Judge Amy Coney Barrett On Her Intellect, Not Her Faith

Below is my column on the fierce attacks that have mounted against Judge Amy Coney Barrett, including articles suggesting that her conservative Catholic views and support for a charismatic group makes her a virtual cult member. The announcement of the new nominee will come today and Barrett has been viewed as a frontrunner. The religious intolerance unleashed by her likely nomination has continued to grow. Last night, “Real Time” host Bill Mayer came unglued with a vulgar attack on Barrett that even brought in Trump’s alleged affair with Stormy Daniels: “We’ll be saying this name a lot I’m sure because she’s a f—ing nut. . . ‘m sorry, but Amy [Coney] Barrett, Catholic — really Catholic. I mean really, really Catholic — like speaking in tongues. Like she doesn’t believe in condoms, which is what she has in common with Trump because he doesn’t either. I remember that from Stormy Daniels.” Imagine if a conservative commentator responded to President Obama’s nomination of Kagan or Sotomayor by referring to sex with a stripper or referring to Kagan a “really, really Jewish.” These continuing attacks do not bode well for the confirmation fight ahead — regardless of the nominee.  To paraphrase Sen. Feinstein, “[Religious prejudice] lives loudly within you.”

Here is the column:

The image was striking and unsettling with a line of women in red hoods under a Newsweek headline that read, “How Charismatic Catholic Groups Like Amy Coney Barrett’s People of Praise Inspired The Handmaid’s Tale.” Writer Lauren Hough responded immediately by declaring that Barrett, a potential Supreme Court nominee, belongs to a “f—–g cult,” and others labeled Barrett as some type of judicial Serena Joy, a character on the show who imposes virtual slavery on fellow women.

Few Supreme Court nominees, let alone a still unnamed nominee, have been labeled as threatening to reduce all women to handmaiden birthing machines in a theocratic hellscape. Of course, the extraordinary career of Barrett should be a celebration of feminism. She graduated at the top of her law class, became a national thought leader, and ascended to one of the highest courts in the nation. She did that in her career while raising seven children, including two children adopted from Haiti.

The Newsweek story happens to be untrue. The outlet ran a correction that author Margaret Atwood “never specifically mentioned the group as being the inspiration for her work.” The only connection was that a clip that referenced the People of Praise was found in her home. Newsweek said it “regrets the error” but did not retract the story.

Imagine if Newsweek published a picture of the Taliban with that type of picture for a Muslim nominee. But Barrett is a devout Catholic, and some liberals have found a certain release in voicing raw intolerance for certain groups. Recently, many of us criticized statements attributed to Attorney General William Barr seeking out the use of sedition laws against rioters. However, instead of raising constitutional objections, Harvard professor Laurence Tribe raised the Catholic faith of Barr, writing, “It’s way beyond monarchical. It’s paranoid and dictatorial. Opus Dei, anyone?”

It did not matter that Barr is not a follower of the conservative Opus Dei movement. Tribe still portrayed him in the sinister light of a conservative Catholic. It is like someone disagreeing with Alan Dershowitz and noting that he is Jewish. In reality, however, the religious intolerance of Tribe is matched only by his religious ignorance. Opus Dei is not a gateway faith to monarchy and has nothing to do with such ideas and policies.

The Catholic faith of Barrett has been used to argue against her. During her appellate court confirmation hearing, Dianne Feinstein, who is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, cited her Catholic beliefs as the reason “many of us on this side have a very uncomfortable feeling” and “the conclusion one draws is the dogma lives loudly within you. That is of concern.” Feinstein was referring to the writings of Barrett on her Catholic faith and the defense of morality in the law.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was religious. She said, “I am a judge, born, raised, and proud of being a Jew. The demand for justice, for peace, and for enlightenment runs through the entirety of Jewish history and Jewish tradition.” She is the only justice to have a mezuzah affixed to her office door, and reportedly had the Jewish injunction “tzedek tirdof, or “justice shall you pursue,” woven into one of her jabots, or collars, worn on her Supreme Court robes. She studied and attended conferences on Jewish religious law. She insisted traditional certificates reading “the year of our Lord” be changed as unacceptable for Jewish lawyers. She was right, but her references to faith did not make her a religious zealot.

Justice William Brennan was a devout Catholic who had faced religious prejudice in his career and his confirmation. He would become one of the greatest voices against establishment power in the history of the Supreme Court, barring any form of religious favoritism. At his confirmation hearing in 1957, however, Brennan was forced to assure the Senate that he would keep his Catholic faith in check. Like Barrett, senators raised discomfort with his reference to his beliefs in guiding his legal career.

Brennan reaffirmed the role of human affairs as “the superintending care and control of the great governor of the universe.” Likewise, Barrett has been attacked for stating that a “legal career is but a means to an end” and “that end is building the kingdom of God.” However, she went on to tie the statement to being a righteous person. “If you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love, and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.”

Religious prejudice is not confined to Congress. The Supreme Court itself has struggled with religious prejudice. Justice James McReynolds, one of the most loathsome creatures to ever serve, was a virulent sexist, racist, and antisemite. He despised the addition of the first Jewish justice, Louis Brandeis, today considered one of the greatest justices. When Benjamin Cardozo was later considered, McReynolds wrote to President Hoover demanding that he not “afflict the Supreme Court with another Jew.”

Barrett, like Ginsburg, can believe deeply in the teachings of her faith and even support religious legal dogma in her private life without advocating orthodoxy from the bench. Further, many believe morality is relevant to the law. For the record, I have written and litigated in opposition to law based on morality. Barrett is an intellectual who has written on morality and the law. Justice Neil Gorsuch also has written on this issue.

Even as someone who is fervently secular in my views, I prefer someone who has thought deeply over these issues even when they have reached opposing conclusions. Nominations have often favored jurists who never uttered an interesting thought in their careers. The Supreme Court should be a place for those, such as Ginsburg, who rise to it with well articulated jurisprudence. While both Harvard professor Noah Feldman and I testified on opposing sides in the impeachment of President Trump, we have both praised Barrett for her intellect and writings in her legal career.

Barrett has lived and thought boldly. She is not another nominee with an empty portfolio that avoided controversial ideas or clients. It is the real “Handmaid’s Tale” for nominees who are told, “All you have to do is keep your mouth shut and look stupid. It should not be that hard.” That would be hard for Barrett. She has something to say and is a true intellectual.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

421 thoughts on “Judge Amy Coney Barrett On Her Intellect, Not Her Faith”

  1. The family of Flynn are finally able to talk and they issued a statement based on documentary evidence open to the public of the abuses by the FBI, DOJ and Special Counsel in an attempt to “get Trump” (documented as well) It is in a released 302 with more coming.

    [CTDHD still wants Flynn in jail and though mouthed plenty over a considerable length of time seems to have stopped her partisan rhetoric and might be removing her fangs from Flynn’s throat.]

    On Twitter is the Flynn Family Statement that needs no explanation.


    1. You spend a lot of time talking about CTHD when she isn’t around.
      Do you dream about her too?

      1. Only if I am having a nightmare. Then you enter the picture and I realize how Stupid you and the dream is … and the dream ends.

