Democrats will follow Biden’s lead in focusing on Obamacare something they could actually deal with no matter what if they own the Presidency and Congress…
They seem top Not want to piss off the religious vote….
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden told reporters on Monday that Judge Amy Coney Barrett‘s religious beliefs should not be part of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
“No, I don’t think there should be any questions about her faith,” the former vice president said….
Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signaled on Monday that they will not raise Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett‘s religion during a days-long hearing.
While a number of Republicans last week accused Democrats of preparing to use Barrett’s faith against her, it was exclusively GOP senators who brought it up on the first day of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee – and Democrats said they intended to keep it that way.
“I and my colleagues will focus, Judge Barrett, on your legal writings, your opinions, your articles, your speeches as a law professor and judge,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told Barrett during his opening statement during Monday’s hearing.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), asked if he believed any Democrat on the committee would bring up Barrett’s religion, said, “Can’t think of a single one.”
Democrats have warned that raising the issue would only provide election fodder for Republicans, who have accused Democrats of trying to apply a “religious test.”…
Note…
For Schumer, the task at hand is enormously important. Already the New York Democrat raised eyebrows when he briefly seized the Senate floor and forced a vote on protecting the Affordable Care Act, an unprecedented move for the minority leader. That vote was a key piece of Democrats’ campaign to tie Senate Republicans, Barrett and an Obamacare lawsuit together.
Democrats say the 87-year-old ranking member, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), is formally in charge, but that Schumer is playing an equally integral role with his manic phone habits and intense focus on taking back the Senate. His interview with POLITICO was brief because “seven things come up every two minutes,” Schumer explained….
That deep fried dope Sen. John Kennedy claimed Democrats were attacking Barrett’s religion. When asked by a reporter to name one Democrat who had actually done so he had zilch to say.
…..’deep fried’…
He, he, he….
I like that….
Early voting lines in Georgia support wait times of 5 hours…..
People are not jumping off those lines which stretch for blocks…
Kennedy is a true Trump Republican.
Lies,lies and more lies.
Perhaps Kennedy is one of the many anonymous people who follow this blog, where he would have seen in the comments, a Democrat refer to ACB as “another crazy Catholic.”
I hope one of Biden’s appointees is an avowed atheist.
After all if 6 of 9 justices are Carholic shouldn’t atheists have some representation?
I wonder how Kennedy Trump and the rest of the right wingers will feel about that?
I’m guessing you won’t have to resort to blogs to find Republicans attacking that choice of religion.
Perhaps someone’s religion or lack thereof should not matter.
I do not know it would have been considered unacceptable and appropriately so, if Elena Kagan would have ever been described as “another crazy Jew.”
and I do not see many on the Left concerned about the fact that it looks like there will be at least two years of a Catholic President and a Catholic Speaker.
I don’t give a damn about someone’s religion as long as they aren’t shoving it down my throat or using it as an excuse to deny civil rights.
I don’t see anybody threatening to do so, and thus disparaging remarks about anyone’s religion should be avoided.
Maybe you would have worded your post differently if you could have.
However, it should be remembered that religious people doing so for religious reasons, have throughout our history advocated FOR civil rights and that should be applauded.
but the job of the Court itself is neither to deny civil rights or extend them, but to interpret the Constitution.
Those who run for office should have their views on Civil Rights at the forefront when people decide to vote for them or not.
Oh hell. Half my fsmily is Catholic. My brother in law 8s a very devout Catholic. Gimme a break.
Would you want a Supreme Court to he filled with 2/3 avowed atheists?
Wouldn’t matter to me. How will they do their job as prescribed?
The 800lb Worry in the room IS Roe v Wade …
Democrats CAN fix Obamacare if the get the trifecta come next year….
Abortion will go back to pre SC ruling some 47 years ago with a smaller sprinkling of states offering the procedure ….
And the concept of ‘woman’s right’s’ thrown away by the addition OF a WOMAN jurist no less…
The underhand focus on the women’s religion IS to
makepush her rule to support the past decision …..Catholic or not….
Any chance of a Healthcare Amendment? that way, you change the game on the Supreme Court and the Republicans…
He, he, he….
No amendment….
No need….
They just need the Senate, and Biden…
Even if the judge ruled against Obamacare he HAS to give Congress a chance to change the ACA….
Listen?
Dem’s KNOW Barrett is a lock….
They can’t let her walk thru this untouched….
Remember…
Republicans themselves DO NOT want the ACA repealed they haven’t talked about THGAT for over a year….
This IS just politics as usual….
The Republicans last Hurrah with Trump looking like he’s a gonner….
