“Free To Be You and Me”: Barrett Fulfills Ginsburg’s Call For Real Equality And Independence For Women

Below is my column in The Hill on the comparison of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Judge Amy Coney Barrett.  With the exception of their conclusions on the law, both women share striking similarities and Barrett represents a triumphant moment of conservative feminists in the country.  She is a brilliant jurist with a stellar background, much like the jurist she would replace.

Here is the column:

In her book, “In My Own Words,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote how feminism is a concept best captured in the song “Free to Be You and Me” by Marlo Thomas. That definition defined feminism as allowing women to decide their values without societal dictates or limits.

This view sharply contrasts with some who think feminism is adhering to liberal orthodoxy. Ginsburg never believed feminism meant removing the “feet off our necks” by her brothers just to have them replaced by the feet of her sisters. Indeed, true feminism meant allowing women the freedom of choice to find their own voices and values in society.

That is why this nomination of a Supreme Court justice is a testament not just to feminism but to Ginsburg. The women on the short list of President Trump bear striking resemblance to her in their independence and clarity of thought. Most of them, like Ginsburg, balanced family obligations with their career ascensions. The difference is these women reached different conclusions on how the law is read and applied. Many do have legitimate objections for issues like abortion as inimical to the rights of women, but these women are part of the legacy of Ginsburg and her generation in an empowerment of women to reach their own conclusions.

The nominee most like Ginsburg is Judge Amy Coney Barrett. They both finished law school at the top of their classes. Both went on to teach at leading law schools and both started their careers with an emphasis on procreational rights and constitutional interpretation. Deeply religious, both cited the role of faith in their careers and convictions.

Like Ginsburg, Barrett refused to yield to the choice of family over career. Barrett has raised seven children, including two adopted from Haiti, while rising to national recognition as a brilliant lawyer and jurist. Both women earned a reputation for civility and what Ginsburg described as showing us that “you can disagree without being disagreeable.”

Ginsburg came to the Supreme Court with a deeply rooted jurisprudence. She was one of the most consistent votes siding with liberal justices over decades of rulings. In the split votes, she was the common denominator on the left side. Barrett, a former Supreme Court clerk of Justice Antonin Scalia, holds the same profile as a jurist with a clear sense of the law and principles that have fueled her decisions. The principles are different but not the independence of thought shown by both jurists.

More than any nomination in history, this is a celebration of conservative feminism. It comes close to the day of the confirmation of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. She was selected in part because her record was a virtual blank slate, without notable remarks or opinions. Her vetting team loved the idea of an unknown nominee, a model used in future administrations. She told President Reagan that she could not even remember her stance as a legislator when it came to the repeal of abortion rights.

These women, however, have not been subtle or silent in their views. That is why this nomination is the conservative feminist movement realized. For decades, conservative women across the country have refused to accept that they have second class status in the feminist movement. The famous “Declaration of Sentiments” signed by pioneer feminists in 1848 spoke to their independence and choices as much as those on the left.

The women on the short list of Trump have distinguished themselves in claiming the mantle of that struggle for equality. They fiercely defended constitutional values. Many overcame incredible obstacles to have their voices heard. The family for Judge Barbara Lagoa fled communist Cuba with nothing a year before she was born. She graduated from Columbia Law School and became a judge on the Eleventh Circuit, all while raising her children. Judge Joan Larson is a brilliant jurist who graduated first in her class from Northwestern Law School. She became a professor at the University of Michigan after clerking on the Supreme Court.

For all his controversies, Trump has chosen remarkably strong nominees for the Supreme Court. Some critics believed he would place Judge Judy on the bench. Instead, Trump has favored highly respected conservative jurists with great records. They have not been blank slates but those with articulated principles. They have crossed the political divide when those principles demand it. This is why I testified in favor of the nomination of Neil Gorsuch, who I view as an intellectual of the first order. Both he and Brett Kavanaugh have voted against the administration.

The short list for this nomination was also impressive. These women are highly qualified jurists who have shown the courage of their convictions. They hold records that match those of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. They are not blank slate nominees but instead conservative women who have boldly written about their views on legal theory. Many tried to put a “foot on their necks” but none succeeded. They are what Ginsburg liked about the song by Thomas. “Every boy in this land grows to be his own man. In this land, every girl grows to be her own woman.”

