Hey, folks, did you know that Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump's nominee to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat on the Supreme Court, has a lot of kids?
If not, good on you for not watching a single second of the first day of the farce playing out in the Senate chambers this week, as Republicans — who previously claimed that Barack Obama had no right to fill a Supreme Court seat a full seven months before a presidential election — rush to cram Barrett onto the court only days before the next one. Anyone who tuned in, or who simply flipped through C-SPAN on their way to watch something else, heard Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee talk glowingly about Barrett's family — she has seven children, two of them adopted — as if it was were a miracle sent directly from heaven.
The implicit argument in hyping Barrett's big family along with her successful career is one that anti-choice activists have been making for a long time: Women don't really need contraception or abortion access in order to succeed socially and professionally, and feminists who say otherwise have a sinister agenda.
Indeed, the longstanding claim of the religious right is that feminists aren't really pro-woman at all, but are in fact working on behalf of sleazy men who want to exploit women for their bodies. In this narrative, women do not actually enjoy sex, but instead use it solely as a tool to secure a breadwinning mate and a big brood of kids. Feminists who support abortion rights and widespread access to birth control are luring women away from their true natures for the benefit of horndog men.
by Cody Fenwick | October 15, 2020 - 7:46am | permalink
When nominees come before the U.S. Senate hoping to join the Supreme Court, the proceedings are filled with bizarre rituals of posturing, platitudes and obfuscation. Much of this process has become ridiculous and regrettable — nominees pretend that they shouldn't be expected to divulge their opinions on crucial matters over which they'll essentially have final say in a lifetime appointment, and senators decide how much transparency they expect from the nominee based on the party of the president that nominated them.
But as Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination proceeds this week, there was something clearly much darker going on than the odd political dance that has traditionally developed around such events. There's a fraud being carried out.
The only remaining question is: Who is being defrauded? Who is the mark?
by P.M. Carpenter | October 15, 2020 - 6:48am | permalink
I spent most of yesterday afternoon listening to Senate Democrats hurling logical questions at Trump's frighteningly anal-retentive, religiously demented Supreme Court nominee Amy Barrett, who had no intention of honestly answering even one of them.
Every relevant Democratic inquiry was met by balls-chilling Amy's disingenuous reply of Gee, Senator, what a magnificent question, but what a shame I can't answer it before this panel. Because, you know, of the dark, horrible implications of responding with clarity to "hypotheticals" — which, of course, SC confirmation hearings are all about.
by Jaime O'Neill | October 14, 2020 - 7:25am | permalink
Let's not kid ourselves; Amy Coney Barrett is one of "them." By that, I don't mean just that she's a "conservative," whatever the hell that means anymore. In most every conceivable way, she and those like her aren't conservatives at all. They are erratic, they are cherry pickers, and they are entirely subjective in what they would "conserve" from the past. They are anything but fiscally conservative, willing to spend like drunken sailors on unneeded and wasteful toys for the military to play with. They aren't frugal in the slightest. They pinch pennies in ways that wind up costing billions, but they are profligate spenders when it comes to rewarding rich donors, awarding profit-heavy contracts to their friends in the corporate world, or favored constituents back home who need a break they can provide, no matter the need or the cost.
They surely can't be described as conservatives when it comes to lots of values they pretend to treasure. When it comes to valuing life, they can turn their back on sick and dying people in the blink of an eye, though the image of a fetus can be used to get the votes of teary-eyed hypocrites who say they love life but can callously sanction the denial of medical benefits to the poor or to people with "pre-existing medical conditions." Or to kids in cages.
by Joan McCarter | October 14, 2020 - 7:17am | permalink
Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett spent much of her hearing day refusing to answer any difficult question with any specificity, even when her past writings and speeches spoke loud and clear. The kinds of things we heard from her: "If I give off-the-cuff answers, then I would basically be a legal pundit. […] I don't think we want judges to be legal pundits. I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully with an open mind"; and, "If I express a view on a precedent one way or another […] it signals to litigants that I may tilt one way or another on a pending case.”
As Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal said, she's "so far perfected the art of non-answers." This rampant, blank-slate disingenuousness from Barrett proved to be as irritating throughout the day as Brett Kavanaugh’s fake outrage and crocodile tears in his hearing, and just as unbelievable. When she held up a blank notepad, she wasn't demonstrating what Sen. John Cornyn, who asked her about it, was saying she was. He called it "impressive" that she was there without notes. What it was was insulting. She came to that hearing prepared to do nothing but obfuscate and refuse to answer questions, without even bothering to prepare because she knows the fix is in and Republicans are going to jam her onto the bench no matter what. Her blank sheet of paper was the perfect, albeit unwitting, metaphor for this entire sham of a process, some of the lowlights of which were rounded up here at Daily Kos and are recapped below the fold.
by David Atkins | October 14, 2020 - 7:08am | permalink
The last few days have seen sudden, intense press interest in the question of whether Joe Biden intends to “pack the courts.” The question came up at the vice-presidential debate between Vice-President Pence and Senator Harris, and it seems that Biden gets asked about it repeatedly at every press avail. For their part, Biden and Harris have mostly been playing coy with the answer, insisting that it’s an irrelevant question that shouldn’t come up until after the election.
It’s no great secret why: “packing” the court might scare off moderates currently leaning toward Biden, while committing against it would infuriate progressives who fear that a far-right Supreme Court would reverse a century of hard-won victories as well as stymie all future attempts at progressive legislation.
by Robert Reich | October 14, 2020 - 6:40am | permalink
I keep hearing from progressives who lament that even if Biden wins, Trump and McConnell have tilted the playing field forever.
They point to McConnell’s rush to confirm Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, after blocking President Obama’s nominee for 293 days because it was “too close” to the next election. And to the fact that Republicans in the Senate represent 11 million fewer Americans than their Democratic counterparts, and are still able to confirm a Supreme Court justice and entrench minority rule.
But that’s not the end of the story.
by Thomas Neuburger | October 14, 2020 - 5:42am | permalink
Donald Trump's next gift to the nation, strong pro-corporate Supreme Court Justice nominee Amy Coney Barrett
It's difficult not to be cynical about the Democratic Party these days. Their leaders talk like Donald Trump is the worst threat to America since Hitler, then grant his almost every wish — except the wish he floated recently about giving money to struggling Americans. That wish was withheld so he "wouldn't gain an electoral advantage" by giving money to some without also giving money to others on Nancy Pelosi's wish list — these people, for example — or so I hear.
But their lack of struggle against the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett is concerning. First they appeared to give up — "Faced with a moment with apocalyptic implications, leading Democrats fall somewhere on a spectrum that runs from oblivious to resigned. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) wants to appeal to the GOP’s 'sense of decency' and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) is complaining about procedural maneuvers that could delay the confirmation process," write David Segal and Zephyr Teachout in the NY Daily News.
by Joshua Holland | October 13, 2020 - 8:21am | permalink
Since shortly after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Republicans have said that they will confirm her replacement just days before or after the election, after blocking Merrick Garland for 8 months in 2016, because they have the power to do so. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told Fox News, "this Republican Senate was elected for a term that ends in January of next year. The president was elected for a four year term that ends January 20th of next year. There are no reduced constitutional prerogatives during either of our tenures." The Constitution allows it, so for them it is self-evident that they will do it. Norms, public opinion and the justifications they offered for not even giving Garland a hearing four years ago don't enter into the picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment