Friday, October 2, 2020

Is the Beady-Eyed Religious Fanatic A Major Superspreader Of The Pandemic?

 It now appears that the Rose Garden ceremony on Saturday, Sept. 26, presenting SCOTUS candidate Amy Coney Barrett, who has the beadiest eyes I have ever seen on any human being in my life, has turned into a superspreader event of SARS-Cov2. Among those who may have become infected include the president and his wife, along with at least two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Lee of UT and Tillis of NC), the president of Notre Dame University where Barrett was a law school prof, as well as others, with it likely more will be learned to have gotten it there.

This is a low probability theory, but clearly there was probably a super spreader individual at this ceremony, one upfront apparently, given where those infected were sitting.  Apparently the SCOTUS candidate herself, she of the creepy beady eyes, has already had the virus.  But we now learn that one who has had it can continue to spread the virus for quite a long time afterward.  So, it may be that this fanatic who most assuredly does not belong on the SCOTUS is the actual superspreader at this awful event.

I note my disagreement with Anonymous about use of the term "beady-eyed" regarding this horrible nominee for the court.  I deeply respect Anonymous, and I recognize for the record that A holds the view that this descriptor is "prejudicial." I note this for the record. 

However, for the record, I have disagreed with this view, so I am not at all surprised that this possible superspreader of this deadly virus is Beady-eyed! Beady-Eyed! Beady-Eyed! 

Barkley Rosser


pgl said...

She was not wearing a mask. Nor were her kids. One has to wonder if mom infected her own children. Some right to life type.

Anonymous said...

Setting aside her eyes to focus on an eye towards equal justice under the law, Ruth Marcus highlighted many key dissents of Scalia in her column today - Casey, Lawerence and Obergefell. Barrett, his former clerk, says that she is Scalia. A good read:

Fred C. Dobbs said...

(Alrighty then!)

Seven infected after 'Amy Coney Barrett superspreader event'

via @MailOnline (UK) - October 3

Seven people who attended Amy Coney Barrett's ceremonial nomination to the Supreme Court on Saturday have now tested positive for COVID-19, giving rise to fears that it was a 'super-spreader event'.

The September 26 gathering attracted around 100 people - many of them not wearing face masks; all sitting close.

Attendees were photographed hugging, shaking hands and chatting without face masks.

Donald Trump, his wife Melania, Hope Hicks, Kellyanne Conway, two senators - Mike Lee from Utah and Thom Tillis from North Carolina - plus the president of Notre Dame university, John Jenkins, have now all tested positive for COVID-19.

Many of the other high-profile figures who attended have not yet been given the all-clear.

Among them are Bill Barr, the attorney general; Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey; and Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host.

All were seen in close proximity to infected people, and are yet to confirm their negative test results. ...

marcel proust said...

For both the whippersnappers among your readers and those so old that their memories are fading I note that the last line of the post references this. said...

It is my understanding that while Scalia occasionally made reasonable decisions, Barrett is to hi right and disageeed with him on those. She is truly a fanatic and as I said previously would make Clarence Thomas look like Thurgood Marshall. There seems to be absolutely nothing mollifying about her at all. She is simply awful, period. said...

I shall say something nice abot Amy Coney Barrett, actually exactly the same thing Hillary Clinton said about Donald Trump during their second debate four years ago when asked: she seems to be a good mother with her 7 kids, 3 of them adopted, including one from Haiti. So she is also probably not personally a racist, even if she seems to support a judicial philosophy that could lead to allowing racist policies.

Fred C. Dobbs said...

(Is this anything?)

Liberal Harvard law professor: Amy Coney Barrett has a "first-class legal intelligence"

via @BostonDotCom - October 4

... Harvard Law Professor and constitutional scholar Noah Feldman told GBH in an interview Thursday that he would still vouch for Barrett, whom he once clerked with on the supreme court.

In a Bloomberg op-ed Feldman recently wrote, he noted that regardless of what other liberals may think when it comes to the circumstances surrounding her nomination, Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

While he told GBH that he disagrees with much of her judicial philosophy — as Barrett is known to be an originalist and a textualist — he still knows her to be a brilliant lawyer who would decide cases in good faith.

“First, she has a first-class legal intelligence, demonstrated certainly in her years as a law clerk when I knew her, but also subsequently in her academic writings and her teaching. Second, for those who care about judicial temperament, she has a very judicial temperament,” Feldman said of the former Notre Dame law professor and current judge on the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

When it comes to her personal qualities, he told GBH that she’s “got a fantastically judicial temperament. She’s calm, she’s thoughtful, she’s kind. I don’t think I ever heard her raise her voice in a disagreement in a whole year of a lot of intense disagreements.”

Feldman said he also believes the U.S. will always be better served by justices who follow conscience and logic rather than seeking the political outcome that they like in individual cases — and Barrett, who if confirmed could shape a generation of American law as the youngest justice on the bench, fits that description.

“She’s a conscientious person who will interpret the law to the best of her abilities, consistent with her jurisprudence,” he told GBH. “She’s not just going to ask herself, What’s the political outcome I want? She’s going to ask, Where does my method of judicial interpretation lead me?”

Fred C. Dobbs said...

Fun fact: is the Boston Globe,
just not behind a paywall. Who knew?

Fred C. Dobbs said...

Harvard's Noah Feldman thinks his friends and former co-clerks are "brilliant" and should be on SCOTUS
By Brian Leiter - September 26

That's the short version, I think. (I could count on one hand the number of "brilliant" people I've met in the legal academy, but maybe I don't use it in the hyberbolic way Yale graduates do!) Joking aside, there's no doubt Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a smart and capable lawyer. But Professor Feldman knows as well as I do that those are a dime a dozen, and that the only reason she was chosen from among the many dozens was because she is a religious conservative whom religious conservatives expect will exercise her inevitable discretion in a way congenial to their moral and political objectives. Why not educate the public about what the Supreme Court really does and why the moral and political views of the nominees matter, instead of offering up misleading bromides like she "will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed"? All judges who act in good faith and with adherence to their "principles" will nonetheless have to make moral and political choices on the Supreme Court. Once we get over that low bar of acting in good faith in accordance with "principles," the real question is what will the nominee's moral and political choices be? said...

The Guardian reports that Barrett in law school lived in the house of a co-founder of the cult she is a part of. Her husband also lived in that house. Her father is also a major figure in it. She is very deep into this group, and she appears to have pushed its extremist views in her publications and judicial decisions. She must be kept off the SCOTUS.