Claiming the supreme court “is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks”, Amy Coney Barrett told an audience at a Kentucky center named for the Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell that “judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties”.
Speaking alongside McConnell a little more than a week after she and four other conservatives on the court declined to block a Texas law which all but outlaws abortion in the state, the devout Catholic also insisted the panel does not judge cases based on personal beliefs.
With all due respect: Horseshit, Madam Justice. The Republican party hasn't spent decades cramming the judiciary full of Federalist Society members just for fun. The political hack you stood next to didn't deny Merrick Garland a nomination vote, nor did he cram through your nomination mere days before the election because of concerns about judicial integrity.
No, the Right has been laser-focused on the courts, including your own nomination, because they seek to do an end-run around the political process. They can't get the country to agree to banning abortion (polls consistently show majority approval for it), but that hasn't stopped the Christian Taliban from packing the courts with their judges.
Barrett is denying reality, as almost every rational person knows. She wasn't appointed to the Court for her intelligence or for her looks. She was appointed to the Court so that the Right could reach its cherished goal of overturning Roe v. Wade. She was appointed to the Court so that Republicans could have some assurance that the laws enacted by the next (now present) Congress would be given searching scrutiny.
Barrett was appointed by a political hack and hed her nomination rammed through by another political hack in order to have some assurance that the wishes of their party would be heeded by the Supreme Court. If that wasn't the motivation for appointing her (and Gorsuch), then the machinations behind both appointments defy reason.
We'll see, I guess, But her willingness to let the Texas Abortion Bounty-Hunter Law go into effect tends to weigh on the side of "yes, Justice Barrett, you are a political hack."
And yet you don't apply the same criticisms, (reversed, of course) to the nominations of Sotomayor or Kagan.
ReplyDeleteBoth were appointed to swing the Court to a more Liberal stance. And that is what Presidents do....Ideally, of course, it should not matter, as Ideally Justices should be non political and non partisan.....but they never are.
It ain't like the Dems haven't loaded up the lower courts with Liberal (and often activist) judges in the past, either. .
If you really think about it without all the "My Body My Choice" rhetoric and emotion, the Supremes should have declined to hear Roe V Wade and left it up to the individual states to decide....But I wouldn't expect a Liberal woman to be able to see beyond the emotion to the logic in that.
While most a decent comment, B, you just couldn’t resist the temptation to end with an insult revealing your misogynistic nature.
ReplyDeleteYour application to Club G.R.O.S.S. Is pending.
Yellow Card.
B, why does “my body, my choice” apply to vaccines but not abortions? Could it be that you favor government intervention only in some cases but not others?
ReplyDeleteOK we go again...
ReplyDeleteJust more whatabout provided.
We need to recognize that position as anything left of extreme right
is obviously "Liberal (and often activist)" to use your words. Of
course with that stance then a neo-conservative and rightest judge
cannot be activist which is also at best a falsity.
That if arged to only righest is a near definition of fascism.
Reality is since people have bias an opinion you need a mix of judges
that have views that on the whole balance that means we have liberal
and conservative as well as activist and constructivist. Only a few
examples there as many more are possible.
As to Roe-V-Wade lets be clear anytime we impose restrictions on a
person based on sex, race, or any other construct we (government)
have stepped on their rights. this is neither states or federal
as the rights of the individual citizen has no other descriptors.
Its that misogynistic nature that prompts questions:
Public health question; are individuals responsible
to act in a way to protect others? Can the government
act in the behalf of the general public to insure
public health is assured or protected? Explain
the limits.
Do others have standing over a woman's body?
If so explain how.
Is being forced to mask even close or different
from that? Again explain.
Last question is your body sovereign?
Explain why and how other persons regardless
of sex or differentiation may be denied that
same basic standing.
Eck!
DA: The "My body, my choice thing" isn't really applicable to compare vaccination with abortion. Pregnancy isn't contagious.
ReplyDeleteB, since you didn’t answer elsewhere: Do you regard Joe Biden to be the duly-elected president?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteActually the my body my choice is multi level and then from that
ReplyDeletewe get valid comparison...
Vaccination is roughly analogous to Birth control. You do those
things to avoid the resulting outcomes. The same can be
applied to masks, regardless of efficacy, its avoidance.
Pregnancy is an acquired condition, only one recorded case of
spontaneous and miraculous condition. So that means a partner
was involved, voluntary or not. Therefore so is COVID
transferred and avoidance is the means to avoid a possible
case or potentially death. Oddly for both it takes two to
make it happen a carrier and the victim.
One COVID you may survive, Once pregnant you can still die.
Though you cannot die from getting someone pregnant. Therein
lies the difference.
