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. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1309950750517334018

    “Glenn Greenwald
    @ggreenwald

    What’s most at stake with ACB’a nomination will get the least amount of attention – just like in our politics generally:

    Quote Tweet

    David Dayen
    @ddayen
    · 11h

    On many of the most important issues before the Court, involving corporate power and economic regulation, Barrett and John Roberts are perfectly aligned…

    3:19 PM · Sep 26, 2020·Twitter for iPhone”

    Here’s the article:

    Barrett Crushed Gig Workers Weeks Before Likely SCOTUS Nomination

    In August, the likely Trump nominee delivered a key ruling blocking many gig workers from suing in court when tech companies deny them overtime pay.
    Walker Bragman and David Sirota”

    This report was written by Walker Bragman and David Sirota

    https://www.dailyposter.com/p/barrett-crushed-gig-workers-weeks

        1. Anonymous, that reply demonstrates ignorance and a lack of critical thinking skills. At least you recognize that you have no point that you can defend.

    1. To her credit, she praised Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her remarks were met with tepid applause — hardly a surprise.

      (Someone needs to teach her the correct pronunciation of the word ‘poignant’.)

  2. Harris-Biden are going to win.

    Harris-Biden are ahead in all the polls.

    The communists (liberals. progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are posting extensively and frenetically as if they have OCD in conjunction with the co-morbitity, TDS.

    Harris-Biden are going to win.

    What are the communists (liberals. progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) so deathly afraid of?

  3. Are we really worried that a catholic won’t get a fair shake in the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process? 5 of the 8 justices are catholic and most likely it will be 6 of 9 in a month.

      1. “I wouldn’t give a rip.”

        You are making your mom proud. She can’t believe her little Anonymous Coward isn’t shaking in his boots. But from the look of you I think you need to change your pants.

        1. It’s more than likely that Allan is one of those guys who has never confronted anything truly ‘scary’ in his life. He’d wet himself, immediately…and the rest would follow. He’s a coward (and bully), in the main.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, you are dreaming which is what you do best. Who cares what you think? Stupid opinions do not count for much.

              1. Anonymous the Stupid, this is a discussion list where people listen to various ideas, but you are so Stupid and vacuous there is virtually nothing to listen to when you speak. I might be the only one paying any attention at all.

                  1. I respond to your comments as well. I am studying Stupidity and you are a welcome part of that study. Take note how you can complain, insult and say all sorts of things but you are unable to engage in intelligent discussion.

    1. Yeah, Allen, we know the blog is rigged in favor of Trumpers. That’s why you’re so abusive. You know the moderator will intervene on your behalf.

      1. The moderator has banned two people in the last several years. One was Diane (aka ‘Late4Dinner’), a graphomaniac whom clotted up every thread with her verbose speculations. The other was Gainesville (who went on a foul-mouthed tirade against the moderator one day). Gainesville then returned under a series of handles.

          1. Normal people stay away from psychotic people, but you are not normal PaintChips. You seem to have a borderline personality sprinkled with paranoia to a lesser or greater degree. You might even be medicated for it.

            1. Normal people stay away from psychotic people, but you are not normal, Allan. You seem to have a borderline personality sprinkled with paranoia to a lesser or greater degree. You might even be medicated for it.

              1. Anonymous the Stupid, you have a characteristic of a catatonic ( schizophrenic ). If I move words in a specific manner you assume the position. Look up the works waxy flexibility.

                  1. This is how Anonymous the Stupid reacts to some interesting new thoughts. He doesn’t even know what the words mean so he relies on his less than 200 word vocabulary.

                    1. “…some interesting new thoughts.”

                      Allan’s new role, in addition to being the self-appointed blog-moderator (without actually having any power) — is that of armchair-shrink.

                      Too funny.

                    2. “Allan’s new role, in addition to being the self-appointed blog-moderator (without actually having any power)”

                      I’m not a moderator. I like a clean street to walk on. You are mired in filth so you don’t even notice.

