Monday, September 28, 2020

A Beady-Eyed Religious Fanatic For The Supreme Court

 Others may not see what I see when I look at a full-face photo of Amy Conet Barrett, but I see someone who looks like a fanatic to me, although that may be me reading in what I have heard of her views on things, she being Trump's nominee for the SCOTUS, with GOPsters in the Senate hypocritically ready to put her in there in time to help Trump steal the election.  

I know we are not supposed to pick on people for their religious views, but she does belong to a weird cult, the Praise for People group, which is not strictly Catholic as many have claimed, but did come out of the Catholic Charismatic movement in 1971 with most of its members Catholic.  It accepts such things as speaking in tongues, which is not something generally accepted by most Catholics, generally something practices by extreme Protestant sects. It also is sexist, with women forbidden from holding leadership position and with each member having to follow the lead of a "Head.

Those defending Barrett claim she is "very intelligent."  I am sure she is, but that does not keep her from being a fanatic.  She clerked for the late Justice Scalia, and conservatives want someone like him, but her views are more extreme than his.

Of course, she has criticized Roe v. Wade as well as the ACA, with a case on that being heard on Nov. 10 by the SCOTUS.  Clearly this is the issue Dems need to run hardest on in trying to oppose her, which will be hard given that even Sen. Murkowski of AK is thinking of supporting her.

As an example of just how extreme she is I note one item I have seen written about things she has written in academic publications.  It is known that she is an "Originalist," a term Scalia used for himself, which means one tries to rely on the original meaning of a term in a case from when the Constitution was writeen or when an amendment was adopted.  However, what is not so well known is that there are factions among these people, and apparently Barrett is part of an especially extreme faction that views both the 14th and 15th Amendments as not being legitimate because when they were passed by Congress, the Confederat states were not represented in Congress. Of course these amendments, especially the 14th, are the foundation of all SCOTUS rulings on civil rights and against discrimination on any grounds.

I shall add that indeed I am sorry RBG did not take the reportedly subtle invitation to resign that Obama offered to her in a lunch in 2013. But I also understand why she did not. One factor was that she had this competition with her old friend going on, Scalia, for whom Barrett clerked.  By the time he died 11 months before the next president would be sworn in was too late for her to do so, as we all know McConnell blocked even the moderate centrist Merrick Garland from even getting a hearing. And, of course, RBG was expecting HRC to be the next prez.  But that did not work out, much to all our disappointments, and for RBG, well, it looks that her final wish will not be obeyed, even though it is supported by a solid majority of the American public, including even 49% of Republicans reportedly. But the current Senate is not paying any attention to that in their rush to confirm Barrett before the election.

Barkley Rosser


20 comments:

Not Trampis said...

I don't see a problem with her.
I do see a problem with replacing Ginsburg now but that is Ginsburg's fault.
She knew she was not going well but her arrogance overcome her.

I must say if she has such a great intellect why is she is catholic. Any reading of the bible would show catholicism is incompatible with biblical teaching.

I would say to evangelicals or who claim that title , getting down and dirty in politics is not the christian way

Bill H aka run75441 said...


Excuse me "Not"

Ginsburg died in office trying to serve America. Justice Kennedy walked out on America giving the pick to trump and perhaps to save his son. Maybe Ginsburg should have retired by 2016; but, she did not screw us over.

Not Trampis said...

She dies in office my friend.

She was not a well cookie.

Arrogant.

eCom said...

thanks for the stuffs you've shared https://www.aquariumhias.online/2020/07/liburan-akhir-tahun-sekeluarga-kunjungi.html

ken melvin said...

(5-6)/9 catholic, 5/9 Federalist, put them together and they are still not representative.

Anonymous said...

"Beady-Eyed Religious Fanatic"

An intensely prejudiced description.  An intolerable description, that is hurtful to read or hear.  A description that in another time would have been used for a character in the Merchant of Venice.

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

A.,

I grant calling her "beady-eyed" is not nice and arguably prejudiced. Perhaps you think that discussing the views of the religious group she belongs to is prejudiced, but she has in several speeches she has made advocated bringing religious views to bear on making legal decisions, even as at other times she has said she will not do that. Of course when she was up for the appeals court Sen. Feinstein was criticized for making a reference to "the dogma lives strong in you," but it seems that it does, and the views of this group are truly extreme.

Otherwise I think I wrote factually. You do not like my mentioning her extreme originalist position that the 14th Amendment may not be legitimate?