So putting abortion as 1 to 1 is not the same but oddly in the
same boat with being allowed a respirator or no respirator.
I'm certain if Texas disallowed respirator or for the extreme
cases external cardiopulmonary support there would be a
loud howl. After all that would be the government involvement
in health care.
Remember, Eggs and bacon. The chicken is involved, the pig
is fully committed.
Eck!
You can argue the merits of the justices or how their political leanings will affect their judicial decisions, but you can't argue the fact that the goddamn Republicans stole one of the seats.
ReplyDeleteThis is what we have learned from the tactics of the goddamn Republicans over the past decade or so: it doesn't matter what is best for the country or what needs to be done, what matters is who can best exploit the rules of our governing institutions to get their immediate way.
How we overcome that, I haven't a clue.
It remains possible to have a transformative election in spite of the goddamn Republicans' anti-democracy crusade, but the farther they get with it, the less likely that becomes.
-Doug in Sugar Pine
Comrade: If you can claim that your objections were not influenced by emotion with a straight face, then you are lying to yourself as well. Logic don't enter into your argument, does it?
ReplyDeleteAnd, while the "audit" did show that the count was correct, it also showed (if you read beyond the headlines) that there were more than 18,000 illegal or otherwise votes that should have been tossed. As for Joe's Legitimacy, we all know that it is not true. Were it so you and your side would not have done so much to prevent any examination until he took the oath. Nor would you be bothering to keep trying to convince yourselves of his legitimacy. So no, while I will acknowledge that Joe is legally (having taken the oath) our president, he is not legitimately the President. You are as intelligent or more than me, and you KNOW that there are legitimate questions, even if you won't admit it because by denying it you got your guy in power. Unlike some here, you have the ability to see reality, and while you deny it, you know....deep down inside, you too know that it was a sham....you'd not try so hard otherwise.
I find it funny how "My Body My Choice" gets twisted and perverted by folks like DA to suit their current argument. Shows the color of their character when they really don't stand for anything.
So, B, you have swallowed Trump’s Big Lie, hook line and sinker.
ReplyDeleteGood to know. That tells me all that I need to know about you.
B, that is propagandising and has no basis in truth or facts.
ReplyDeleteReading between the lines is the language of gossip and conspiracy claims.
The only thing there is white space and emptiness.
As the the my body claims its sufficient to say that is not true
as many have had their sovereign body excepted from their complete
control so there for you can be made to wear a mask. If you scream
your freedoms then the case is simple, prove you have the freedom
to trespass. You can go anywhere a mask is not required by the
property owner. So if the property is posted you comply or get
off it.
So every question you are asked is never answered, you dance enough
to make it meaningless so we assume now you only value furthering
the big lie and to spread gossip and propaganda.
Do you accept Biden is the duly elected president?
Do you accept EVERY person has sonverty over their body?
Answer or go away. Further question will be ignored until then
so don't bother asking. You may think you have a right to ask
but I also have the right to ignore you. It is best we shun you.
Eck!
yes, I do accept that Biden is the President. Unelected, but legally the President.
ReplyDeleteI DO think that every person has "Sonverty" over their body. Including abortion (although I dislike it, I believe that it is every woman's right) and vaccine.
I DO think that Roe V was was a mistake, but only on States Rights grounds, not on the question of abortion.
Will YOU address the issues with the Maricopa audit? Or will you try to sweep them under the rug and dimply go with the headline?
What's really needed here is moderation of moronic comments, e.g. the latest shrieking from B:
ReplyDelete"18,000 illegal or otherwise votes that should have been tossed." !!!!
B can't even get the claim right, what the moron-supporters are actually claiming is that there's something potentially fraudulent or otherwise suspicious about 18,000 names being removed from voter rolls "right after" the election.
First of all, it's not right after, it's about 14,000 names in the 2 months after the election. Then, it turns out, that with over 2.5 million people in the county, it's not unusual for 10,000 people a month to move, or die, or go to jail...
OK, B, we have firmly established that you believe that elections are only fair if your guy wins. Your guy didn't win, so you and your ilk have been spending the better part of a year trying to rear down American democracy.
ReplyDeleteTo put it bluntly, sir, your are a fascist.
Second point: This is *my* blog. I will blog about and/or discuss the topics of my choosing. If you think that there is a problem with the vote in Arizona, you have your own blog. Here, I'll even give you a free link to it so others can go read your stuff.
Do you accept Biden is the duly elected president?
ReplyDelete"yes, I do accept that Biden is the President. Unelected, but legally the President."
If yes then the rest of your statement is non sequitur. The truth of
that is if elected then Biden is president and the process is validated
and legal. So which one is correct? Adding unverified or invalid claims
and conspiracy myths gets you nowhere.
