewish mourning rites do not apply to an unborn child. The status of the embryo is also indicated by its treatment as “an appendage of its mother”[7] for such matters as ownership, maternal conversion and purity law.[8] In even more evocative language, the Talmud states in a passage on priestly rules that the fetus “is considered to be mere water” until its 40th day.[9] Elsewhere, the Talmud speaks of a “moment of determination” and a “moment of creation” in regard to different stages of the fetus.[10] Rashi explains that the moment of creation is when bones and arteries begin to form[11] and in other places he says that the “moment of creation” is at the 40th day.[12]

Modern scholars draw a sharp contrast between the theologies behind Jewish and Catholic opposition to abortion. After favorably reviewing Christian opposition to abortion, Immanuel Jakobovits writes: “In Jewish law, the right to destroy a human fruit before birth is entirely unrelated to theological considerations. Neither the question of the entry of the soul before birth nor the claim to salvation after death have any practical bearing on the subject.” Although halakhic regulations works strenuously to protect the unborn child, he says that “none of these regulations necessarily prove that the foetus enjoys human inviolability.” In contrast to the neo-Platonic and Christian approach, moreover, Talmudic thought does not “make any legal distinction between formed and unformed foetuses,”[13] after the 40th day.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Feldman, likewise, is emphatically comparative, saying: “… while Christianity’s position on abortion has raised the moral level of western civilization in this regard and has succeeded in sensitizing humanity to a greater reverence for life, it is obviously comprised, at the same time, of theological postulates which the Jewish community can not share.” Feldman also points out that Talmudic debate over whether the soul achieves immortality upon conception, or at a far later stage, has little bearing on halakhic protections for the fetus because, absent a doctrine of original sin, “abortion would not interfere with the immortal rights or destiny of the foetus.”[14]

Precedence of the mother’s life​

The fetus however, though considered “alive” to the extent that its life is protected, is not considered to be fully alive to the extent that if it endangered the mother’s life it takes precedence. Thus if a pregnancy risks the life of the mother, the Rabbis rule that the mother’s life takes precedence and that the child may be aborted so as to save the mother’s life:

If a woman is in hard travail, one cuts up the offspring in her womb and brings it forth member by member, because her life comes before the life of her foetus. But if the greater part has proceeded forth, one may not set aside one person for the sake of saving another.[15]

According to the text this can be done until the point of yatza rubo (יָצָא רֻבּוֹ), that “the majority [of the fetus] has exited”.[16] This is taken to refer to the emergence of the baby during childbirth.[17]

According to Rashi, the reason behind this law is that a fetus is not a viable soul ( lav nefesh hu ) until it is born, and killing it to save the woman is permitted.[18] Maimonides, though, justified the law not because the fetus is less than a nefesh (human being), as the Talmud held, but rather through the principle of the rodef or pursuer, “pursuing her to kill her.” Schiff argues that the Maimonidean view is “unprecedented” and “without doubt, this hitherto unexpressed insight had dramatic potential ramifications for the parameters of permissible abortion.” Meir Abulafia and Menachem Meiri reaffirm Rashi’s view.[19]

 

[pnewton]

The honorable thing would be for all potential and actual nominees to decline. To appoint a Supreme Court judge in this atmosphere, while the presidential election–actual voting!–is going on is without precedent.

Judges are supposed to be appointed under the president who was in office when the vacancy occurred. A current election, in my opinion, weighs against postponement. Supreme Court justices are not supposed to be elected. If I was Trump, I think I would wait, as appointing a replacement in the next term would be an incentive to vote for him.

but be considered by secular society to have been a dishonorable

I can say that my concern has never been about what others think, but about what God thinks. He hates liars, and yes, some people have said opposite things, meaning there must be a lie. Furthermore, I view my own integrity as something I am not willing to sacrifice, even to save a life, up to my own.

That’s not what I meant. I simply meant that in addition to two questionable justices,

Every judge is questionable, by someone’s standards. There is not evidence to pursue any charges, so these accusations are all rash judgement.

 

[PaulinVA]

If I was Trump, I think I would wait, as appointing a replacement in the next term would be an incentive to vote for him.

Yes. I wonder how many people would just not vote at all if they get this Supreme; that is, just planning to vote for Trump to replace RBG.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

homeschooldad–your last two posts. Yes, you are accurate. Which is exactly why these moral decisions should not be of any concern to the government–they are religious beliefs. The government should stay out. That includes laws making abortion legal or illegal. Just leave it alone.