Actually I’m glad CG went after my own personal opinion that a Supreme Court made up of 2/3 one religion–any or no religion’s- does not seem to be representative of America st large.
The fight is still in him
Members of the Jewish religion (which of course I am a member of) were and still are far more over-represented on the SCOTUS in terms of U.S. population than Catholics, for those tho whom those things matter.
They should not matter though and people who talked about how there were too many Jews on the Court would be rightfully considered suspect.
At one point, the Court had no Protestants at all — which would be a remarkable contrast to most of the 19th Century’s Supreme Courts.
Even today, the sole Protestant (Neil Gorsuch) is a former Roman Catholic who is now Episcopalian.
Dem’s have to walk a tightrope in the religious area….
For some religion is absent…
For some it IS an integral part of their life…
Again it was just my opinion that a Court made up of almost entirely of one religion or another is not representative of our pluralist society.
CG used this as an excuse to sidestep the fact that NO Democratic Senators “attacked” Barretts religion. Despite the rantings of that Foghorn Leghorn sounding fool John Kennedy.
Like I said– the Republican in him is still strong!
They did so in the 2017 hearings though when she was first confirmed and received backlash for it. So, they are wary of it now, but clearly the concept of her Catholicism is an issue to some.
I don’t think being anti-bigotry makes me a Republican. I wish Republicans were more anti-bigotry these days.
Again I hope Biden nominates an avowed outspoken atheist to the Court and we’ll see how Republicans react and if you give them quarter of not.
Till then I’m done talking about it.
I wouldn’t care if there was an atheist on the Court or a Muslim or anything else.. (might draw the line at a Satanist.)
But what do you mean by “outspoken atheist?” Does that mean they want to prevent people from practicing religion? That wold be un-American. I have not heard of an instance of any Catholic judge saying that people must be Catholic.
I mean someone who is as proud to be an atheist and is as involved in atheist groups as Barrett or others are in Roman Catholic, Jewish, Baptist etc groups. That you jump to the conclusion that atheists who seek fellowship with like minded folks want to indoctrinate others or abolish religion shows that yiu are not above bigotry when it comes to someone’s choice of faith or no faith.
I’m with Jack….
Put qualified people on the court that are NOT radical one way or another….
Then have Congress get is’s shit together and flex like they are supposed to do….
As I’ve mentioned previously, except for Nixon rejected nominee G Harold Carswell back in the 1970s,I regard every Supreme Court nominee over my lifetime to be “qualified.”
Further, the claim that the Senate is judging a nominee’s “qualifications” is just one more deceit of our present political system.
Being involved in “atheist fellowship” seems to be an oxymoron, but I would not care if someone in our government were atheist (beyond the Presidency itself)where I might have an issue)
The only issue would be if someone had such a view of religion in general that they wished to impugn on the Constitutional rights of others to practice religion.
You may be ignorant of atheist organizations but they are indeed allowed to meet and share their thoughts and goals. And if you tho k they are all out to “outlaw religion” that again shows how out of touch you are and maybe it’s better yiu stop talking rather tjan continue showing your ignorance
What do they talk about then if not opposing religion?
Share your knowledge.
I can’t picture any nominee for the Supreme Court admitting any such view.
The fact that you think atheists are just out to “outlaw religion” means you indeed are prejudiced in your thoughts towards those who choose that belief.
Maybe you could do some research before you show yourself to be completely ignorant and bigoted towards those you aren’t familiar with.
I am sure atheists are normal people but if they are in a “fellowship” group specifically about atheism, that is basically a religious gathering themselves. Of course it is Constitutional.
It makes no sense though in theory unless they are organized to “stop religious activity” from others, etc. How else can you explain it?
I actually wouldn’t mind seeing a politician on the Supreme Court.
That used to be pretty common.
Reagan apparently thought of appointing Orrin Hatch .Since then though,it hasn’t been mentioned again that I can remember.
The Court might benefit from the viewpoint of one who served in public office .Too often courts at all levels get hung up on legal theorizing with insufficient appreciation of real world consequences of judicial rulings.
You do NOT have to be a lawyer to be a Supreme Court justice and of course politics IS part of the high courts process….
We now have the media naming which President appointed a Federal judge when they come out with a decision …
Yea…
No politics?
Sandra Day O’Connor had been a state legislator.
When GWB nominated Harriet Miers, who had not been a judge, and who was once on the Dallas City Council, there was bipartisan opposition and it was withdrawn.
I was thinking more of a politician on the national level.
Nor do I believe that previous experience as a judge should be thought of as a necessity for serving on the Supreme Court.