Many seek to paint these jurists as ideologues because they consistently vote on the basis of the conservative stance. By this exact same measure, Ginsburg also would be the ideologue who had one of the lowest number of defections to the other side in major cases. In the confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse had raised this issue, asking, “When is a pattern evidence of bias?” Whitehouse noted a voting pattern by the five conservative justices who “go raiding off together.” Whitehouse described a voting pattern of the “Roberts Five” of “Republican appointees” who “go raiding off together” and “no Democratic appointee joins them.” He simply ignored the Ginsburg Four on the other side of most of those opinions. They were not viewed as ideologues by Whitehouse because they are viewed as right. In reality, despite Whitehouse’s prediction (and those of his Democratic colleagues), both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have voted repeatedly with their more liberal colleagues in major decisions.

The nomination today is a wonderful moment for this woman selected but also a historic moment for conservative feminists. They are part of the “you” which went with the “me” in the definition that Ginsburg showed us for feminism.

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


172 thoughts on ““Free To Be You and Me”: Barrett Fulfills Ginsburg’s Call For Real Equality And Independence For Women”

  1. “The AP reported that former women members of the group said wives were taught to obey their husbands at all times – and must provide sex on demand.”

    “Religious group scrubs photos and mentions of SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett from website: report”


    Thu, October 1, 2020, 12:24 PM CDT·4 mins read

    An obscure religious group tied to President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has scrubbed photos and mentions of her from its website ahead of her Senate confirmation hearings and interviews with lawmakers.

    The New York Times reported last week that Barrett and her husband, who are the parents of seven children, are members of People of Praise, an obscure Christian sect which opposes abortion and teaches God has willed men to assume authority over their wives and family.

    According to The Times, People of Praise describes itself as a “charismatic Christian community” whose members swear “a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a ‘head’ for men and a ‘handmaid’ for women.”

    The “heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home and how to raise children,” The Times added.

    The AP reported that former women members of the group said wives were taught to obey their husbands at all times – and must provide sex on demand.


  2. Thank you Professor Turley for a very fair commentary. On the other hand, reading the comments section on this blog is generally disappointing and I always kick myself for falling into the trap again. Of course conservatives or pseudoconservatives want a conservative justice on the Supreme Court, just like pseudoliberals want a pseudoliberal. It’s absurd to try and act like Trump is doing anything different from any other President and it’s absurd to try and tear down ACB because she didn’t go to Harvard or some such nonsense. Nowadays, not going to Harvard is a rapid IQ test without the little bubbles to fill in. If you are willing to spend half a mill to enter an intellectual prison where you are told what you may and may not think, to paraphrase Biden, you ain’t smart. In regard to the comments section, some of which have a larger word count than the actual post with vitriol for sauce, I am reminded of 007’s comment in Quantum of Solace when he gatecrashes a secret in plain view meeting of the bad guys at a performance of Tosca: “Can I offer an opinion? I really think you people should find a better place to meet.”

  3. I was thinking about Trump nominating a candidate for RBG’s seat. How about former president Obama. And he gets grilled like justice Kavanaugh did. Go back to his high school years right through his college years. That would be fun.

    1. Its not only a political game, its one big inside joke, a theatrical Show, if you will say …

      Androgynous Pagan Elitist run the show, androgynous from the ancient world, Sumeria.

      Oldest religion on record. And you are Not in the club, my friend. Well, maybe you are, I don’t actually….

      Don’t believe me. Look at all the Transgender Royals of all the European countries.

      Bone structure. Not all the stuff they can fake.

      You’ll see man after man after man Posing and pretending to be Women. Duchess this, princess that, All Dudes. Castratos.

      The United Nations loves them some Alice Bailey and Helena Balavaskty … just got to their reading room. Big occultism lovers.

      Anyway, I’m done, I coukd go one. But its futile.

      Don’t forget to wear your face diaper 😷🥳😆

  4. If anyone still believe the DURHAM investigation or ANY of the so-called investigations of the corrupt cabal of the Obama administration is going anywhere, wake the F up. They are doing nothing but running out the clock on the statutues of limitations. The entire “INVESTIGATION” is a complete sham. It does not take 3+ years to indict OBVIOUS liars and law breakers. The FBI, the DOJ, the whole enchilada has PASSED on INDICTING ANYONE. Wake up people. Wake the F up. The ONLY people who got indicted were Trump people. See a pattern? In the meantime get the F out and vote for Trump.