I also note that among these people all up in arms that nobody can mention the religious views of Barrett, which truly are fanatical and extreme and way out of line with the vast majority of the population, the Trump people have not hesitated to bring forth people such as the Notre Dame coach (where Barrett used to teach) who had no hesitation to declare that Biden is "not a real Catholic.:

So just what is it that I wrote that you find most egregious here, A.? I think she may be the key to allowing Trump to impose a fascist dictatorship and undo all our civil rights as well as health care and environmwental laws and rulings. You want me to pussyfoot around about this. Maybe I ahould not have opined about her ideas, but she is a fanatic and extemist, and a smart one, not to mention only 58 years old, so all the more dangerous. I have no qualms about strongly criticizing her and saying she does not belong on the SCOTUS.

Anonymous said...

"Beady-Eyed Religious Fanatic"

An intensely prejudiced description. An intolerable description, that is hurtful to read or hear. A description that in another time would have been used for a character in the Merchant of Venice.

The description is definitively prejudiced in the exact manner that the central character in Merchant of Venice and descendants were describe for generations. The use of the expression here is intolerably prejudiced. There can be no defense only an apology for the prejudiced expression and removal.

Anonymous said...

"---------- Religious Fanatic"

The prejudiced expression should be removed.

Anonymous said...

"Beady-Eyed"

This is precisely the description that would once have been used in Germany to characterize particular people. I notice this and gasped. This description needs to be cut.

Nothing else but cutting will do.

Anonymous said...

"I grant calling her 'beady-eyed' is not nice and arguably prejudiced...."

Do not use an ethnic slur to try to destroy a person. Withdraw this ethnic slur!

Not Trampis said...

She is eminently qualified for the job although I would prefer a person who has actually done more practical legal experience eg appeared before a court for a client however it is perfectly clear the vacancy should not be filled until after the election or a new Prez is elected.

I for one would love Roe V Wade being overturned however I do live down under

Anonymous said...

Remember, I in no way criticized the essay but only asked that the shocking ethnic slur be withdrawn.

Anonymous said...

Only 48 years old.

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

Anonymous,

I have said nothing about Barrett's ethnicity. I am not even sure what her ethnic background is, although she is clearly a European-American.

That she is 48 is important in that she will be on the court for a long time. I have emphasized her views, which are extreme, further to the right than anybody on the court now. He makes even Clarence Thomas look like Thurgood Marshall. Putting her on the court would push far to the right for many decades. Her age is important and is not "ethnic." What kind of nonsense is that?

YOu are complaining about silly stuff. I admit that calling "beady-eyed" is not nice. I take that back. Her eyes are beautiful.

I do not say she is not smart. But she is a fanatic. She questions the legitimacy of the 14th amandment. This threatens all of our civil rights laws regarding race, gender, gender preference, and so on. She is ready to get rid of all that. I do not apologize for calling her out for what she is, a fanatic. That is not an ethnic issue. It is a matter of her clearly stated beliefs.

Anonymous said...

I was shocked and called attention to a single descriptive slur. The descriptive slur that was used against the judge is a traditional ethnic slur and is a despicable description. The slur is horrid. I am appalled. Shameful, shameful, shameful.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the slur used against the judge matters and could easily be discarded and never ever used again. The slur should be withdrawn.

Anonymous said...

When a false and hurtful word is written, the word can be withdrawn. There is no cost to the writer and a show of understanding to readers. The writer has edited only a word. I can assure the writer, the Washington Post would have edited away the word as would any properly edited publication. A single-word, edited for offense...

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

Sorry, Anonymous, but "beady-eyed" is not an "ethnic slur." Which ethnic group gets regularly called that, and does Barrett belong to that group, or any other on the regular receiving end of it? You Have no credibility with this offensive ranting, which I fins disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

As it is, when I wrote this I was initially going to call her "bug-eyed," but thought that would be an insult to bugs. Today I saw a large photo of her face with her eyes clearly shown, and I would say they are neither beady nor buggy, but in fact I see in them the reactionary fanaticism she exhibits according to all accounts, even as she is smart and apparently personally pleasant.

Another reason she does not belong on the SCOTUS is that she refuses to recuse herself from any cases involving this election, and in the debate last evening, Trump made it clear he wants her on there to help his steal the election. She should not be affirmed.

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

I am putting something here that I just put on Angry Bear, although it is now not readily visible. I apologized to Anne for my overly strong language. I noted that I respect her and that while we usually agree, we used to have battles royal on Economists View.

I concluded by suggesting that anybody who wants to make their own judgment should look at the photo that accompanies the Wikipedia entry for the mostly Anglo-Irish Amy Coney Barrett. I think her eyes look beady in it, very much so, although I would also accept "creepy" and "fanatical." But others may well disagree or even agree with Anne that "beady-eyed" is somehow "prejudicial." I am not going to argue about that point further.