by 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
Topics:
Barkley Rosser considers the following as important: politics
This could be interesting, too:
Peter Radford writes Election: Take Four
Bill Haskell writes Healthcare Insurance in the United States
Joel Eissenberg writes Seafood says global warming is not a hoax
Angry Bear writes Questionable Use of Health Risk Assessments Drives Costs
A Beady-Eyed Religious Fanatic For The Supreme Court
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 positions 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 written 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 Confederate 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 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