Good article in the Wash. Post–https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...31ab9c-ff6f-11ea-8d05-9beaaa91c71f_story.html about Amy’s extreme view of stare decisis. As she wrote in 2017–

"“For an originalist, the decision whether to follow erroneous precedent can be more than a matter of weighing the costs and benefits of change,” she wrote. “At least in cases involving the interpretation of constitutional text, originalists arguably face a choice between following and departing from the law embodied in that text. While the debate about stare decisis is old, modern originalism introduced a new issue: the possibility that following precedent might sometimes be unlawful.”

If, as I suspect, people here don’t know what “originalism” means, Wikipedia is a good place to start. And at the end of the article it lists arguments for and against. Originalism - Wikipedia

This comes up all the time. Take the recent decision on gay/transsexual rights. The 1964 law talks about “no discrimination on the basis of sex.” Now in 1964 would the average person say “Of course that includes homosexuals and transsexuals!” Of course not. Homosexuality was still illegal in many states, and almost no one had every even heard the term “transsexual.” So should the 1964 law be interpreted on the meaning of “sex” in 1964 or 2020? Two of the “conservative” justices flipped over to the “sex as it is interpreted in 2020” side. Others stuck with the 1964 meaning.

Now you also have words that as commonly used today have little or no connection to their common definitions even 30 years ago. For example, internet terms like bump, block, catfish, twitter, cloud, friend, ping, profile, and so on. Should a law using a term like one of those in a pre-internet sense now be interpreted as if the word means the same thing in 2020 as it did in 1985? I would think any reasonable person would say no. In this case an “originalist” position seems like the right one. But does “cruel and unusual punishment” mean the same today as it did in 1789? Hanging wasn’t considered cruel and unusual. Neither was tarring and feathering. Or exile. Or flogging. But they certainly are in 2020. Should we stick with the original meaning and say “Yeah, sure, whatever they did in 1789 is just fine with us!” I doubt if many people would go along with that. So it depends–but then consistency rears its ugly head.

Yes. I wonder how many people would just not vote at all if they get this Supreme; that is, just planning to vote for Trump to replace RBG.

Good point. This could backfire on Trump big time. People only voting for him because of his Supreme Court picks might say “OK, he’s done what I wanted with the courts. But I don’t like all the other stuff he’s done, so I’m voting for Biden.”

 

[JSRG]

Three points that no one here seems to have considered:

1. Almost everyone is ecstatic about Amy because she is Catholic and they think she will overturn Roe v Wade because of her beliefs. In the next breath, they claim that any questioning of her on religious grounds should be out of bounds. Contradiction? Why yes it is!

One hardly needs religious arguments to say that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided. As I noted, one of the best critiques of it was written by a pro-choice activist; by his own admission, “Were I a legislator I would vote for a statute very much like the one the Court ends up drafting.” This did not prevent him from, correctly in my view, asserting that:

“What is unusual about Roe is that the liberty involved is accorded a far more stringent protection, so stringent that a desire to preserve the fetus’s existence is unable to overcome it-a protection more stringent, I think it fair to say, than that the present Court accords the freedom of the press explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-á-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it. And that, I believe-the predictable early reaction to Roe notwithstanding (“more of the same Warren-type activism”)-is a charge that can responsibly be leveled at no other decision of the past twenty years.”

1. Leaving Roe v Wade and abortion aside, do her supporters know anything about her decisions or legal positions?

A good point! SCOTUSBlog has an article on the subject here if someone wishes an overview.

I suspect very few do. Read a few of her cases–she’s been a good friend of the corporate elite. The common man? Not so much!

Well, you don’t cite any real specifics, and vague generalities like this are useless. In the cases where she sided with “the corporate elite” over “the common man”, did the law favor the corporate elite? If it did, then it is kind of proper to rule in their favor.

And how many know anything about the legal theory of “originalism” that Amy endorses by name?

Perhaps I’m overestimating people’s knowledge, but I would assume that the basic idea of originalism is well known to people: It’s the idea that laws (and the constituton) should be interpreted by their original intentions or meanings rather than trying to re-interpret or re-define them later on. Some of the specifics of originalism may not be known to people in general but the basic idea, I expect, is fairly well known.

 

[Ender]

I agree, they will pull out all stops to try cancel the vote, but they won’t go overboard to denigrate the nominee. This is a politically respectable approach, as when the GOP stonewalled Merrick Garland without denigration.

Wanna bet? I expect it to be at least as bad as the Bork/Thomas/Kavanaugh circuses. Other than personal denigration what is there?