              1. Anonymous, we know what can buy you.

                What would they be paying me for? Why would I work for pennies on the dollar when I don’t need it? There is something wrong with your head.

                CTDHD has lost her luster she has become the equivalent of a btb, lies distortions etc. Everyone now recognizes that whatever skills she might have is just a new paint job over rotted wood.

                  1. They don’t pay my rate for this type of work. When I choose a product or a new business or piece of real estate I don’t look for an hourly wage. I am my own boss.

                    1. You said that you charge exorbitant rates to let people to live in your head, including people who visit you in your nightmares. I didn’t interpret that as a discussion about work.

                    2. Anonymous, that means you misinterpreted what was said.

                      Go back to “Someone’s paying you to be preoccupied with her?” That means payment for work on this blog not in my nightmares.

                      Do you see how confused you get?

                    3. No, Allan, you’re the one who said “it is my nightmare and I charge exorbitant rates,” before I ever asked you if someone was paying you. You admit you’re so preoccupied with her that she’s even in your nightmares.

                    4. Anonymous, you have a lot of comprehension problems. The statement: ““Someone’s paying you to be preoccupied with her?” has nothing to do with any nightmares metaphorical or not. This is just like your misinterpretation of ‘throwing back’ or ‘returning’ which has you totally confused so that you create your own story. You respond not to the person’s statement but in a way that is convenient to your view of the world.

                      Being an inhabitant of a rat latrine can explain a bit of that world. You don’t clean up after yourself and your mind is littered with garbage. Try having a normal discussion and get rid of the garbage. That doesn’t mean two people agree. It means they work towards a common understanding. Your new friends Haversham and Stone haven’t reached that point in their human development so if you wish to remain with subhuman intellect you can welcome them into your world.

                    5. I think you’re the one who has comprehension problems, Allan. You’re the one who said “it is my nightmare and I charge exorbitant rates.” That’s how payment entered into the conversation. If payment isn’t related to the nightmares, why did you say “it is my nightmare and I charge exorbitant rates”? Either way, why do you have nightmares about her? Sounds like she’s living rent free in your head.

                    6. Anonymous@ I see your confusion.

                      I will quote portions of your statementL “You said that you charge exorbitant rates to let people to live in your head,”

                      I never said I let people live in my head. That is your creation.

                      I did say “charge exorbitant rates.”. I do. That is how I earn and earned a living. I used the word exorbitant more freely than perhaps I should have (I earn a lot so I don’t bother with small sums. I either earn based on my own work product or people request my talent.) One generally doesn’t earn a living while sleeping especially when they charge a lot.

                      Elsewhere you asked: “Someone’s paying you to be preoccupied with her?” which should have informed you of the meaning of my state or asked whatever question you found confusing. That is where the difficulty arises. We are not necessarily on the same page. You are looking for an interpretation to start a fight or to push a position but you don’t bother first finding out the true meaning behind what is said. If you look at my answer “I charge exorbitant rates.” one should recognize that the statement though IMO nicely put as an amusing statement “If she’s in your nightmares, then she’s living rent free in your head.” was wrong because no one would be paying “exorbitant rates” for such a scenario. If that didn’t hit the right buttons the rest of the answers should have sufficed but you chose to continue even though I could not immediately tell which anonymous you were. That is your fault. You continued the argument even after more than one explanation was provided without adding new material. That is also your fault.

                      The whole issue revolved around the question of why I post responses to CTDHD. It is based on anonymity and my belief that likely she has been here before and lied about any prior alias. She might be telling the truth or lying, one cannot be sure. However, she has been caught too many times lying and distorting things. Thus she is not to be trusted. My explanation to you was:

                      “CTDHD has lost her luster she has become the equivalent of a btb, lies distortions etc. Everyone now recognizes that whatever skills she might have is just a new paint job over rotted wood.”

                    7. Allan, whether you can admit it or not, your daily insult-filled replies to her, that she’s in your nightmares, that you talk about her when she’s not around, all show that she’s living rent free in your head.

                    8. Anonymous (without the identifying @) if you wish to act Stupid no one can stop you. You had a chance to discuss differences but you chose not to. Of course I can’t be sure which anonymous this is, the Stupid one or perhaps one that is a bit smarter. That is why the @ was left off the name.

      1. Of course it is but all of the ones that don’t get it will never get it because instead of using their brains to reach a logical conclusion all they do is change their aliases.

        Look at the discussion I just had with one of the anonymous’s or two of them. I opened the door to discussion and she slammed it shut. She has no interest in figuring anything out. She is like a rat guarding her turf but in this case she doesn’t even know what her turf is.

  2. If Trump goes with Barrett many others & I will be so pissed we’ll stop supporting him.

    Regardless of Trump I’ve long opposed the use of the Supreme Court using color of law Judicial Supremacy to resolve issues they have no authority over. .

    As I understand it Barrett’s opinions are standing behind global corporations & Medical Tranny against us Citizen Stakeholders using this BS below:

    United States Supreme Court

    No. 70
    Argued: December 6, 1904Decided: February 20, 1905


    Expert Warns Amy Coney Barrett is a Deep State Trojan Horse Who Will Destroy Trump



    Sep 24, 2020


    1. – It was considered that Roberts was a conservative.

      – No one in their right mind would vote for Harris-Biden.

      It’s a crapshoot.

      “Kavanaugh, Roberts side with liberal judges on Planned Parenthood case”

      – Politico

      1. George,

        The tyranny of a few evil men & the corporate vehicles they built have left the intent of founder’s USC has been left hardly even a semblance of itself.

    2. Oky1:

      I read the 1905 ruling, but I have to save my limited satellite bandwidth for my kid’s schoolwork and reduce how often I watch videos. Has Barrett had a decision on compulsory vaccination?

      There is nothing quite like giving someone a consent form, and then threatening them with a crime, or preventing school attendance, if they don’t comply.

      That’s not really consent given by free will.

      I do not oppose vaccines per se, but I have had a rather dramatic bad reaction to one. I should have the right to choose which ones I take, and when, and same for my child. I understand the argument that vaccination reduces the disease load on the community as a whole, but do not believe the government has the right to compel. I got a tetanus booster after an injury recently, but it was my choice.

      People who cannot conceive of a reason not to make vaccines mandatory, consider this. If vaccine manufacturers lobby hard enough, they could add a limitless number to the compulsory vaccination schedule. It’s a captive customer base for them, and unnecessary assumption of risk for the unwilling consumer. If one day a vaccine comes out with an extraordinary high number of adverse events, one would not have the right to say no.

      You should always have the right to say “no” to a medical procedure.

      Parents should also consider our global world, and expect that if they bring newborns or the immunocompromised out in public, they may be exposed to disease. I cannot believe how common it is to see tiny infants at amusement parks. It makes no sense whatsoever. Their immune systems are immature, but they are dipped into the soup of germs of a crowded international tourist destination.