  5. Ranked 26th — In fields that I know better,
    Northwestern is 26th in physics
    UNC —- Chapel Hill is 26th in computer science

    Neither do I consider to be distinguished.

    1. All 8 of the sitting justices of the Supreme Court did their law degree either at Harvard or Yale.

      1. And I would prefer that they hadn’t. The Court could do with perspectives matured away from those two schools.

        1. Young, fortunately you don’t receive your druthers. They all went off to varied careers before the call to the Supreme Court; enough variety perhaps.

      2. Harvard and Yale’s predominance in this small group, is a matter of social grooming. Social grooming is the purpose they serve, and this the obvious result

        They have distinguished alumni in many other corridors of power too. The OSS and CIA were chock full of investment bankers from the Ivy League.

        One might say, they are successful institutions and the calibre of the leadership is precisely why. One might also say, “groupthink”

  6. In response to Anonymous. You are correct about Garland not getting a vote. The Democrats allowed a vote on Robert Bork during an election year. They then proceeded to eviscerate the man and voted him down. A verb that can now be found in the dictionary was created to illustrate what they did to him. The verb is “Borked”. They allowed the hearing for premeditated political purposes. The nation would have been sparred such a stain if they had just not allowed a vote to not come to the floor of the Senate.

    1. No, Bork was rejected in 1987. It was fairly novel. There wasn’t anything sketchy about the nomination process as there was with the Fortas / Thornberry nomination. With the Haynesworth nomination in 1969, the Democrats invented an excuse (he failed to recuse himself in some case) to scotch him as revenge for Fortas / Thornberry. They’d tried the racism smear against Wm. Rehnquist in 1986, but they couldn’t make it stick because they lacked a Senate majority.


    A quick reading of Newsom’s order gives me the impression that it has no actual legal consequence. It is mostly an order to establish goals and for some agencies to work toward vague goals. The order does not actually create a regulation with legal effect. At the moment it is a wish list for Santa Claus.

    One oddity is that it references the ‘State Air Resources Board’. You would think that the governor or those drafting this for him would at least get the name of the agency right. It is the California Air Resources Board (CARB). That alone suggest sloppiness in drafting.

    Another oddity is that the wish list does not include some way of providing power for all the electric vehicles meant to replace existing machines. It is a bold idea for a state that is struggling to keep light bulbs burning to propose that family cars draw on the same, failing system. Maybe they should put sails on cars. That’s wind power.

    What is disturbing is that one could get the impression that the governor intends to use muscled executive orders and administrative regulations to achieve the goals he favors. That would be an enormous and dangerous expansion of administrative power that even Charles I would have been astonished to claim.

    The Covid pandemic has given state and local would-be tyrants a taste for arbitrary power and this order of Newsom’s doesn’t give hope that those powers will be set aside easily.

    1. I wish he ordered we all get Star Trek transporters so we would not have to drive in traffic at all. Just push a button and get beamed anywhere in an instant.

  8. Jonathan Turley take note.

    This is an example of a mature Catholic in the intellectual, philosophical, spiritual domains..

    When the Dogma Lives Loudly

    Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

    When Sen. Dianne Feinstein grilled federal circuit court nominee—and now Supreme Court nominee—Amy Coney Barrett three years ago, she fretted that “the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern.”

    Given the senator’s obvious prejudices, she should indeed be concerned. Ms. Barrett’s life story suggests that she actually believes and seeks to live what her Catholic faith teaches. Worse, she has a superb intellect, a deep grasp of the law, and an excellent record as a jurist. In other words, she’s a nightmare for a certain kind of political tribe.

    Let’s put aside for a moment Sen. Feinstein’s Know Nothing-style vulgarity. After all, she’s hardly alone in her bigotry. Disdain for vigorous religious convictions, especially the Catholic kind, is a virus that’s going around. It seems to infect a number of Democratic senators, including Sen. Kamala Harris, Feinstein’s California colleague and vice presidential nominee, who saw looming peril in that dangerous national conspiracy otherwise known as the Knights of Columbus.

