Daniel Goldberg, legal director of the Alliance for Justice,, has no doubts Lagoa (as well as Coney Barrett) will meet Trump's litmus test for the net female court pick: overturning Roe v. Wade, and killing the Affordable Care Act (by asserting the mandate is "unconstitutional") The effect of this move would be to eliminate access to affordable health care for up to 24m of our fellow citizens.
Either one of these sanctimonious viragos would pose a nightmare for women, minorities and sane citizens by tilting the court to 6-3 conservo bias - which could last over a generation. (Another reason why this election is so critical). But for my money, the Right's real push will be to get Amy Coney Barrett the seat, especially as she was passed over in the previous nomination circus for Brett Kavanaugh. You recall, the entitled wimp who infamously balled and cried at his own confirmation hearing with all them wicked libs picking on his sorry ass,
So I am convinced Amy Barrett will get the nod this time. I could be wrong but that's my Vegas bet. But as I noted in a post two years ago, neither Mrs. Barrett or Mrs. Lagoa are equipped to address the needs of most of our 325 m citizens and their rights. Amy Coney Barrett may well be quite a nice person, as well as being a dutiful, devoted Catholic mom of 7 kids. As nice as she may well be, we cannot afford to have her as a Supreme Court Justice.At issue here is whether Barrett can deliver honest, well reasoned judgments in critical cases such as to do with abortion, and lower case rulings re: Rose v. Wade. At root is the extent to which the group to which she belongs, called People of Praise, which has roughly 1,700 members, will be dictating her brain dynamics as she considers any abortion or contraception cases (the latter say, as regards contraception provided via the ACA for employees of religious outfits.)
A critical aspect of the group is their belief that they can receive divine or other esoteric, spiritual messages via "speaking in tongues". An old saw I recall from my brief exposure to charismatic Catholicism in the early 70s went like this: "It's okay and fine when you talk to God, as when speaking in tongues....but the time to worry is when God starts talking back!" Indeed. And the issue here becomes how does one distinguish an internal "voice" issuing from a brain center, from an external "God"?
Put another way: When Amy Barrett issues judgments how can we be certain these will be forged by her innate intellect and not products of "spiritual" voices she may "hear"? This question is not frivolous at all, nor should it be construed as an attack on religion, on charismatics or on Catholics. Given its massive impact on human lives and life quality, religion can never be exempt from serious scrutiny - or even criticism where and when appropriate.
To make a long story short, the brain research of Andrew Newberg and Eugene Daquill ('Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief’.) clearly shows how the visual attention area of the brain's orientation association area (OAA) can easily gain ascendancy over higher cognitive centers. This was seen (in PET Scan experiments) when it began to deprive the right orientation area (responsible for balance) of all neural input not originating with the contemplation or religious ideation. In the words of the authors: "The subject had to surrender to the supremacy of the ideation which is perceived as the whole depth and breadth of reality"
Now, if Coney Barrett belongs to a group that gives prominence and unquestioned validity to speaking in "tongues" then these will play the same role as a fixed religious ideation or imagery in the OAA experiments of Newberg and Daquill. In effect, the recipients will firmly believe they are in a special communication loop and privy to information and knowledge - say from the divine- that no one else is. This is clearly going to cause them to also be convinced they possess superior judgment.
. Again, in itself there's nothing wrong with pursuing activities such as speaking in tongues or even "channeling" past saints etc. But it does lead the inquiring skeptic to ask whether such practitioners can also reliably serve as rational Justices on the Supreme Court.
If Coney Barrett is indeed named to the highest court compliments of the nation's pussy grabber-in-chief, it is the signal for all out resistance on a massive, national scale. That is, taking to the streets on the same scale as the George Floyd protests at their peak. In other words, this nomination cannot be allowed to materialize or proceed without some massive public pushback - given it's already laden with bad optics for the Repukes. Of course, that also applies to Barbara Lagoa, and to Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz- two even more depraved picks than the women - who at least have moral centers (never mind they are a bit off!)
It is possible the average low information voter may wonder what all the furor is about. But if that is the case then this voter hasn't fully considered consequences of a slew of coming cases going the wrong way. Take just the ACA and it's mandate being found unconstitutional. If a 6-3 conservative court majority manifests then 24 million Americans could be facing:
1) End of Medicaid expansion especially in red states.
2) Children no longer able to be kept on parents' plan until the age of 26.
3) Pre-existing conditions, including COVID symptoms, no longer covered.
If the ACA is effectively neutered, as Trump and his conservative Cossacks want, it means tens of millions losing their health care and in the midst of a pandemic that has now cost over 200,000 American lives with no sign of abating. It also means the only options will be high deductible "plans" pushed by the GOP - which will be full of holes for coverage for a range of conditions.
In the case of reproductive autonomy U.S. women will basically have to kiss it goodbye. Many may not realize there are at least 20 cases (according to NARAL) in various stages of judicial review that could significantly gut the protections of Roe v. Wade, even they don't get to the Supreme Court. Most of these cases will also severely limit access to contraception as soon as an Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court takes them up.
Many red state legislators no longer hide their ultimate goal of targeting the pro choice movement. Any given upcoming Supreme Court ruling with Amy Barrett (or Barbara Lagoa) on the bench will likely result in powerfully criminalizing most forms of artificial contraception - as well as abortion - and punishing the women who opt for them. Much of this could occur if the equivalent of a "personhood" ruling is passed.
Meanwhile, before RBG's body was even interred at Arlington the animated fecal matter named 'Trump' was bellowing over the airwaves (to FOX and Friends) the real reason he wants to rush to a seat replacement, barking:
"We should act quickly because we're probably going to have election things involved here. you know because of the fake ballots they'll be sending out."
So the orange swine admits the court needs its 6th conservative because whatever the result he already plans on contesting it. Thus, Donnie Bonespurs- aka Traitor Trump - is yapping openly about wanting to quickly confirm a new justice so that justice can vote to give him the presidency. Thus, effectively marking the worst electoral travesty since a 5-4 Supreme Court decision handed Gee Dumbya Bush the presidency in 2000. A catastrophe eloquently described by Vince Bugliosi in his book, 'The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President'.
A battle looming? You had better believe it, and it's just getting started. Especially in the wake of Trump's words yesterday after we hit 200,000 coronavirus dead: "I don't think this virus has affected hardly anybody."
Maybe Capt. Bonespurs will remember those words when his sorry orange ass is kicked out of the White House on January 20th next year. While Trump Lied, 200,000 Died.
See Also:
A:nd
And:
No comments:
Post a Comment