      I also believe that the entire reason for vaccines is to protect the recipient from disease upon exposure. Therefore, there is no public interest served in preventing children missing vaccines from attending school. After all, if they get on a public bus, a plane, or go to a museum, they are going to be exposed to unvaccinated individuals.

      Once the government has this power, it may have unintended consequences.

      1. Karen, if you take a.position that one should not be forced to be vaccinated and their health is their private right to be vaccinated or not, then what is your position on government force on purchasing health insurance?

      2. ” Has Barrett had a decision on compulsory vaccination? ”

        What Barrett & others have & are doing is using the wrongly decided Jacobson vs Massachusetts case as precedent that carves out new govt & health care industry exemption, the authority that grants them the ability to deny all of the Citizens Constitutional Rights by the use of force just by the govt/med industry at any time a public health emergency.

        If it’s desired to change the USC the proper way to it is by amending it to include a Public Health Exemption & not by the ongoing use of Judicial Supremacy.


    3. Barrett is not a Deep state agent. This is off target

      the states do have power to compel vaccination. they may abuse it, just as they have abused their quarantine powers this year for sure, but that does not mean they lack the constitutional power to compel them. if that is what you are getting at oky

      lawyer Barnes is off on Barrett. Maybe his right that Lagoa would have been a better choice for political reasons
      But this stuff about Barrett is bad, is just wrong.

      Barnes is suggesting that Barrett is anti-2d amendment. Or so I heard somewhere.

      Why is that? NRA approves her and the antigunners are on the warpath against Amy.


      Barnes is identifying her with a lot of names that have nothing to do with her in that clip. Rosenstein, Bolton? She has NOTHING to do with those people. Strange for Barnes to have such a tizzy over this.

  3. The KKK persecuted blacks who didn’t do as they were told, and Catholics.

    Not much has changed except for the hats.

  4. It appears that Democrats really, really, really do not want to legislate difficult issue. Unless the Supreme Court legislates from the bench, according to them, the world will descend from the lovely time it’s having in 2020 into dystopia.

    1. Karen, your claim that “Democrats really, really, really do not want to legislate difficult issue” is nonsense. There are literally scores of bills passed by the House that Mitch McConnell will not allow to be considered in the Senate.

      In fact, the choice to focus on a SCOTUS nominee is taking time away from the Senate working on needed legislation for COVID-19 relief, needed legislation on election security, and more.

      1. “In fact, the choice to focus on a SCOTUS nominee is taking time away from the Senate working on needed legislation for COVID-19 relief, needed legislation on election security, and more.”

        CTDHD, That is a good point. McConnell should limit the discussion and get the vote over in a day or so.

      2. CTHD – Democrats want Liberals to interpret the Constitution as if the Founders were modern Liberals. That’s legislating from the bench.

        Conservatives want the Supreme Court to apply the law as it is written.

        If the law, as it is written, does not allow the Supreme Court to rule as they would wish, all they have to do is legislate. Instead, the fate of the world, our civilization, and life as we know it all depend upon a Liberal Supreme Court.

        It’s nonsense.

        (I do agree with your point, however, that Democrats do propose passing sweeping laws. I live in CA. We get smashed with sweeping new laws and regulations all the time.)

        As for bills McConnel sent back – don’t stuff a pandemic relief bill full of pork, pension bailouts, and Green New Deal goodies like renewable energy boondoggles, holding relief for Americans hostage unless you get a wishlist passed unrelated to the pandemic.

        1800 page in what was supposed to be a simple pandemic relief bill. For shame, Democrats!

        “Instead of going big, it seems you went crazy,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. said on the floor Friday. “This is a political messaging bill that has no chance of becoming law.”

        “Unfortunately, many Members of Congress — including some in my own party — have decided to use this package as an opportunity to make political statements and propose a bill that goes far beyond pandemic relief and has no chance at becoming law, further delaying the help so many need,” Spanberger said. (D, VA)

        “Many Senate Republicans have criticized the push for more state assistance, arguing that any new money needs to be tied to the pandemic and not help address budget issues that predated the crisis.

        “It still reads like the speaker of the House pasted together random ideas from her most liberal members and slapped the word ‘coronavirus’ on top of it,” McConnell said of the House bill a day earlier on the Senate floor.”

        1. Karen,

          You’re quoting McCarthy and McConnell from MAY. It’s now September. So why has the Senate done nothing to modify the bill for MONTHS?

          And your claim that “Democrats want Liberals to interpret the Constitution as if the Founders were modern Liberals” is *your* characterization, but you don’t quote what Democrats actually say about it themselves.

          1. It is stalled. Democrats have adamantly refused to take out the pork, and Green New Bill parts.

            As far as I am aware, an amendment can’t fix it.

            1. The democrats do not desire any solution that helps Americans. Remember when they unnecessarily closed parks thinking misery on American citizens would make the Republicans bend so the democrats could have their pork.

            2. Karen,

              Again: the Senate did *nothing* for months.
              Nothing prevented the Senate from passing a bill, then both chambers would send their versions to Conference Committee to be reconciled.
              Why didn’t the Senate pass its own version long ago?

      3. Most of those bills sitting in the senate no republican in their right mind would vote for

  5. Bigotry, racism, misogyny, misandry, and even violence is ok. It’s all fine, as long as a Democrat does it to attack a conservative.

    Morality and ethics do not apply to them. Their supporters do not question.

    1. Karen, I’m a Democrat. I object to bigotry (racism, sexism, religious bigotry, …) and violence. I value morality and ethics, and I think they apply to everyone.

      Arguably, if *you* valued morality and ethics, you wouldn’t post lies like that about people whose political views are different than yours. Will you retract your lie?

      1. ” Karen, I’m a Democrat.” I object to bigotry (racism, sexism, religious bigotry, …) and violence. I value morality and ethics, and I think they apply to everyone.”

        You have also told us that you Commit To Honest Discussion but others, NOT ME, have demonstrated that not to be true.

        1. “I value morality and ethics, and I think they apply to everyone.”

          – Needs To Be Committed

          You are delusional.

          Obama egregiously violated the Constitution to pursue the office and will never be eligible for president. Obama is merely a “citizen.” If Obama is a “natural born citizen,” who is not? Obama unconstitutionally compelled the purchase of a commercial product – the ACA. Obama continues to commit the most pervasive and prodigious crime in American political history – the Obama Coup D’etat in America.

          Joe Biden, his son and family members have been sucking on the teat of government for 47 years as they roam the world collecting graft from foreign countries and selling influence to the highest bidder. The definition of immorality, unethicality and corruption is Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and the Biden family.

      2. “I object to bigotry (racism, sexism, religious bigotry, …)”

        – Needs To Be Committed

        Apparently, you’re against the entire Constitution.

        Are there any rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities your incoherent and hysterical comrade highness allows?

        It is eminently understandable that losers are upset at losing, but constitutional rights, freedoms, privileges and imminuties persist through it all.

        If all men are equal, who will clean the sewers and collect the trash?

        Here’s a word: Wackjob.

        You can’t grasp the scope and breadth of American freedom.

        Woe to you who abrogate the American freedom and the Constitution.