    Sen. Feinstein’s words help us see clearly how some in our political class now view Catholics who are more than merely “nominal” in their faith. It’s true that anyone baptized as a Catholic is, in fact, a Catholic. In the eyes of the Democratic party, that’s not a problem. If you’re photographed piously with your rosary beads at prayer—even better. The cultural loyalty of many Catholic voters to a once heavily Catholic, working-class party dies hard, no matter how different that party is today. As an elected official, you may even get an award from a major Catholic institution. But if you’re the kind of Catholic who seeks to discipline his or her life around Catholic beliefs regarding marriage and family, religious freedom, sex, and abortion—well, that’s a different matter, as Democratic Congressman Dan Lipinski discovered when his own party dumped him in a primary earlier this year. In Bill Maher’s immortal words, a woman like Amy Coney Barrett, whatever her professional credentials, is just “a [expletive] nut.”

    In a sane age, these kinds of attacks, more appropriate to a restroom wall than discourse in a nation of laws, would be seen as loathsome. But we don’t live in a sane moment, as Sens. Feinstein and Harris, and Mr. Maher, have helpfully demonstrated.


    1. Comey-Barrett, Trump, and Turley, for that matter, seem not to understand that a judge of any court, SCOTUS to small claims, is not there on a mission to carry out his or her faith, personal beliefs, or any agenda other than fairly deciding the facts (in a non-jury case) and applying the law to the facts, unswayed by personal bias. The law is an expression of the will of the American people. Comey-Barrett’s beliefs are far-right of the values and beliefs of the majority of the American people and if she cannot agree that the will of the American people is the guiding principle to any decisions she would make, she is not qualified. Senator Feinstein was merely expressing her evaluation that Comey-Barrett seems to believe that as a judge, her Catholic faith should guide her decisions. That is disqualifying in and of itself. In fact, if someone like Comey-Barrett wants to be a federal judge on a tribunal at any level, she should sign a pledge stating that she will set aside her faith and follow settled law. Jesus said: “RENDER TO CAESAR THE THINGS THAT ARE CAESAR’S AND RENDER TO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GOD’S.” The SCOTUS is in the “Caesar” category. Therefore, the Bible supports the concept that faith should play no role in court decisions. Sadly, Comey-Barrett has risen as a top choice because Trump wants to hook Evangelicals by pushing for a Justice who will overturn Roe v. Wade.

      Roe v.Wade is settled law. States cannot ban abortions prior to the age of fetal viability. Since this right is founded on the constitutional right of privacy, it is unconstitutional for states to enact laws that excessively burden the right of a woman to make the decision about abortion without being shamed, subjected to unnecessary and humiliating medical procedures or being forced to view literature she didn’t request or want. The ACA has gone to the SCOTUS at least twice, and was found to be constitutional. Extensively-litigated issues should not be revisited every time there is a change in administrations, a new SCOTUS justice or change in the balance of power of Congress, otherwise, the US becomes little more than a banana republic. If Comey-Barrett doesn’t understand and embrace this, then she really doesn’t have a “deep grasp of the law”. She should consider a job in the Catholic ministry instead.

      Another big problem with her is that she is allowing herself to be used as a pawn for political reasons in addition to trying to get the Evangelical vote–she is being shoved onto the SCOTUS despite the position taken by Republicans in 2016 who denied Merrick Garland even a hearing because of the proximity of the presidential election. One reason for this is not just that Republicans and Trump stand to lose, but Trump has already pledged to file lawsuits which he believes will go before the SCOTUS, so that he can cheat his way back into the White House a second time. He is counting on the conservatives to let him get away with it. If Comey-Barrett had any self-respect, but more importantly, respect for the will of the American people, she would decline being considered until after the November election. However, she knows that she was not really nominated for her wisdom or jurisprudence, and she has sufficient ego that she couldn’t turn down an opportunity for a seat on the SCOTUS,. She is clearly not qualified, and she is no RBG, either.

      1. Agreed. I just don’t understand why she’d accept this charade nomination if her interests are at all aligned with fairness.

        1. LOl, Charade? You may not like it Bug but it is fully within constitutional duty and power for this nomination and confirmation process to proceed.

          Don’t confuse your personal preferences with what is inauthentic, or not

      2. “That is disqualifying in and of itself. ”

        It is certainly not. Not any more disqualifying for Catholics than it would be for Jews.