                    3. Anonymous, when you are forced to repeat yourself over and over again it means you ran out of anything to say. You didn’t start off with much and you are not ending with a bang.

          2. Against one particular poster. He’s concise, Peter.

            My suggestion to the moderator would be to block postings by anyone using ‘anonymous’, but he’s not asking for unsolicited advice.

                  1. As I said Brainless Wonder, you use force and throw your sh1t all over the blog where others are. It is a right to protect oneself from harm by others. Don’t throw your projectiles so they can hit other people. That is your problem. You can dish it out (in a mindless fashion), but you can’t take it.

                    1. Allan will continue to blabber…until the responses stop. He likes to have the last word. Let’s see if he can resist the urge…

                      He’s a nut — and hardly “a decent guy.”

                    2. “Allan will continue to blabber…until the responses stop. He likes to have the last word. Let’s see if he can resist the urge…He’s a nut — and hardly “a decent guy.”

                      AS a devout leftist that can’t think for herself you believe you have the right to the last word. Who gave you that right? Then you insult because you are intellectually deficient and can’t come up with an answer. That is a problem you keep facing. You require others to provide you with rules, boundaries and discipline in order for you to function adequately.

  4. L. Luppen:
    “worth scrutinizing Barrett’s views on the right to vote discussed on pages 50-54 of this second amendment case (in her dissent) https://t.co/IYFOlcaxLT
    “In sum, Barrett writes the right to vote is not an “individual right” of the same kind that Scalia declared the right to weapons to be in Heller; it’s a “civic right.” Therefore, she concludes the right to vote is susceptible to have whole classes of people excluded from it…
    “In particular, ACB believes that felons, including nonviolent felons, can be excluded as a class from the right to vote forever, whereas the government must make an individualized showing of dangerousness to justify restricting a felon’s access to weapons.”
    https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1310017570456637440

    That’s certainly seems worth asking about.

    1. This is a 10th amendment issue. Some states dont take away felons right to vote. 20 states including D.C. automatically restore rights once sentence is finished. 18 restore rights after tye sentence and probation period is completed. Only 11, mostly southern (red) states require anything further.

      So she needs to respond to any question by simply quoting the 10th amendment, state the constitution does not address felons voting rights and move on.

      1. No, if she’s asked about what wrote in her dissent, she doesn’t get to pretend that it doesn’t exist and that all she has to do is “quot[e] the 10th amendment, state the constitution does not address felons voting rights and move on.” The Constitution doesn’t specifically address felons’ gun rights either. Both voting rights and gun rights are addressed in the Constitution, and she needs to explain more fully why she’s made this “individual right” vs. “civic right” distinction.

          1. CTDHD on this issue appears extremely shallow. I read what she apparently doesn’t understand, but that is par for the course.

        1. OK found the decision. She needs to explain her position since she included it in a decision concerning a right totally separate from for ngvrights.

      2. Voting rights powers “…are reserved to the States respectively,…” as they allow States “…to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,…”

        Where they are “…necessary and proper for carrying into Execution…” the rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities of the People, the powers are reserved “…to the people,” as manifested by their acts.
        ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

        “The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error.”

        – James Madison
        ______________

        “When one wants to speak of the political laws of the United States, it is always with the dogma of the sovereignty of the people that one must begin.”

        – Alexis de Tocqueville
        __________________

        10th Amendment

        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
        ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

        Article I ,Section 8, Clause 18

        To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    2. States have the constitutional power to entitle or deny the vote to any individuals, with specificity.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

      Constitution of Georgia, 1777

      ART. IX. All male white inhabitants, of the age of twenty-one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, or being of any mechanic trade, and shall have been resident six months in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large; and every person having a right to vote at any election shall vote by ballot personally.