      3. CTHD:

        Do you continue to deny the normalization of racist, bigoted, misgynist, misandrist attacks by Democrats against conservatives? Do you deny that criticism agains the BLM organization is labeled white supremacy or racism? Do you deny the normalization of racism against whites and asians? Do you deny that the media, activists, and the country in general give Democrats a pass on behavior that would be universally condemned if it was done to a Democrat? Do you deny that the Democrat stronghold, CA, voted to strike the phrase that they shall not discriminate on the basis of race from its state constitution, in order to discriminate against whites? (https://fee.org/articles/california-legislature-votes-to-strike-the-state-shall-not-discriminate-from-constitution-opening-the-door-to-legalized-discrimination/)

        Perhaps you should read Turley’s blog a little more closely. We discuss such instances with regularity.

        If you deny that the Democrat Party has a problem with this, then perhaps you should change your handle.

        I have been on the receiving end of this behavior, with the regularity of a metronome.

        The denial is absolutely breathtaking.

        If you wrote a racist screed against whites, or a misogynist oeuvre against men, or bashed Republicans in the most bigoted way possible, you would be applauded by Democrats, mainstream. If you can’t admit it, then you are lying to yourself.

        1. Karen,

          Some Democrats AND Republicans AND Independents/members of other parties are bigots and condone violence.
          And other Democrats and Republicans and Independents/members of other parties are NOT bigots and don’t condone violence.

          Can you agree with that straightforward fact?

          1. It’s a disingenuous question by CTDHD. She wants agreement that people on all sides of the aisle can do bad things which is true, but that is not where the problem lies. The problem lies throughout large democrat cities where rioting, looting, killing, destruction of neighborhoods is occurring by groups that the left have been supporting financially and politically.

            Dishonestly CTDHD wants to wipe all of that out with a simple question. “Can you agree with that straightforward fact?”

            She is full of it.

      4. Karen, I’m a Democrat. I object to bigotry (racism, sexism, religious bigotry, …) and violence. I value morality and ethics, and I think they apply to everyone.

        1. You object to negative assessments of the conduct of your preferred mascot groups.

        2. You have no principles, just improvisations which offer specious justifications for the conduct of your political tribe.

        1. Art Deco x 3:

          You have a different name and avatar than your previous incarnation, Art Deco x 2:

          Which in turn was different form your incarnation before that, Art Deco:

          Which in turn was different from your previous incarnation as This is Absurd x XXii

          Like Allan, you are also making empty accusations without actually linking to evidence.

          1. “Like Allan, you are also making empty accusations without actually linking to evidence.”

            I linked to your FBI evidence and found what you said on Michael Flynn wasn’t true. One of my main accusations is that you provide evidence that is erroneous or out of context. I proved you wrong by providing a more complete statement or document with a link. You are guilty of not being able to distinguish opinion from fact to which I have supplied the source containing proof that your opinion is not the same as fact.

      5. CTHD:

        If you are going to deny that Democrats have normalized racism against whites, misogyny against conservative women, misandry against men, and the violence of BLM, then you should consider changing your handle.

        1. Karen,

          If you think I said something false, quote it, and provide evidence that it’s false.
          If you’re right, I’ll correct my mistake.

          You haven’t attempted to provide any actual evidence that Democrats on average are more racist than Republicans on average. That you believe it doesn’t make it true. Ditto for the rest of your claim.

          1. Sure. You called me a liar. Which is false.

            Do you deny that Democrats get a pass on racism against whites, misogyny against women conservatives, misandry against men, the threat of violence against conservatives, and the promotion of violence through BLM? Turley has written on these topics on this very blog.

            I said as long as a Democrat does these things, it’s OK.

            It’s normalized.

            You’ve called me a liar.

            I think you need to change your handle.

            1. “You called me a liar.”

              Where? Please quote what you’re referring to, because my guess is that you’re reading something into it that I didn’t say and didn’t imply.

              For ex., if you’re referring to my statement “That you believe it doesn’t make it true,” that’s not calling you a liar, and it’s not implying that you’re a liar. I’m saying that you haven’t presented any actual evidence, so even though you think it’s true, the actual truth-value (T vs. F) hasn’t been established. That you believe it to be true is not sufficient to establish that it *is* true.

              And even if it turns out to be false, that also doesn’t mean that you were lying, since people can make false claims in good faith, believing that they’re true.

              Lying is making a false statement **knowing** that it is false. I haven’t alleged anything of the sort for you.

              Again: You haven’t attempted to provide any actual evidence that Democrats on average are more racist (or sexist, or violent) than Republicans on average.

              Do you have actual EVIDENCE that compares the two groups on average?
              If you don’t, just say so. But don’t assume that it’s obvious, because it isn’t.

              1. CTHD said, “Arguably, if *you* valued morality and ethics, you wouldn’t post lies like that about people whose political views are different than yours. Will you retract your lie?.”

                If you are in denial about the normalization of this behavior by the Democrat Party, especially on university campuses, I suggest you spend more time actually reading Turley’s blog posts. As long as moderate Democrats deny this is a problem, and a well documented trend, they will never correct the course of the party, as it keeps going farther Left. The party can apparently count upon the moderates looking the other way, while it keeps courting the far Left.

              2. for my part I could care less about this racism stuff. I am not against BLM because they are racist. I am against them because they are criminals, riot and protection racketeers, and ost of all, they are against ME and US.

                Democrat party is certainly more inclined to use racial and ethnic segmentation in their voting coalition strategies. If Democrats don’t see that then they are blind. I suspect they do see it, they just think it’s ok because it’s aligned against white natives. I can unbderstand the non-white partners in that coalition, really. I have a hard time understanding how white natives remain in that coalition however when it is so clearly aligned against white native group interests.

                Im a white native and I could care less about racism per se. Like all forms of ethnocentrism it is a feature of human nature. You might as well try and prohibit alcohol consumption as prohibit ethnocentrism. It is impossible.

                But mostly the racism now is aimed at us, however. So one has to care about that. There is the excuse of taking our scalps now because of the alleged sins of the past. That is a big emotional component behind Democrat strategy. And thus, one suspects this is why Republicans eschew racial categorization, because, they know they are on the wrong end of the stick about it.

                I believe many Republican leaders are champions of individual rights and fairness, as they claim. That’s fine but they need to keep their own tribal instincts alive and not just surrender them in a tactical move against Democrats gibberish of the day. Meanwhile if white native Democrats had any sense at all they would either call on their party leaders to reject anti-white organizing, or, get out of Dodge while you still can.

          2. You haven’t attempted to provide any actual evidence that Democrats on average are more racist than Republicans on average. That you believe it doesn’t make it true.

            ‘Fraid a complete absence of evidence has never stopped your ilk from making accusations.

            1. I’m only responsible for my own claims “Art,” not for claims made by others.

  6. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-09-26/amy-coney-barrett-deserves-to-be-on-the-supreme-court

    “Regardless of what you or I may think of the circumstances of this nomination, Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

    I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions. Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them….”