And yes ,while there is no requirement that one be a lawyer to serve, I don’t foresee a non lawyer ever being nominated to the Court
Sandra Day O’Connor was not only an Arizona state legislator; she was the Republican leader in one of the chambers.
But I think Jack would agree with John McCain’s exasperated comment that he wished that at least one Justice had run for dog-catcher (which means that CG meats at least one of his desiderata) — and if you read Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion in Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission (2010) [overturning, among many other campaign-finance laws, McCain-Feingold/Meehan-Shays], you can see why. It makes totally (some would say absurd) assumptions and assertions about how campaigns work and the likely effect of outside funds.
Not only was that court politically-innocent, almost none of its members had judged a case in the first instance (the trial-court level) where witnesses are questioned and evidence examined, as opposed to reading briefs and hearing arguments on appeal.
Sandra Day O’Connor had been an assistant D.A. in San Mateo County (home to her alma mata, Stanford Law), and it’s possible that Clarence Thomas (working in the Missouri A-G’s office) or David Souter, as A-G of New Hampshire, may have prosecuted defendants directly, but none of them had (at that time) judged a case or directed a jury at the first level.
This contributed to some highly-abstract assumptions about how the criminal justice system works at arrest, detention and interrogation. Jack, as a working lawyer, could say more.
With the addition of Sonia Sotomayor, there is (I think) at least one voice explaining how the nuts and bolts work in practice, but since anything can come up at confirmation, almost all proposed appointments have been of scholars and jurists without a political record or controversy behind them (as opposed to those of, say, Thurgood Marshall, Arthur Goldberg, William Brennan, Earl Warren, Charles Evans Hughes or William Howard Taft).
Catching a bit of the hearing, I find Judge Barrett incredibly impressive and believe in theory she would be a great addition to the Supreme Court.
However, I oppose the process of confirming a new Justice to the Supreme Court during a Presidential election year.
Consistency can be challenging to one personally, such as a case like this, but I believe still worth it.
What has she said about women’s rights and healthcare CG?
I assume she is for those things. What would you ask her?
Woman Rights = Abortion..
Healthcare = Bamacare
That’s your own definition. You would have needed to be more specific and you would certainly realize that no Supreme Court nominee, for a very long time, regardless of who they are or who nominated them, took a position one way or another on those kind of issues that may come before the Court.
She’s drinking a Starbucks though…
“bucks”, clearly a signal that she will support Citizens United.
But perhaps that’s bi-partisan, too, CG, since many state ballots once upon a time used a 5-pointed Star as the Democratic Party emblem (and an Eagle for the Republicans).
Wow, Wolf Blitzer really set Pelosi off. She went off on him like she was Kellyanne Conway and he was Chris Cuomo. It’s probably going to go viral.
She’s a conservative anti choice pro big business Republican appointed by a conservative anti choice pro big business Republican President.
Of course you are impressed by her.
There’s nothing conservative about DJT.
He is defined by radicalness, disruption, anti-institutionalism and norm breaking. The complete opposite of conservative.
Why however is Nancy Pelosi freaking out and screaming at Wolf Blitzer on CNN for the past 10 minutes? I guess she was not expecting any actual questions.
If she really wants to hit him, she should mention how horrible he was on Celebrity Jeopardy.
Nancy Pelosi will just rattle off her prepared talking points on her preferred topic without a pause no matter what question you ask her. Ditto for the next question (“but first I want to talk about this….”)
Virtually none of the people in power in government and the media who call themselves and are called “conservatives” give a shit about that.
Trump is their hero. And is synonymous with what it means to he a conservative Republican in America today.
If you say that shows how little the word “conservative” now means well I agree with you there.
Now means nothing
But when you bring me into it, you have to then recognize the distinction, since I have always been consistent.
True younger held Trump to task consistently for his hypocrisy .
However Trump isn’t the first.
Remember Dick “deficits don’t matter” Cheney.
As Jack has noted conservatism has been bunk for awhile. Trump just puts it into hyperacdrive
You have held Trump
I don’t remember Cheney saying that.
There has always been a debate within the conservative movement though about growth vs austerity or tax cuts vs spending cuts. In the 80s, this was typically seen as a difference between Jack Kemp and Bob Dole for instance.
Conservatives do not agree on everything nor do liberals.
Google it.
I’m tired of this “Trump isn’t a conservative” shtick. He’s not appointing liberals to the Supreme Court. He’s not raising taxes on the richest 2% of Americans. He’s not fighting for a woman’s right to control her own body.
He’s a fucking conservative whether you like it or not.
Trump isn’t ANYTHING but about Trump….
And a opportunist ….
You ride with those who brung ya….
He WAS sympathetic to the Democrats early on…
But known’s who IS buttering his bread….