  5. 1st Amendment

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    1. REGARDING BELOW:

      Ignore the rabid, caterwauling prevaricators whose instability constitutes precisely the rationale the American Founders employed to establish a restricted-vote republic and restrict the vote by the criteria: Male, European, 21, 50 lbs Sterling/ 50 acres.

      One man, one vote democrazy has steered America onto the road to self-destruction in the form of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” the American Founders having previously expunged the dictatorship of the British monarchy.
      _________________

      “the people are nothing but a great beast…

      I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

      – Alexander Hamilton
      _________________

      “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”

      “If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

      – Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

  6. Says Turley: “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.'”

    I would have found this post more convincing if Turley would have pointed to one or more actual decisions of Barrett’s that made the case for his understanding of her Catholicism as not necessarily being in conflict with the role of a Supreme Court Justice under the U.S. Constitution. It is not automatically religious bigotry to point to a statement like that quoted above, spoken frankly by a prospective Justice, to note that it is Catholic in origin (or Jewish, Muslim, or any other religion), and to question whether the nominee is motivated by a religious obscurantism (of the sort that Maher mordantly pilloried) which might undermine fulfilling the explicitly ecumenical goals of the U.S. Constitution, as set forth in the Preamble thereof, and thereby corrupt the office. As it stands, I’m not reassured with Turley’s interpretation that all Barrett seeks to do is be “righteous”, whatever that may mean. I am ignorant of Barrett’s judicial performance and will have to do some reading elsewhere. Nonetheless, sans the references to one’s identity as a lawyer, the quoted portions above could have been uttered by any God-intoxicated evangelist on late-night TV.

    It is entirely legitimate, and it is entirely not religious bigotry, to question and scrutinize the religious ideas of a judicial nominee, or any animus (in the neutral sense) of that nominee that might be extra-constitutional, if they appear to be potentially inconsistent with the nominee’s proposed public function which is not supposed to be grounded in those ideas. This is qualitatively different than the kind of categorical dismissal or persecution of someone wholesale simply because they have certain religious beliefs, are of a particular race or ethnicity (cf. Trump’s “Mexican” judge), and so on, and to conflate the two treatments is intellectually dishonest in precisely the same way as is equating criticism of Israel with anti-semitism.

      1. Use of pejoratives tends to quickly tarnish one’s credibility as a person of letters and credentials. The practice should be avoided.

  7. “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.”

    Is this a joke? That was just a throwaway detail of the story. The story is that Barrett is a member of a fanatical religious cult. There’s no attempt to reckon with that in the article. This degree of faux fairness and objectivity is pathetic; Turley possesses a clear and consistent bias for members of his profession.

    1. The story is that Barrett is a member of a fanatical religious cult.

      Otherwise known as ‘the Catholic Church’.

      Thanks for sharing.

      1. No, “People of Praise” =/= “Catholic Church”

        You may also disagree that the People of Praise is “a fanatical religious cult” (personally, I don’t know enough about them to judge), but you should be able to recognize that the Newsweek story is about the People of Praise, not about the Catholic Church. In fact, the phrase “Catholic Church” doesn’t even appear in the story.

        1. People of Praise is a parachurch ministry you twit. It’s not creedal, There is no guru banging your daughters and sucking up your income.

          1. Which is irrelevant to your mistaken interpretation “Otherwise known as ‘the Catholic Church’.”
            The article doesn’t mention the Catholic Church.

            1. One could write of the Jesuits without saying ‘Catholic Church’.

              In any event,

              Judicial Watch discusses her take on law rather than her religion which makes sense for someone appointed to be a justice rather than a bishop.

          2. I certainly wouldn’t listen to Art Deco, who pretends to know all, but obviously doesn’t.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Praise

            https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/26/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-donald-trump-people-of-praise

            Excerpt:

            Adrian Reimers, a former member turned critic of the group, described in a book available online called Not Reliable Guides his “grave concern” about how the life of People of Praise members were “not his or her own” and how “all one’s decisions and dealings become the concern of one’s head, and in turn potentially become known to the leadership”.