  7. Debate her qualifications in another setting. JH’s article about being Catholic.

    Seems like being a racist is bad, but being a bigot against Catholics is O.K.

    I just wonder why Americans were open minded enough in 1960 to elect one of the best oresidents in history, but so close minded that many attack a person due to their religion.

    I understand Bill Mahar because he has always been a mental a$$. But others?

    1. No, religious bigotry not OK, regardless of whether it’s directed towards Muslims, Jews, Catholics, atheists, or anyone else. On the other hand, specific religious beliefs sometimes deserve criticism, as with creationism/evolution-denial.

      1. Commit — specific religious beliefs sometimes deserve criticism, as with creationism/evolution-denial.”


        Muslims, then?

      2. “specific religious beliefs sometimes deserve criticism, as with creationism/evolution-denial.”

        Not unless those religious beliefs are pushed onto society. The big one I assume you object to is the abortion issue. People are on the entire spectrum of that issue so she has an opinion. Many that aren’t Catholic and don’t agree with her opinion agree that Roe v Wade should never have appeared in front of the Supreme Court. I don’t think however she votes that she will be taking direction from the Pope and that was the claim against JFK.

      3. But the negative discussion is about Catholicism, not her beliefs. Why call her out on her religion. Call her out about her beliefs like abortion is bad, etc.

        1. Ron, not singling out CTDHD but that seems to be the problem on the blog. The leftists on this blog don’t discuss principle. Instead they discuss personality and engage in tribalism. The left can only win if permitted to demonize those that disagree.

          1. The only remarks any of them have ever made on policy have been a component of defending every bloody thing Obama ever did. Half of them are incapable of anything but juvenile drive-bys and the other half behave like paid trolls, doggedly advancing discredited theses in an effort to argue that the misconduct of the security state and miscellaneous prosecutors over the last five years has been legitimate. There’s remarkably little there there. The only exception is Enigma, who actually does care about this issue and that issue, but nothing of cardinal importance.

          2. Allan, Since I am new here compared to everyone else, I am finding who is “civil” and who are the “uncivil”. So far I have determined you seem to be closer to my beliefs, with differences, while CTHD is more progressive, but one I can “debate”:issues without the uncivil comunication.

            When one closes their mind to opposing views, we get what we have with the extreme discourse leading to issues like Brianna Taylor where all the police in Louisville are blamed for the mistakes of one or two. Nothing good comes from that.

            1. “Nothing good comes from that.”

              Ron, that is why nothing good comes from the left. They don’t deal in principle. They deal in convenience, tribalism etc. They use people. They are narcissistic. Their moral values stem from what is best for them. Frequently they lie and distort the truth.

              Just look at the statements made about the Taylor incident. We know the information is incomplete. We know things are being politicized. Do leftist’s care? Of course not they use the lack of information to distort the truth for their own ends. That is what CTDHD does on a continuous basis. Then they politicize everything.

              Michael Flynn isn’t guilty of any significant crime. One can’t be sure because we have so many rules and regulations (along with forms to be filled out) but we can be sure any minor infraction he made was insignificant compared to the many infractions made by those on the left. CTDHD sunk her fangs deep into that case because she wanted him in jail no matter what. How hateful can one be? Her arguments distorted the truth and she lied. There is no way to discuss anything to a reasonable endpoint with that type of individual. There is btb who will make statements that conflict with one another and will go right on repeating those conflicting statements one after the other in the same response.

              I don’t believe that many issues are 100% in one direction.There are frequently reasons on both sides of such an issue. The left will politicize them and use politics to take a 100% position. More sensible people will look for a solution that is not political and satisfies most of the needs without making things worse.

            2. Ron, I suggest that you try to avoid being pulled into a discussion about me with Allan.

              Since you’re fairly new here, you don’t know the history, but I stopped replying to him months ago because he was frequently insulting and made false claims about me. He’s continued to respond to me with insults and false claims. He regularly refers to me as “Needs to Be Committed,” and some of his other insults are pretty extreme. Here’s an example: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/07/got-god-trump-claims-biden-opposes-god/comment-page-2/#comment-1987740

              So take his claims about me with a grain of salt.

              1. I will place my response elsewhere at the top. CTDHD thinks she can tell everyone else what they ought to do. Unfortunately for her the DNC talking points she is provided have not been written for this eventuality. Take note how many totally wrong things are claimed by people like her that suddenly disappear from their rhetoric without any admission.

                I love things that are in writing and can be found.

                1. Allan says: “CTDHD thinks she can tell everyone else what they ought to do.”

                  How does Allan come up with these things??

              2. This is a example of Allan-speak. About “the left,” he says:

                “…that is why nothing good comes from the left. They don’t deal in principle. They deal in convenience, tribalism etc. They use people. They are narcissistic. Their moral values stem from what is best for them. Frequently they lie and distort the truth.”

                Let’s try it like this:

                “…that is why nothing good comes from the right. They don’t deal in principle. They deal in convenience, tribalism etc. They use people. They are narcissistic. Their moral values stem from what is best for them. Frequently they lie and distort the truth.”

                Saying it about either side is wrong; this kind of language needs to stop. It’s ugly and divisive.

                1. So far on this blog the right is more willing to deal with principle than the left and that seems to be what is happening in DC. It’s not Allan speak it is what is observable. You want to spin it your way. That is understandable but anyone can read the postings.

                  One simple thing to note is that many here on the left develop apoplexy when faced with a Turley LEGAL argument that goes against the left. The vast majority are NOT lawyers. Listen to what your comrades have to say. The content is thin to non existent.

                  You talk about being divisive but your knife cuts deeply into your rhetoric so stop trying to alter what is true. Any time you wish you can change your rhetoric away from the highly partisan rhetoric you are familiar with and starting basing your comments on principle. That could prove that you moved away from the ugliness and divisiveness.

                2. Yes, it’s ugly and divisive, but based on his comments to date, Allan isn’t likely to stop.

        2. Ron, I’m not the one saying anything negative about Catholicism. I agree with you that the discussion should focus on her judicial rulings, on other relevant legal work (for ex., she served on the legal team that represented GW Bush in the 2000 Bush-Gore recount case in FL, where she worked to stop votes from being counted — and Trump is saying things like “I think this [election] will end up in the Supreme Court and I think it’s very important that we have nine justices”), etc.

          I cannot control other people’s statements, only my own.

          1. OK thats the problem with written words. My “why” in “why call her out” is a general “why” for those doing it, mostly people like politicians and Mahar. That “why” was not meant you. I failed my own rule, being specific. Sorry

      4. Diane Feinstein talks about Barrett’s dogma and throws shade on her for it. Back at appellate confirmation


        Let’s be honest CTHD. Feinstein is Jewish, a majority of Jews in America are are Democrats, and there is a deep suspicion of Catholics among Jewish liberals. The preponderance of Jewish liberals who have been waging ACLU cases against public expressions of Christian religious sentiment, mangers and all, for the past 50 years makes it plain.

        Am I right? Be brave and come clean, make your case.

      1. No, Anonymous (9/26, 1:24pm), Ron P. and I have different views about a number of things, but he’s civil and willing to have an actual discussion. He’s not a troll.