        Religion even mere religious background, is part of a whole person’s properly integrated identity. We should reckon religious background for our highest offices.

        There is nothing in the First Amendment which prohibits us from considering it.

        I further observe that natcha has previously said that she is a Catholic, but she takes sides in this against her own confession.

        natacha, why not consider becoming a Protestant if you have such a problem with the Catholic Church. It’s a free country ya know

        I find it amazing that a Presbyterian like Trump who rarely goes to church and is certainly no “choir boy” is now the banner-man for nominating a Catholic Justice, but, life is full of surprises

        1. I don’t have an issue with the Catholic Church, but even the Catholic Church knows that it is not a secular tribunal. The values and beliefs of the Catholic Church are not the guiding principles for the SCOTUS, and if Comey-Barrett thinks they are and that Catholic teachings supercede established case law, she is per se not qualified. She is there to follow the law, not her faith, and Jesus makes clear that matters of state and matters of religion do not mix, and further, that people of faith are required to “render to Caesar” in those matters that involve Caesar. Catholics believe that abortion is immoral because they believe that life begins at conception. Most Americans do not hold this view, and this is their right, which is why the constitution protects the right of a woman to choose prior to the age of fetal viability. Banning abortion or upholding laws designed to interfere with a woman’s right to choose, based on Catholic dogma, violates the freedom of religion of non-Catholics, including the right to have no religion at all. The religious beliefs of any candidate for the SCOTUS should be irrelevant, and if Comey-Barrett doesn’t understand this, she shouldn’t be on the Court. But, it is obvious, even to her, that she’s not there because she is the best or the brightest, or for any reason other than to help reel in the Evangelicals and to help Trump to cheat again.

          Sometimes the things you write are stunningly ignorant. Trump isn’t a practicing Presbyterian or anything else. There’s no room for God in the life of a malignant narcissist who is a chronic liar, racist, who cages small brown children to punish their parents and who cheats on his spouses, in business and for to grab power power. That Comey-Barrett is so eager for a seat on the SCOTUS, given that that her main qualifications are her radical right wing views, that she would be willing to stand next to a morally-repulsive person like Trump is more telling than anything else about her. There is no “banner” involved in his desperate attempt to hang onto the power he cheated to get in the first place by nominating a Catholic whom he thinks will overturn Roe v. Wade, and this is to please a small group of voters. The SCOTUS doesn’t have Jewish Justices, Catholic Justices, or any other type of justice defined by their religion. Trump knows nothing about any judges other than what the Federalist Society advises him, so your claim that somehow Trump has done something good is so lame.

          1. Natch, calls me lame and ignorant. You say so, but let’s push deeper into the subject and see what we can learn.

            you said:
            “that people of faith are required to “render to Caesar” in those matters that involve Caesar”

            yes we know the quote. but you are apparently not understanding the subtlety of that quotation. it leaves open, does it not, the question of what is Caeser’s and what is God’s, in the first place? Perhaps one of the cleverest sayings of the entire New Testament!

            I pointed out the explanation in Dignitatis Humanae the other day,. if you havent studied it then you should
            but here is even more to the point


            “Papistry” is a slander but like many good epithets it has a germ of truth. If you think that Catholic teaching does NOT ever call on politicians to reckon a higher law, then you perhaps do not understand it fully. I think that American Catholics have fooled themselves that it never does. That is not so.

            The subject can and be flushed out in the confirmation. It is not up to me to say what ACB should say. I have no problem with Di Fi calling her out on the carpet on the subject and letting her explain. But let’s not pretend that there is a simple secular solution to the deep dogmatic differences between religions.

            There is in the subject of abortions a very relevant religious difference. The way I understand it, the majority view of Jewish rabbis is that abortion is licit because life does not fully begin until the first breath. This is a profound difference.

            https:// http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/07/24/abortion-laws-jewish-faith-teaches-life-does-not-start-conception/1808776001/

            if America is truly to “embrace diversity” and “tolerate” difference, then do you not agree that we first must understand where the differences lie?

            it may be that American secularism does provide a successful way of mediating cultural differences — but let’s not be so ignorant as to pretend they do not exist.