            Reached by the Guardian, Reimers said he did not want to discuss the matter further.

            Writing for Politico, Massimo Faggioli, a historian and theologian at Villanova University, said there were “tensions” between serving as a supreme court justice, one of the final interpreters of the US constitution, and swearing an oath to an organization he said “lacks transparency and visible structures of authority that are accountable to their members, to the Roman Catholic church, and to the wider public”.

            “A lot of what goes on in People of Praise is not that different than what goes on in a lot of rightwing or conservative Catholic circles,” said Heidi Schlumpf, a national correspondent for National Catholic Reporter, which reports on the church.

            ‘The dogma lives loudly in you’: Democratic senator on Amy Coney Barrett – video

            “Whether People of Praise rises to the level of cult, I am not in a position to make that judgment. But there is a level of secrecy that was concerning, and there was a level of reports by people who left the organization of authoritarianism that [is] concerning as well.”

            ‘Neither an oath nor a vow’

            People of Praise is headed by an all-male board of governors described as its “highest authority”.

      1. There are no citations for any of her claims about People of Praise, whereas Newsweek quotes former members.

        In any case, my point is that Turley gave the ridiculous impression that the Newsweek article had been discredited by an insignificant mistake and didn’t bother to address Maher’s criticism.

  8. “The release of our systemic Voter Fraud story is imminent.
    We have gathered irrefutable and undeniable video evidence of large-scale Ballot Harvesting VOTER FRAUD – the videos are so damning that the Mainstream Media will regret the day they denied its existence.
    In fact, the Mainstream Media is already paying attention.
    The Drudge Report posted “Libs Fear O’Keefe Election Sting…”:

    This is from PaintChips frenemy.

    1. O’Keefe is a fraud. He’s been caught more than once deceptively editing videos and has lost at least one related lawsuit.

      1. PaintChips, the number of suits against the MSM won by Project Veritas is now 8 in a row with no losses. The number of retractions the media has had to make to prevent suit is around 320. Based on the record it seems Project Veritas is totally correct and MSM is corrupt.

        The lawsuit you talk about was not lost. It was early on for Project Veritas and they didn’t have the money so they settled. With a lot of money coming in from libel suits and donations they have a lot of money to go to court and win. That is what they are doing, winning and that is is why the number of retractions is climbing. Since what they are doing is videotaping and presenting the video without distortion of the events they cannot be sued for the content they provide.

        You don’t know what you are talking about which is usual. Normal people would check their facts but you prefer to be in the nail salon.

    2. ALLEN IS USING THE ‘PAINT CHIPS’ CODE AGAIN

      New readers should note that Allan is one of the paint chip buddies who cruise this site for reasons that have nothing to do with law or politics.

      1. That is right PaintChips and I am also using the nail salon code. Let me add fuchsia a color apparently very dear to you. Do you use as many different names and costumes in the nail salon as you do here?

          1. Bwahaha!

            Then you think you’re a child yourself, jerk, since you’re the one who said “PaintChips… Stop eating lead paint” this time last week.

            1. PaintChips has a meaning. It’s a substitution for an alias that can change many times in one day. Are you too dumb to understand that. I take note that you are part of the anonymous crowd so you must not think too much of yourself.

              1. This is Allan, according to Allan:

                “…I am a decent guy and throw the sh1t back that is thrown all over the blog. Thank you.”

                So Allan ‘throws shit’ on the blog. Yeah, a real stand-up guy.

                1. Yes, do you expect me to cart away your sh1t. Take it home to the rat latrine. Along with being dumb it seems you are infectious as well.

  9. JT, cut the crap. Biden is Catholic – so is Sotomayor – and Bill Maher is an atheist comedian who was raised Catholic. It looks like you have the assignment of creating Kavanaugh-like outrage among the party that stole a SC seat and now has done a performance art piece on complete hypocrisy in advising and consent. You’re as phony as a $3 bill.