      2. No not a troll. At least I have a name and not hiding behind an anonymous curtain. I have opinions, which you may not like. One being cowards behind anonymous blinds do not warrant debate. But for others with an indentifier, the main beliefs is being specific in comments and beliefs, not painting a complete group based on a few actions and beliefs in the least amount of government is best, but compromise does exist.

  8. As far as Barrett is concerned, the only positive I see is that she’s a Trump appointee – period. As for religion, she’s just another Catholic on the court, which is made up almost exclusively of Catholics and Jews, neither group of which played a role in the founding of this country. In fact, many, if not most, colonists came here to get away from the Catholic Church and it’s spawn, including my Anabaptist ancestors. I find it very ironic – and troubling – that the very groups responsible for the establishment of the country are not represented on the court, with one exception – Gorsuch is an Episcopalian, an Anglican. They are all products of Ivy League colleges and most of them are from the northeast. Those that aren’t have spent a good part of their lives in that part of the world. I wish Trump had chosen someone more representative of the United States as a whole.

    1. Excuse me, but many Catholics played a role in the founding of this country, not least the founders of the State of Maryland. The Anabaptists were being persecuted as heretics by most other non-Catholics, as a matter of fact. But, you’re right, any justice’s personal faith is irrelevant. Judge Barrett was very recently confirmed to a federal bench by a majority of the senators who will now consider this nomination. How can her qualifications have deteriorated in a couple of years? They can’t, so just vote already, and spare us another hearing circus.

      1. Her qualifications haven’t deteriorated. But our knowledge of her approach as a judge have increased, precisely because she was confirmed to the bench and has now written opinions. A Justice has more power than a judge, and it’s wholly appropriate to question her again, now that there is more information about her. SCOTUS occasionally overturns precedent, and it’s appropriate to ask her about that too.

        In addition, Trump and Cruz have already explicitly stated that they think there will be a SCOTUS case about the election, and it’s appropriate to question her about whether she would recuse, whether Trump spoke to her about this possibility, etc. For example, Cruz, early this morning: “One of the biggest reason we will confirm the nominee BEFORE Election Day is to ensure a full 9-Justice majority to resolve any (inevitable) election disputes.”

        That is, assuming that Trump actually nominates her. He hasn’t announced it yet, and we don’t know for certain until he says who he is nominating.

    2. Positing it is Judge Barrett, she grew up in New Orleans, attended a satisfactory private college in Memphis, then attended Notre Dame’s law school. She currently lives in Indiana. She’s what you’re asking for bar she isn’t an anabaptist.

      That nearly all of them attended one of two law schools is an irritant.

  9. The founders who wrote the Constitution did not envision America as a dead society where social evolution was filtered through a set of dogmas that reflected some omnipotent force. They wrote the Constitution fully aware of what an omnipotent force could do to thwart democracy. They were fully aware of Cromwell’s taking England to war to oppose an omnipotent force.

    The founders were of an age of transition and designed the governance of the nation in a way that reflected this transient nature. Every two to four years, the people would have a say. The Supreme Court is now an extension of a minority legislative situation. The Supreme Court is now in a position of being omnipotent and representing the minority. Any fool off of the street could argue equally well as the most accomplished Supreme Court Justice, for or against the ACA as it pertains to the Constitution. The decision making now, which was the will of the people, will be placed in the hands of a non democratic entity. Is this what the founding fathers intended?

    1. “The founders who wrote the Constitution did not envision America as a dead society where social evolution was filtered through a set of dogmas that reflected some omnipotent force.”

      Apparently the founders bet on both sides of the coin. On the one hand they produced a document that could slowly change by amendment but they also recognized that foolish people could destroy it and that is why we remember the word ” a republic if we can keep it”.

      1. If ever there was an example of how this system failed and allowed in the most foolish ever, it is with Trump and McConnell. The intentions of the founders were of a vastly higher meaning and value than power for power’s sake. Yet that is what we have been experiencing for the past four years. A President who places himself above all else, a Senate leader that manipulates in the starkest manner of hypocrisy ever, and soon a majority representing the minority on the Supreme Court. If ever there was a call to revisit the original intentions of the founders and marry them with today it is now. We now have a Supreme Court that is tantamount to a dictator. One dictator leaves and leaves behind another.

        1. “A President who places himself above all else,”

          That is absolutely false. If anything President Trump has viewed the presidency with far more reverence, honesty and legality than Obama who weaponized departments of government against an incoming President. Look at all the FBI reports and the testimony before Congress. It is now clear that the Obama Biden Administration acted in ways that were despicable. They may be isolated from their actions but those that took those actions can actually be tied into Russia while Trump was completely innocent.

          I’ll keep repeating this fact revealed by the FBI documents because the way people act tell a lot about what is going on. A couple of FBI agents recognized that a release of FBI information could jeopardize themselves and took out insurance.

          1. I’ll leave the last words to Trump. Immune. I can do anything. Loyalty to me over all. etc. Every President, majority Congress, majority Senate has done what Obama did. However, none has advocated for the excesses to be a given like Trump. Sessions, Comey, and many others with integrity got the axe because they didn’t lick Trump’s where the sun don’t shine. It’s all on record. Trump has been the band leader of this perversity, this shame, this treason. Read a newspaper other than Foxnews once in a while.

            1. Issac, that FBI agents were taking out insurance to protect from selves from the fallout of the misdeeds at the FBI is telling. We now have documentation that the Steele Dossier came from a Russian spy who had been under investigation. Hillary Clinton and the DNC were involved in that Dossier. We can link that spy to Vindman and Fiona Hill both who testified against Trump yet they were in the middle of a scandal.

              “Read a newspaper other than Foxnews once in a while.”

              I’m reading the FBI transcripts. You are reading what a company chooses you to read. What is this Fox News stupidity all about. They certainly are better than the other news media you talk about. They are reporting on the FBI findings. Why is your media not reporting these things?

            2. We got it. You don’t like Trump. However, that is not a good reason to be blind of the facts.

              Take the Steele Dossier. The true origin seems to be from a Russian spy who has been under suspicion and investigated. That makes Clinton and the DNC guilty of dealing with the Russians while Trump has been proven innocent. We know that those that testified against Trump were in the midst of a scandal with this Russian spy, Vindman and Fiona Hill.

              ” Read a newspaper other than Foxnews once in a while.”

              I get my news from the FBI reports. Where do you get yours? What is it with you and Fox News? Your media poorly reports when it does those things reflecting badly on your political choices. They choose what you read. Why don’t you look at the FBI reports?

          2. In an article about this, Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein wrote that “Flynn’s team alleges that one January 2017 message — an exchange in which two FBI officials suggest their colleagues were all obtaining liability insurance ahead of Trump’s inauguration — indicated it was related to their fears about the handling of the Flynn investigation. But Barnett, in his interview, contradicted that claim, suggesting it was unlikely to be related to the Flynn probe because it predated the public disclosure of the matter in new reports. Barnett also said he regularly encourages colleagues to obtain professional liability insurance.

