The confirmation of Barrett deserves a proportionate response


Barrett Was Trustee at Private School With Anti-Gay Policies

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett served for nearly three years on the board of private Christian schools that effectively barred admission to children of same-sex parents and made it plain that openly gay and lesbian teachers weren’t welcome in the classroom.   U.S. News


The appointment of Barrett is now on speed dial.

Despite all the questions about her profile.

The Right will just ram it

To which I say “Damn it!”

The Dems must now play like they do ‘cross the aisle.


“A person who was raised in the community said she was instructed by elders not to “emasculate” her male peers by getting the better of them in conversation. “I was made aware of the difference from a young age,” the person said. “I was aware that it would have been better if I had been born a boy.”The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak about their experiences because they feared negative consequences for members they care about who remain active in People of Praise.”  [The Washington Post]


Leave a comment
  • And yet the Pope said civil unions were o.k. Maybe He should excommunicate her.

    Heck, if pubic hairs on Coke cans and feeling up coeds wasn't sufficiently disqualifying, this certainly isn't. As I implied above, this was only an exercise of the 1st Amendment. Leviticus 20:13.

  • Fine, but remember the old adage, probably French, "Revenge is a dish best served cold." Barrett is going on the Court. Concentrate on the election, then exact the revenge when you have the power to do so. The Democrats have gone off half cocked too often over the last four years.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    From what I saw on the news (I certainly wasn't going to sit through the whole thing unless we were going to get the drama of the Thomas hearings) the Dem. Senators were mostly speechifying about "Margot in my state has some catastrophic preexisting condition (maybe catalepsy) and if the ACA is overturned she'll lose her health care." In short, I suspect they used this to record commercials similar to the local ones on that some Republican candidate for the State Senate tweeted on 01/08/20 to the same effect

    Nothing much on constitutional law except what she wrote in a law review about Roberts misconstruing the ACA. Certainly nothing about whether she would overturn Kavanaugh's landmark opinions (but maybe that wasn't important to the mainstream media).

  • There were some members of the judiciary committee boycotting the vote. (I'm listening to the debate and not thinking of some details -- sorry.) If similar proportions of the whole Senate boycott, will they be able to get a quorum?

  • In reply to Margaret H. Laing:

    Durbin explained these two bits of arcane Senate rules. In the Judiciary Committee, the rule was that to constitute a quorum, two members of the opposition needed to be present, but "the Republicans can change the rules," which they did.

    Similarly, a Supreme Court confirmation used to be subject to the rule that it took 60 votes to advance, but in the Gorsuch confirmation, they changed the rule to a simple majority,so for this nomination to be blocked, it would take 4 Republicans to vote no, which apparently is not going to happen.

    Graham has made several snide comments about "you would want it if you were in the majority," which I don't know if that shows he realizes that the Republicans won't be on Jan. 3, and, in fact, he is in trouble (if you believe some of the polls).

Leave a comment