  10. JT, cut the crap. Biden is Catholic – so is Sotomayor – and Bill Maher is an atheist comedian who was raised Catholic. It looks like you have the assignment of creating Kavanaugh-like outrage among the party that stole a SC seat and now has done a performance art piece on complete hypocrisy in advising and consent. You’re as phony as a $3 bill.

  11. Biden said he got to the Senate 180 years ago.

    If true that would explain his senility.

    If not true that would prove his senility.

      1. How would you know? Maybe he lied. If it were Trump saying that you would be calling Trump a liar. Maybe it was a joke, but not a good one for him in particular to make. Better for him to prove himself if he is able.

          1. You have little ability to make such a determination. You are ignorant as to how and why people joke. Your lack of knowledge of how humans react is appalling. You should stay at home.

            1. Allan, you are ignorant as to how and why people joke. Your lack of knowledge of how humans react is appalling. You should stay at home.

            1. You cheat, lie, steal, loot and kill. That is what you believe to be good for the nation. You don’t care about children that are dying in our streets. You are a selfish and Stupid person.

              1. Allan, you cheat, lie, steal, loot and kill. That is what you believe to be good for the nation. You don’t care about children that are dying in our streets. You are a selfish and Stupid person.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, I don’t do those things but leftists do. I’m not sure that you would even know which part of the gun to point when you are shooting. You are cannon fodder for the violent leftists. No wonder you reside in a rat latrine.

                  1. Allan, you cheat, lie, steal, loot and kill. That is what you believe to be good for the nation. You don’t care about children that are dying in our streets. You are a selfish and Stupid person.

                    1. “Do you have brain damage as well?”

                      No, but I am sorry you do but I respect the fact that you admit it. There is a place for all people even Stupid ones.

                    2. “Something is seriously wrong with Allan.”

                      You keep saying this. Are you still working towards an LPN?

      1. The outside story is the campaign is proceeding in a peculiar manner. The Carnegie-Mellon ‘event’, the TelePrompTer in the Corden interview, the small and scarcely publicized appearances, the frequent days with no appearances whatsoever. One lawyer I correspond with said he had elderly clients whose mannerisms were similar to Biden’s. They were suffering congestive heart failure.

          1. ““There Is No Special Joe Biden Prompter”

            OK, so Biden uses a generic Prompter. I watched one interview. They should have put the teleprompter a bit more to the right so he didn’t have to move his eyes to read the screen.

            1. “US election 2020: Eric Trump shares false Biden-teleprompter rumour”

              By Christopher Giles

              24 September 2020

              https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54271148

              Excerpt:

              The rumours were false and Mr Corden has since publicly explained that the teleprompter – seen briefly in a reflection during the show – was for his own use.

              The official Donald Trump Facebook page also promoted an ad making the same claim.

              Memes about Biden and teleprompters have been shared thousands of times across social media platforms. The most popular such post on Facebook in the last few days was shared nearly 60,000 times.

              Of course, most politicians use a teleprompter when making speeches, and both Mr Trump and Mr Biden have been picked up in the media for their stumbles while delivering speeches.

              Trevor Noah’s The Daily Show posted a video in late August of Mr Trump tripping up over his words during a speech. The video was captioned: “Wasn’t reading off a teleprompter supposed to be easy?”. — BBC

              Try to keep up, Allan.

              1. The rumours were false and Mr Corden has since publicly explained that the teleprompter – seen briefly in a reflection during the show – was for his own use.

                The TelePrompTer in Biden’s studio was for Corden’s use. That’s cute.

                1. Facts clearly don’t matter to Art Deco. Remember this as he spouts “the facts” that most people conclude are correct, but need to be checked.