    2. ssacbasonkavich wrote The decision making now, which was the will of the people, will be placed in the hands of a non democratic entity. Is this what the founding fathers intended?

      Yes. That’s why they created a three branch system of checks and balances.

  10. Trump has to be defeated. If he wins heads will roll. Especially if he gets his Supreme Court nominee. This election process will be very challenging for Trump. The left is pulling out all the dirtiest tricks that they can think of. Very interesting times we live in.

    1. An America of Fools

      You can know that the Deep Deep State of global communism is fully in control and that the end is near for “democrazy” when an un-candidate with dementia wins – it will demonstrate that people will foolishly sacrifice their freedom for a sham government which “takes care” of them rather than engage in freedom through self-reliance.

      It will explain why the American Founders established a restricted-vote republic, distinctly not a one man, one vote democrazy, and never intended for the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” having recently abrogated the dictatorship of the British monarchy.

      “Especially if he gets his Supreme Court nominee.”

      Your hysteria, incoherence and empowering ignorance are showing.

      “He…by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,…shall appoint…Judges of the supreme Court,…”

      Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2

      He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,…

      The President will nominate and the Senate will confirm the next Supreme Court Justice.

      You and your foolish communist comrades will not bear on the process in the least.

  11. If anybody here is a Democrat, and having doubts about the party or their beliefs, please watch this #walkaway video. It is the absolute best narrative I have seen of someone who broke out of the liberal hive mind. She was “born” a Democrat in Massachusetts, and then moved to L.A. where she was a teacher, and then became an ER nurse. As she got older (she is 30 years old now) she became increasingly unable to reconcile the Democratic/Progressive narrative she believed in, and the vision of reality presented by the mainstream media, with what she was encountering in the classroom and then in the hospital setting.

    She is articulate and real and she explains how she came to be a conservative Republican. It is a 46 minute video, but if you are someone who is starting to think for yourself and asking yourself questions about your political beliefs, this is what you need to watch. It is also fascinating for other people, like me, who try to understand why sane people stay in the Democratic fold year after year when Reality is screaming and banging at the doors of their mind. She explains how difficult it was for her to break away and start thinking for herself


    Please watch this.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  12. The world has watched as Trump has turned the most powerful nation on Earth into a laughing stock. The world has watched as Trump has been Putin’s lapdog. The world has watched as it’s own citizens die in record numbers because Trump lied and could have done what his job calls for, the protection of it’s citizens. Now the world is watching Trump destroy democracy and it’s courts. But the world will see the end of our national humiliation come November.

    1. Fingers crossed that you’re right about the election, though I also worry about what will happen between then and January even if he’s defeated.

      Re: how the world views us —

      “‘I Feel Sorry for Americans’: A Baffled World Watches the U.S.
      “From Myanmar to Canada, people are asking: How did a superpower allow itself to be felled by a virus? And why won’t the president commit to a peaceful transition of power? …
      “‘Personally, it’s like watching the decline of the Roman Empire,’ said Mike Bradley, the mayor of Sarnia [Canada], an industrial city on the border with Michigan, where locals used to venture for lunch. Amid the pandemic and in the run-up to the presidential election, much of the world is watching the United States with a mix of shock, chagrin and, most of all, bafflement. … The diminution of the United States’ global image began before the pandemic, as Trump administration officials snubbed international accords and embraced an America First policy. Now, though, its reputation seems to be in free-fall. …
      “‘The world sees the dismantling of social cohesion within American society and the mess in managing Covid,’ said Yenny Wahid, an Indonesian politician and activist. ‘There is a vacuum of leadership that needs to be filled, but America is not fulfilling that leadership role.’ Ms. Wahid, whose father was president of Indonesia after the country emerged from decades of strongman rule, said she worried that Mr. Trump’s dismissive attitude toward democratic principles could legitimize authoritarians. ‘Trump inspired many dictators, many leaders who are interested in dictatorship, to copy his style, and he emboldened them,’ she said. …”

      1. A lot of people say a lot of stupid things. To base one’s conclusions on such anecdotes is foolish.

          1. Perhaps, Anonymous the Stupid, but then again at least I am able to form opinions and produce facts instead of acting like an idiot.

    2. “citizens die in record numbers”

      According the CDC the number of alleged deaths solely attributed to Covid19 in the US is far less than the deaths attributable to the flu every year.

      So, you’re pissing up yet another propaganda rope, fishy.

      1. You must have just come from a Trump rally. Even Trump doesn’t lie so blatantly. Over 200,000 have died due to Covid-19 in six months. Within 12 months of the beginning of the pandemic, around March 2020 when the death toll started, there will be over 350,000 deaths at the present rate and given the most Covid-19 susceptible season is yet to come. The average number of deaths attributed to the flu season in 2019 in the US was approximately 35,000. Your lie is an exaggeration of 10 times the truth. Congratulations you have just been appointed, by Trump, to be the head liar. You are a bona fide Trump a** licker.

    3. Let’s take them one at a time. He is such a laughing stock that he was able to fashion a mideast treaty between Israel and some of its Arab neighbors with more expected to come aboard. He is such a laughing stock that he created an economic agreement between Serbia and Croatia.

      All you have done is demonstrated ignorance.

      1. Two nominations for Nobel Peace Prize
        Traffic circle in Jerusalem named for Trump
        Lake between Kosovo and Serbia may be named for Trump
        ME peace agreements because of Trump
        US embassy, followed by others, moved to Jerusalem
        NATO Countries contributing agreed share to organization
        And much more

        Some laughing stock

    4. ‘People would be a whole lot less shocked by media behavior if you stopped looking at them as journalists and instead as the national Democrat Party marketing team, which is what they are now.’ @JohnEkdahl

    1. No comparison. The US was a vastly more racist, bigoted, narrow mined nation at that time. Catholics, Jews, Communists, were all fair game. Kennedy wasn’t a bible thumper like Barrett. Kennedy was Clintonesque sexually. Kennedy was a universal character. The times are different. The US elected Kennedy, in spite of its national bigotry, by a slim margin. The people made the choice. With the Supreme Court, the minority is making the choice and the minority will be involved in legislation for a time period that conflicts with the intentions of the founding fathers. Governance was structured to be addressed by the people every two to four years. Six out of nine ‘for life’ participants have no place in the legislative aspects of the people. The problem is with the court.

      1. “The US was a vastly more racist…”

        Yet despite that dramatic improvement the left supports the rioting, burning, killing and destruction of neighborhoods by BLM/Antifa.

        1. It took a decade or two of rioting and protesting, bombing, etc to change for the better: get out of Vietnam and stop slaughtering innocents, stop lynching Blacks, etc. You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

          1. Issac, it appears our view of history is quite wrong and you don’t even seem to be able to stay on one subject.

            What does Vietnam have to do with slavery?

            Though horrible there actually weren’t that many lynchings of blacks but it should never have occurred. You do realize that whites and others were also lynched so your statement is a bit thin.

            “without breaking a few eggs.”

