Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
Get Ready to Hear A Lot about People of Praise
Click to expand...
I was “in” the Charismatic Renewal in the seventies. Had my guitar and Kumbaya memorized.

There are aspects that were “interesting”, but the most interesting is that a “renewal” is still ongoing. Is it disqualifying for a Justice? Probably not. Can it be explored in her confirmation hearings? It think so.
 
Irishmom2 said:
Would you be asking that question of a man with 7 children? 🤔
Click to expand...
No. Because it’s much less common that men are engaged in the care of children and other home making duties to the extent that mothers are.
 
Last edited:
Convert3 said:
It’s more common than you think.
Click to expand...
How common? Are there any male judges on the highest court in any land who have 7 children and are the principal carers for young children and homemaker. I do think that’s pretty uncommon.
 
Last edited:
Convert3 said:
I was responding to your general comment, not specifically to judges.
Click to expand...
I commented in the context of judges, and progressing to the exalted level of a seat on the highest court, where I assume only the most hard working and distinguished judges are found. It is remarkable that such accomplishments can be made as primary carer of 7 children and homemaker. Of course, I don’t know this judge’s situation.

I suspect the proportion of men with any high powered career who have several children is higher than that of women because more women engage more heavily in care of children and home-making than do men. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
a successful, pro-life woman with 5 biological children plus 2 adopted children.
Click to expand...
That is so very impressive. What a blessing it would be for all Americans if she should be confirmed as Supreme Court justice.
 
Irishmom2 said:
Yes, I understand that, but the comment in question did not appear to be complimenting her, rather an implication that she must have neglected her children.
Click to expand...
I made no such suggestion - you’ve drawn that inference, perhaps because you too recognise how unusual it is for mother of 7 to succeed in a highly demanding career. Perhaps her husband played an unusually large part in child raising and home making. Perhaps she had considerable domestic assistance or family assistance. Perhaps she is just an exceptionally capable multi-tasker. However these event were made possible - they are unusual.
 
BTW, Judges are called to be faithful in applying matters of fact and matters of the law. There really is no such thing as conservative and liberal when it comes to judges unless they go beyond applying the law and apply an interpretation that goes beyond the intent of the law and applies their own personal preferences.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Yeah, I’m a lawyer, among various other things.
Click to expand...
But you’re in recovery, aren’t you?

:crazy_face: 😱 🤣

I fell off the wagon after almost thirteen years . . .

*sigh*
pnewton said:
As much as I despise the hypocrisy of pretty much every Republican leader over filling a vacancy before an election, yes, it is the current President’s job to fill the seat, just like it should have been Obama’s pick in 2016.
Click to expand...
The fundamental difference is that it was cross-party in 2016, and same-party in 2020.

And that’s exactly what the precedent has been for nearly a century and a half: confirmations when the senate is of the same party, and not when of opposite parties. The last cross-party election year confirmation was in 1880, while at least five same-party appointments occurred in the twentieth century (and I believe all by democrats). In fact, the only case where a same party confirmation did not occur was when Fortes got got up in an ethical scandal after his nomination.

I would love to return to the days where judges were judged on the law, rather than their political results . . .

I’d also have loved to see a strict constructionist or original intentist who also happened to be politically liberal appointed, but I seem to be alone on that one . . .

Party politics didn’t play much direct role until the FDR administration. And then came Bork’s nomination, and the world hasn’t been the same since . . .

(p.s. I still miss your old pouncing icon . . .)
Erikaspirit16 said:
To appoint a Supreme Court judge in this atmosphere, while the presidential election–actual voting!–is going on is without precedent.
Click to expand...
No, just NO. That is absolutely, categorically, and objectively false.

To not appoint when the same party controls the senate would be unprecedented. (and no democratic president has ever done so, at least not in the twentieth and twenty first centuries, and I’d be surprised to find such a declination in the nineteenth . . .)
Rau said:
How does one find the time (as mother of 7) to propel one’s judicial career to that height?
Click to expand...
I dunno, but my initial guess would be intellect and skill . . .
Erikaspirit16 said:
They did away with the rule because the Republican-controlled Senate was blocking Obama’s appointments,
Click to expand...
no, the republicans were in the minority (which is how the democrats were able to change the rule! [well, no, the rule didn’t change, just the interpretation]).

It is, quite literally, what it means to be hoist (thrown into the air) by your own petard (a type of bomb used in a siege).
 
dochawk said:
40.png
Rau:
How does one find the time (as mother of 7) to propel one’s judicial career to that height?
Click to expand...
I dunno, but my initial guess would be intellect and skill . . .
Click to expand...
If so, she’s a winner. But a guess is not worth a lot!
 
JSRG said:
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.
Click to expand...
That requires one to hold that there are no acts improper to one sex that are proper to the other. Because unless you hold that, the “firing” (or whatever) is attributable to actions, not sex.
 
Biden just released a statement opposing the pick on the basis of Amy opposing Justice Roberts’ position on affordable healthcare. Pretty weak, but it’s kind of hard to blast a Catholic wife and mother of a multiracial family of 7 kids including one with Downs, who also happens to have stellar legal creds and just spent 5 minutes praising RBG effusively.

This is another Gorsuch pick. She’s so clearly competent and qualified it’s almost impossible to oppose her without coming off badly to some group.
 
Last edited:
Well, he can’t very well bash her for being a working mom or he’ll lose working moms. He can’t bash her for adopting underprivileged black kids from Haiti, that just won’t work. And he sure can’t bash her for being a Catholic and pro-life when he’s putting priests in his campaign ads.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Well, he can’t very well bash her for being a working mom or he’ll lose working moms. He can’t bash her for adopting underprivileged black kids from Haiti, that just won’t work. And he sure can’t bash her for being a Catholic and pro-life when he’s putting priests in his campaign ads.
Click to expand...
True.
But I expected it wouldn’t stop him.
He doesn’t strike me as someone that thinks first.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
This is another Gorsuch pick. She’s so clearly competent and qualified it’s almost impossible to oppose her without coming off badly to some group.
Click to expand...
But the Dems don’t have to oppose her on substance. They’re got a pretty solid procedural argument. They can just say “she may be qualified, but we’re opposed because we’re right on the verge of an election and we’re following the precedent the GOP set with Garland.”
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top