                  The “TelePrompTer” (language understood by the old snoot, Artless) wasn’t in Biden’s studio.

                  https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/fact-check-biden-teleprompter-corden/index.html

                  “Corden explained that the image in the reflection showed his own teleprompter text, which was visible on the screens of his guests who connected to the show remotely.”

                  Excerpt:

                  Facts First:

                  Corden himself debunked this allegation on his show last week — after Trump retweeted a tweet in which a Republican National Committee official, Steve Guest, also made the false claim. Corden explained that the image in the reflection showed his own teleprompter text, which was visible on the screens of his guests who connected to the show remotely.

                  “Seriously, just to clear this up, none of this is true. The teleprompter is for me,” Corden said on his show. “Now this is back from when we were doing the shows in my garage, and that screen is what all of our guests who Zoomed into the show could see. OK? That’s it. It’s very similar to the screen I’m using now. OK? So there. That’s the actual truth.”

                  He joked, “So I’m sure actual hard facts will put this controversy to bed. It seems to work with any other conspiracy theory. So we’ll move on.”

                  The show’s executive producer, Ben Winston, had previously debunked the claim on Twitter, tweeting to some of the people promoting the conspiracy: “That’s actually James’s prompter. Not @joebiden’s. On zoom they see all our screens including our prompter. It’s the only way it can be done.”

                  (In a series of replies to people who continued questioning them, Winston posted photos of their setup and explained why it made the most sense for the show.)

                  By Thursday, the Trump campaign was paying Facebook thousands of dollars to run ads with the false teleprompter claim. Just one campaign ad buy, of up to $15,000, resulted in a video version of the ad clocking more than 800,000 views on Facebook.

                  The ad was being viewed most frequently in the swing states of Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Ohio, according to Facebook’s ad database.

                  The Trump campaign was also targeting swing states with the ads on Google.

                  Facebook, Google and YouTube do not fact check politicians’ ads and videos. -CNN

                  But facts really don’t matter to a fair number of Repugs.

                  1. You mean a reflection appears on a piece of glass in Biden’s studio, but the TelePrompTer is actually in Corden’s studio and Biden talking to Corden is looking straight at it over Skype, and Corden is assisted by a TelePrompTer you cannot see in shots of his studio but which is right by his face?

              2. Brainless Wonder, what makes you believe Giles knows what he is talking about other than the fact he agrees with what you wish to believe. I already saw one video of Biden where the teleprompter was misplaced so Biden’s eyes had to go from the interviewer to the teleprompter continuously and simultaneously with the questions.

                1. He also forgot the Skype call with Kamala Harris where Biden was caught reading from a script. I did some telemarketing once where we read from scripts, but that was to calibrate the pitch and keep up the pace on the calls.

                  1. That is what I recall. These people are really lacking in the intelligence department. If any of them had any significant money I would love to meet them and sell them a bridge.

                    I guess you did the telemarketing when you were young. One of my kids did telemarketing to fill up the time between semesters but couldn’t stand it.

        1. IMO there is no question that Biden is in trouble. It could all be senility. A lot of old people have congestive heart failure and their mentation can fail with the medication and associated problems. I don’t think based on your comments that necessarily indicates congestive heart failure.

        2. “They were suffering congestive heart failure.” -Artless Deco

          What is Art babbling about…

          Oh, yeah, let’s not forget that Art was once a bit fan of Keith Ablow.

    1. But how many times has Anonymous been mentioned. Anonymous the Stupid in the past cowardly hid from the numbers. I don’t care if it is 152 or 1,520. You are reactionary.

    2. He’s up to 61 now — well over 25% of the total comments are his — around 28%. Something’s seriously wrong with him.

    1. My thoughts on Barrett have nothing to do with her being Catholic as there were plenty of other Catholics to pick from. I think the Swamp just Owned Trump & all he had to do was to sell out American Citizens. Oillie Wells

      Looks like I have some extra time on my hands.

      Temporary Roads – Nothin’ But The Same

Leave a Reply