            If I interpret the context correctly, that is as foolish a statement as one can make. Of course in making things better for African Americans progressives closed some excellent African American schools, Dunbar being one, that were sending minorities to college and into the professions and elsewhere. I guess that is what you are call progress by breaking a few eggs. Doesn’t sound smart to me.

            1. Allan

              It was the left, the youth, the disenfranchised that protested, demonstrated, and rioted to stop the racism against Blacks, to end the Vietnam War, to advocate for women’s rights. It was the left that accomplished these greater freedoms of today and still advocate for greater freedoms. The left fought against the right: John Birch Society, Wasps, etc. This country is what it is because of the life, primarily. Whether known as Democrats during reconstruction and up until the middle of the 20th Century or Republicans since, it has been the conservative status quo that has held America back. America has been a follower for the past century. Perhaps it’s a good thing to temper progress but when anchored to the past as with today’s Republicans, not so. Then add in a blithering idiot like Trump.

              1. You give too much credit to the left and no they were not the only ones that fought against the war and not all on the right fought for the Vietnam war. A bit of hypocrisy is being demonstrated because this President has kept us out of war and has created peace between Israel and some of its Arab neighbors with more to come. Peace, in the form of an agreement economic and perhaps otherwise between Serbia and Kosovo. On the one hand you hate war but suddenly if Trump is making peace instead of war there is no credit for peace.

                Remember, during the 20th century the leftist nations of the world outside of war killed over 100 million people.

                Another thing to remember is that the democrat party of today is totally different that the democrat party under JFK. Also remember we had protests that were peaceful except for those that are much loved by the left today but were on the FBI list of most wanted.

                You seem to write about your fantasies rather than reality.

                “The left fought against the right: ”

                Let’s not forget while the left fought against the right they fought against the civil rights acts and were for segregation.

  13. The very people that claim cult figure are themselves cultists in the cult of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini. They are of the Socialist Cult including those who hide under the name of Democrat. The modern version is Regressive Liberals yearning for the days of pre soviet witch craft of their own making. Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff and fellow cultists now are out in the open. So…. maybe it IS time to burn the witches. The mini cult of fascist socialism known as The Squat might be looking at in terms of political kindling.

    1. Excuse me I should have put Fineslime at the top The cult of Marxist Leninist Adolfist lives with in her.and that’s about all. Kinda like a virus the pure DNA gobbling up useful living organisms. .

  14. America Can’t Go Back To The 1950’s

    The Male-dominated Anti-Abortion movement is wildly excited at the prospect of criminalizing abortion. But let’s be honest here, ‘Educated women of the 21st Century scarcely want Police Detectives showing up at hospitals to investigate miscarriages’. Nor do they want doctors subject to gag rules that prevent them from giving the best medical advice.

    This is where the Handmaiden comparisons come in. We can’t go back to the 1950’s. We’re now closer in time to the 2050’s. This idea that we’re going to crack-down on women and healthcare professionals is not realistic outside the rightwing bubble. Only deluded Trumpers think that’s possible.

    However nice Ms Barret might be, she’s out of step with the times. What’s more she’s being appointed by an impeached president who never won the Popular Vote. It’s hard to see how the public will ever accept Barret as anything but a rump appointee.

    1. “America Can’t Go Back To The 1950’s”

      Yet, according to the mindless Democrats at BLM protests, America and its “systemic racism” never left the 1950’s.

      What’s really amusing about that is the fact that LBJ’s Great Society (aka/the virtual welfare plantation) put an end to systemic racism.

      So according to LBJ’s Party, 56 years after the Great Society was implemented, it is an abject failure. So why in the hell would black people vote for more of the same with old Uncle Joe?!

      1. Yet, according to the mindless Democrats at BLM protests, America and its “systemic racism” never left the 1950’s.

        Game Set Match

      1. It isn’t rocket science. A Fetus is a fetus when they become viable where they can live if born prematurely they become a protected citizen. There is plenty of time and plenty of medical ability to determine if somethings amiss. One does not need to wait until the moment of birth. The current law allows for that exactly. Besides Harris and others where else are you going to get the next generation of cannon fodder for your next wars? One thing and one thing only is amiss. What about the rights of the father… for those who have one or know whom?: It’s no wonder the divorce rate is so high.

  15. This is a great and necessary piece, thank you Professor.

    And give us a break, millennials. The only people threatening to establish a totalitarian dystopia would be the ones wearing red dresses and white bonnets burning things because someone else dared to have a thought in contradiction to their ‘safe space’, which in turn triggered their crippling, non-specific anxiety. The modern Spanish Inquisition is spelled, ‘D-N-C’, and the woke believers could find evil in their phone bill or avocado toast such are their delusion and sociopathy.

    Their temper tantrums worked on their parents, not us, and we will not capitulate to their fragility like their colleges or Hollywood does (and, ironically, in the name of profits your already privileged behinds claim to loathe when you type furiously on your $1500 smart phone). It isn’t our fault they are so ignorant they don’t know they’re ignorant, and it has gone far, far beyond the point of absurdity. I’ll take the short term chaos to get back on track vs. the destruction of our Constitution, any day.

  16. The constitution is very clear. “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Any religious test is FORBIDDEN. It can not be more clear. So lets ditch the No Popery bigotry that the Left seems to feel like throwing around.

    1. John

      It’s not uniquely about religion. It is about the fact that in the US the Supreme Court is part of the legislative process and it is now going to be 6-3 represented by the minority of Americans. America has some perversions that contradict its democracy: electoral college, Senate, gerrymandering, local voter controls=voter suppression, etc. However, there is now none more odious than the Supreme Court where the vestiges of America’s most perverse administration will linger for far too long. If an adjustment of some kind is possible then it must come. An equal and opposite, therefore natural, response would be to add three to five new seats and have the court represent the people. The people represent the Constitution not the other way around. The Constitution is not god and god is not the Constitution. America to be America and free must be alive. The idea of an almighty god that is never changing and to which every one must adhere is religion. If religion and the state are truly to be separate then the Supreme Court must be made transient, as are the other facets of government.

      1. ” It is about the fact that in the US the Supreme Court is part of the legislative process ”

        It is not. It’s job is to determine if laws etc. meet constitutional muster.

        1. Which because it is all dependent on the opinions of the justices, makes it a legislative entity. If the ACA is struck down it will be because of the opinion of the justices, not the will of the people. The majority of the people through their representatives already created the ACA. The minority of the people through their representatives are seeking to have it overthrown and using the Supreme Court as an instrument. The rest is all BS. You need to understand the reality of the situation, not just the ambiguous wording of a constitution written two centuries + ago. A lifetime appointment of a legislative tool is contrary to democracy.

          1. “Which because it is all dependent on the opinions of the justices, makes it a legislative entity”

            Issac, they are determining matters of law. Not whether the legislation is good or bad. You need a better grasp of the subject.

          2. Just wanted to say that judging on her intellect as the title suggests is too narrow of a review for a Supreme Court nominee. For example, it is perfectly appropriate for the Senate to consider her policy views, judicial philosophy, and the circumstances surrounding her nomination.

Comments are closed.