            Personally I am content to see Roe V Wade continue as good law. But, I am not seeking to represent myself as a good Catholic in that respect. I may be in error and willfully so, perhaps a sinner. I am a bigger sinner in a lot of other things I am sure so that does not trouble me. but I am not going to pretend that the Catholic faith is a cafeteria from which I may pick or chose or that I may redefine doctrine per my own preferences without any authority to do so. I would like to see my Catholic brothers and sisters in the faith who are Democrat enthusiasts consider whether or not they have tried to Protestantize Catholicism to in certain ways to make it “fit” in America more than it genuinely does.

            America is good, and fitting in is good, but fitting in is not always the highest good.

            1. What I found stunningly ignorant about you is to attach the title “Protestant” to Donald J. Trump, a chronic, habitual liar, racist, misogynist, xenophobe and serial cheater in every single aspect of his life. No narcissist on the scale of Trump could have any sincere or genuine religious belief, because they are too deeply in love with themselves to acknowledge a higher power. Trump uses religion, including that of Coney-Barrett, as a tool for his own benefit, just like when he tear-gassed peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square to make way for a photo op, standing in front of a church, holding a Bible. Do you think that Mikey Pence is VP for any reason other than to appeal to right-wing religious zealots? Does anyone think he may be described as the “best and brightest”?

              Every American has the right to practice his or her religion or lack thereof, including expressing faith in ways that do not infringe on the right of others who do not share their beliefs. A secular court of any sort is not the place to express religious beliefs that infringe on the beliefs of others. There is no question that religion informs the belief of when life begins–it cannot be proven scientifically that life begins at conception. It depends on how you define “life”. Catholics say that the immortal soul enters a fertilized egg. Other religions disagree. Roe discussed the fact that a fetus prior to whatever age of viability medical science can support, is not capable of life independent of its mother, and that up to the point of viability outside of the uterus, a woman has the right to control her own body, including the right to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy. That is the law. There can be no serious dispute that this black-letter law belongs in the “things of Caesar” realm because any ruling outright banning abortion, and/or setting up unreasonable obstacles to exercising this right, would involve forcing religion on those who don’t believe life begins at conception. It is wrong for any judge to troll for office based on their intention to force their own religious beliefs onto others when it involves overturning established law. It is wrong for any candidate to nominate a judge for a lifetime appointment just to get right-wing voters. Coney-Barrett does not belong on the SCOTUS.

  9. ACB is a child of privilege, dramatically unlike RBG. I suppose that it shows in their legal writings.

      1. O’Keefe has a history of fraud. It’ll probably be debunked soon. For all you know, he could be videotaping actors he hired.

        1. he does not, that is false in itself

          but he does have a history of being called a fraud by other frauds who are throwing the snitch jacket on him.

          kind of like Donald Trump. He tells one fib and the media tells ten massive whoppers in the same space. Then they report on his fib and ignore the log in their own eye.

          he will not be debunked. I am not sure when he has ever been debunked. mostly you just ignore him

          feel free to pretend, but the evidence is coming in. this time, we not just rollin over for it anymore.

          1. He’s been caught deceptively editing videos multiple times, paid a $100K settlement for breaking CA law, pleaded guilty to entering a federal building under false pretenses (originally charged with worse), and more. But hey, you put your head in the sand if that’s what you want.

            1. im sure the people he caught saying bad stuff believed they were selectively edited

              and yet that’s the usual currency for the “gotcha” media

              you just dont like it that here’s a guy who shows 2 can play at that game

              again, he’s got a mote in his eye, others have beams in their own

                1. I dislike Glenn Beck and absolutely never waste my time on him. He is no authority on anything for me. He is a buffoon and I tired of him in the first five minutes I ever listened and then that was it.

      2. Note the consequences of Somali tribalism in this. Do we really need to import Mogadishu problems?

        1. Yes Young that is certainly a thought that I had as well

          people that have had to contend with anarchy and civil war on the scale of Somalia will LAUGH at our election laws as they play whatever role gets them a free lunch

        1. Here’s the dictionary:

          noun: privilege; plural noun: privileges

          a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.”

          You can hardly open your mouth without giving evidence of oodles of unwarranted self-confidence.

          Michael Comey had a handsome job and a large family. No special right or advantage in that, except some extra purchasing power (which he invested in having seven children).