Do you accept EVERY person has sovereignty over their body?
The question was yes or no.
"I DO think that every person has "Sonverty" over their body. Including abortion (although I dislike it, I believe that it is every woman's right) and vaccine."
Comments spelling or more likely typos and making fun is really
childish at best. I used the word before and spelled it
right. So getting on...
That is applied to everyone. Also I did not ask if there were limits,
which there are.
You have no say in a woman's body, your a man you cannot get pregnant.
So you comment on tolerating it or not is a specious one.
Vaccinations are already a done deal for public safety along with
seatbelts and air bags and many other things. The vax you can
decline but then you impose restrictions on yourself and therefor
if you can't go where its required or get ill its up to you not
my problem, or any person or entities fault.
"I DO think that Roe V was was a mistake, but only on States Rights grounds, not on the question of abortion."
The war over states rights has been finished for about 150 years. The
claimants (succession states) lost. That horse is dead, save your
opinion.
The reason it became a federal issue is that some states where imposing
their will on a significant portion of their population all female in
contravention to federal law. IT was also an issue of imposing religious
law as a states or local law in contravention to there being no state
religion or laws supporting those cases. Once its federal case states
rights may control implementation of securing the right it but not the
existence. Its really simple I may be resident of a state but I am a
citizen of the USA and therefore my rights are secured at the federal
level and those rights are identical to the person next to me. Its
up to the states to insure they are protected and not infringing more
than is necessary to secure peace and order. Its roots are that the
USA is not a collection of separate sovereign nation states with the
effect of uniform law.
The inaccurate, conflicting, and unsupported claims are proof your
comments are both proof of a likely membership into a cult of
propaganda. What you say is then unusable as no more than opinion
and everyone is entitled to one but, representing it as fact is
propagating falsehoods.
Eck!
Really? all rights are the same for everyone? Then why have states? We have different states with different rights Read the tenth Amendment. Try to understand it.
ReplyDeleteNot so re your statement regarding Biden. He was sworn in properly. That doesn't mean that his election was proper, nor that there was no fraud. I accept that his Presidency is legal as all forms were followed. The Audit of Maricopa county (again, if you can be bothered to look beyond the DNC written headlines) showed a great deal of improper voting. Biden is a legal, but illegitimate president. If you cannot understand that, then you are either being deliberately obtuse or are stupid (I think the former, rather than the latter).
I never said that I have rights over a woman's body. I said that I, personally, dislike abortion. Doesn't mean that I think it should be illegal. Please, read for comprehension. Take the emotion colored glasses off and read what I stated. Nowhere did I use the word "tolerate".
You really should look up the actual Roe V Wade decision before you spout such nonsense....And you should really learn more about States Rights. It is not as you claimed here. Were that so, we'd have no individual states, But we do.
As to your last paragraph, really, that says it all.
Legal but illegitimate?? That makes zero sense.
ReplyDeleteAdmit it, B: You have sold your soul to your Orange Demigod.
"As to your last paragraph, really, that says it all."
ReplyDeleteAnd the last paragraph was...
The inaccurate, conflicting, and unsupported claims are proof your
comments are both proof of a likely membership into a cult of
propaganda. What you say is then unusable as no more than opinion
and everyone is entitled to one but, representing it as fact is
propagating falsehoods.
Suggestion, when digging a hole note how deep you are and stop.
Do no throw the shovel out as it may be useful tool to get you out.
Bless your heart.
Eck!
B, you seem to keep repeating the same points, as though you believe that repetition will help you make your case.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't. And I am tired of it.
Notice to all: Election denialism is now an automatic red card.
Oddly, I just replied to questions by one of your favorite commenters.... I find it sad that you are so afraid of the subject that you restrict conversation about it.
ReplyDeleteI tells me that you know the truth....and fear it.
I'm sure you will "Moderate this comment, but I'll know you've seen it.
No, I am not afraid of election deniers. But, like UFO enthusiasts, flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers and 9-11 truther, it's a mixture of reality denying an conspiracy theories. "We know that the election was stolen because Our Guy really didn't lose and he tells us so."
ReplyDeleteYou are listening to a man who could not tell the truth if his life depended on it. How many documented lies did Trump tell since during his presidency.. 20,000 or so?
But that's who you choose to follow: A showman, a liar, a thief and a swindler. None of that is hyperbole. It is all factual to say that Your Orange Overlord is those things and more.
Whatever. What I don't have to do is give you a platform here to spread your bullshit.
And I won't.
You have your own blog, after all. Peddle your election-denying manure over there, please.