I simply meant that in addition to two questionable justices, there will now be a third that has questionable legitimacy since her confirmation will be rammed down the throats of the Democrats.

That’s kind of the way voting is set up: the majority wins, the minority loses. Elections have consequences.

Leaving Roe v Wade and abortion aside, do her supporters know anything about her decisions or legal positions?

Well, she went through the nomination/confirmation process three years ago. Presumably her record was scrutinized then. I’m guessing people know all they need to know.

But things change, and the long-term damage they will do to their own party in the Senate…

I’m thinking the Dems should have considered that when they voted to end the filibuster for court nominees.

“You’ll regret this, and you may regret it sooner than you think.” (Mitch McConnell, 2013)

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

but be considered by secular society to have been a dishonorable

I can say that my concern has never been about what others think, but about what God thinks. He hates liars, and yes, some people have said opposite things, meaning there must be a lie. Furthermore, I view my own integrity as something I am not willing to sacrifice, even to save a life, up to my own.

Giving up one’s integrity is not lying, and as I noted above, I would like to see something from the Catechism about breaking promises, acting “dishonorably”, and compromising one’s “integrity”. Even with this being said, there is something in the Catechism about conscience being one’s “aboriginal Vicar of Christ”, words taken from John Henry, Cardinal Newman.

My “aboriginal Vicar of Christ” tells me that if I had to shred my honor, integrity, and reputation for keeping my promises, in the eyes of the world, to save the unborn, that would be a good thing, not a bad thing. My “aboriginal Vicar of Christ” tells me that there are higher values than worldly honor, integrity, and reputation.

 

[RobertAdams]

I’m worried her religious background will be an obstacle to protecting important legislation banning “refiners fire” and several painful call and response songs.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

A good point! SCOTUSBlog has an article on the subject here if someone wishes an overview.

I read it. A good article. Thank you! This is what this site should be about–sharing information rather than personal opinions!

 

[HomeschoolDad]

She’s part of what amounts to a Catholic cult. Calling her your “heroine” seems…odd.

Anyone who gives birth to five children, and takes on parental obligations for two others — unless she is someone who is working the welfare system to make money off her own fertility/ability to adopt, clearly not the case here — is by default a “heroine” of mine. Ditto for the fathers who take on the concomitant obligations.

At this point, I’m going to run the risk of perhaps surprising some people here, and saying that this “People of Praise” business does cause me to raise my eyebrows ever so much. In the years following the Second Vatican Council (and I am just noting the time frame, not attempting to establish a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy), there have arisen under Catholic auspices, some movements, organizations, and apostolates, that are, well… interesting.

“Back in the day”, people were just “Catholic and that’s that”. Nowadays, though, as I said, it gets “interesting” sometimes. 75 years ago, for instance, even if there had been something like the internet, an apostolate such as CAF would not have been possible. Laypeople getting online and writing, sometimes at length, on matters of faith? Couldn’t have happened. First of all, there would have been the question of imprimaturs. Secondly, it would have been heavily moderated and edited (“edited” sounds much so nicer than “censored”) by priests, whose word would have been law.

All of this said, though, if Judge Barrett wants to participate in an uber-Catholic, charismatic apostolate, this is not a concern for the law. There is no religious test for public office, nor should there be, at least not under our present social order. If there were a massive conversion to traditional, orthodox Catholicism, and if the Social Reign of Christ the King were then ushered in, then that would be another story. But we’re not there, and probably never will be (quel dommage!).

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I’m thinking the Dems should have considered that when they voted to end the filibuster for court nominees.

“ You’ll regret this, and you may regret it sooner than you think. ” (Mitch McConnell, 2013)

Quite possibly. They did away with the rule because the Republican-controlled Senate was blocking Obama’s appointments, often (like Garland) without even allowing them to come up for a vote.

But that’s my point! “He hit me!” “She was sticking her tongue out at me!” “But he touched my doll!” and so on into infinity. No good will = open warfare It shouldn’t be this way.

 

[JSRG]

If, as I suspect, people here don’t know what “originalism” means, Wikipedia is a good place to start. And at the end of the article it lists arguments for and against. Originalism - Wikipedia

This comes up all the time. Take the recent decision on gay/transsexual rights. The 1964 law talks about “no discrimination on the basis of sex.” Now in 1964 would the average person say “Of course they includes homosexuals and transsexuals!” Of course not. Homosexuality was still illegal in many states, and almost no one had every even heard the term “transsexual.” So should the 1964 be based on the meaning of “sex” in 1964 or 2020? Two of the “conservative” justices flipped over to the “sex as it is interpreted in 2020” side. Others stuck with the 1964 meaning.

No, Gorsuch did not flip over to “sex as it is interpreted in 2020.” He stuck with the definition. His argument was not that the meaning had changed. Gorsuch’s reasoning was quite simple, and thoroughly textualist: The law bars discrimination on sex. Therefore, if you would fire an employee for something, but if you were to have everything else be exactly the same and swap out the genders, you wouldn’t fire them, that’s discrimination based on sex.

Therefore, if you would fire a man for being in a relationship with a man, but wouldn’t fire a woman for being in a relationship with a man, you’re therefore discriminating based on sex, because if you were to do nothing other than change the sex of the person being discriminated against, you would get a different outcome. While this undoubtedly was not the intent of the lawmakers, Gorsuch asserts (as he is a textualist, after all) that the text of the law is what matters, and that the plain text requires this interpretation.

The dissents obviously disagreed, asserting that it’s not taking into proper account the fact back then the public wouldn’t have interpreted the law as such. I think both sides brought up some decent points, but to claim this was a matter of interpreting it according to the 2020 definition of “sex” compared to 1964 is simply inaccurate.

But does “cruel and unusual punishment” mean the same today as it did in 1789? Hanging wasn’t considered cruel and unusual. Neither was tarring and feathering. Or exile. Or flogging. But they certainly are in 2020. Should we stick with the original meaning and say “Yeah, sure, whatever they did in 1789 is just fine with us!” I doubt if many people would go along with that. So it depends–but then consistency rears its ugly head.

These examples actually seem to work against your argument. To my knowledge, none of the examples you listed were ever ruled unconstitutional–they were instead abolished through the legislative process. Actually, I’m not sure tar and feathering was ever an actual punishment imposed by the state, but was rather a form of mob violence. So the argument that we need the Supreme Court to declare these things to be cruel and unusual to get rid of them is disproved by the fact that they were removed without any need of the court.

 

[JimG]

Get Ready to Hear A Lot about People of Praise

 

[vz71]

That’s not what I meant. I simply meant that…

That is precisely what you said.

 

[JSRG]

rjo8:

You think Catholicism is a cult?

Is that what I said? No. I said she’s part of what amounts to a Catholic cult: People of Praise. Look it up.

Except People of Praise is ecumenical and includes Protestants.

 

[Ender]

They did away with the rule because the Republican-controlled Senate was blocking Obama’s appointments, often (like Garland) without even allowing them to come up for a vote.

That’s how the filibuster works. It’s why the Republicans can get almost nothing through in the Senate: the Democrats have the votes to filibuster whatever they want…except judicial nominations. One can reasonably expect the Democrats to eliminate the filibuster in the future.

No good will = open warfare. It shouldn’t be this way.

Good will was on thin ice before. What little was left gave way completely when Trump was elected.

 

[openmind77]

openmind77:

The Christ’s priorities have always been for the common man, the poor, the disadvantaged, especially those in desperate need like refugees. In fact I think many of the corporate friendly judges will resign after he comes. The next President will then have many positions to fill

When Christ comes he will judge the living the dead. There is no continuing on, like judges resigning so others can take their place. It’s the separation of the sheep and the goats, the wheat and the weeds. Wheat to the barn, the weeds cast in the fire.

There is definitely going to be a separation of the goats and the sheep (in fact, I believe this separation is already taking place). But the world will not end. If will just be a new world where there is justice and peace.

 

[openmind77]

openmind77:

Erikaspirit16:

she’s been a good friend of the corporate elite. The common man? Not so much!

Actually I don’t think it matters that much who is appointed to replace RBG. This is because I fully expect the Christ to Return next year. When He is here, all people (including the courts and SCOTUS) will look to him for guidance on all issues - the ideology of the judge will take second place if any.

The Christ’s priorities have always been for the common man, the poor, the disadvantaged, especially those in desperate need like refugees. In fact I think many of the corporate friendly judges will resign after he comes. The next President will then have many positions to fill

Do you have a source for this?

It couldn’t come a moment too soon for me.

You will find this belief that the Christ is about to Return all over the internet. And I happen to agree with it. It wouldn’t be a moment too soon for most of us.

An appointment of a Judge whether conservative or liberal will have no affect at all on the new world to come. Neither side should fret or rejoice over it - it is of no importance compared to the Return of the Christ and the universal justice he will bring.