          His father was a clerical / service employee in his early years, a salesman later. His father-in-law was a claims specialist in an insurance company. They all lived in New Orleans, not the most affluent or orderly city in the country.

          1. X 3 — “advantaged as a youth” That you fail to recognize privilege, especially in New Orleans, … words fail me.

            But then you were never denied a Bat Mitzvah, etc.

            1. X 3 — “advantaged as a youth” That you fail to recognize privilege, especially in New Orleans, … words fail me.

              They fail you because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Her father buys and sells legal services which allow him a higher income than you have. There’s no privilege in that (there is privilege incorporated into your income and working conditions, about which more anon). He doesn’t control the market. Privilege is the ability to bring undue influence to bear, and, no, there’s no indication he has that beyond relatively unimportant bits that people with lower incomes can sometimes manage – say, getting a summer job at Shell for one of his adolescent daughters.

              1. X 3 — ever visited the Lower 9th Ward? For that matter, just a few blocks off Charles Street?

                Yes, growing up as a lawyer’s daughter in a posh suburb of NO is advantaged. You are too dense to recognize it.

                1. what’s your point benson? RBG is a secular saint and so laudable compared to ACB? Well, if you feel that way, fine! you’re welcome to have an opinion. praise RBG all you like, but, it’s besides the point of the merits of ACB for confirmation.

                  For my part: hell if I would surrender a single advantage i have ever had for free, or regret them

                  I have been privileged in a thousand ways, I thank God for it, and pray for more

    1. Benson:
      Poor RBG. She was “relegated” to Harvard and Columbia for law school. If that’s being discriminated against, sign me up.

      1. mespo727272 — Ashkenazi have had a way of overcoming.

        And elsewhere on this thread some commenter thought that the law schools at UChicago and Northwestern aren’t Chicago’s best, so from that perspective…

        1. “Best” on US News and world report’s ranking list means what Benson? Impresses a haughty letters after the name schmuck like you, maybe.
          Just not sure what they mean to anybody in law practice.

          What’s your sudden interest with who’s privileged or not Benson ? got some kind of class consciousness thing goin on? searching for relevance in this debate?

    2. Kamala was a child of privilege, and is now an irritating, unlikable politician who most recently said she proudly wears her “Notorius B.I.G.” tee shirt. What a mess senile Joe and unlikable Kamala are. JUST VOTE NO to JOE. TRUMP 2020! There is no other sane choice. TRUMP2020!

  10. 36 Republican Senators voted for Justice Ginsburg’s confirmation. I’m sure that many of these republicans did not agree with all of her positions but voted for her because she was emminatly qualified. I am looking forward with great curiosity to equal fairness by the Senate Democrats.

    1. How many Republicans were going to vote for Garland, Thinkitthrough?

      He didn’t even get a vote. So don’t pretend that this is about the vote for Ginsburg years ago.

  11. So Notre Dame School of Law is just a mediocre school of law. She received the Hoynes prize for best record in scholarship. Google it. There is no question about Judge Ginsburgs accomplishments. However, to diminish the educational accomplishments of Judge Barret by claiming that her education is from a medium level law school without naming the school is disingenuous at best. A disrespect for the reader of your information is not acceptable. Once again Google it!

    1. How is it even possible that ACB doesn’t know how to pronounce ‘poignant.’ It’s a tiny thing, but…

    2. mediocre huh. Where did “thinkitthrough” go to law school? nowhere I will guess

      break the lock the Ivy ;eague mafia has on our country, they are traitorous institutions rife with corruption and wickedness

    3. So Notre Dame School of Law is just a mediocre school of law.

      It’s ranked 22d out of 198 law schools rated by US News. If you’re going to slam someone’s accomplishments, you might improve your performance in long division.

      1. these ratings are of little consequence. other than for law students and non-lawyers, they are just not that useful. i will try and illustrate.

        Take Chicago. if for example one were to say, there are six law schools in chicago, which one per “US NEWS” is usually a top 5? that would be University of Chicago– very impressive school academically. but not known for making lawyers., nor even judges. perhaps only known for making academics.

        ask instead lawyers in and around the city, what law school is most consequential in the life of the city? which produces lawyers who have a broad impact from lower courts to higher ones, as lawyers or judges?

        nobody would say U of Chi. Nor the next one down, Northwestern. U of Chi is almost irrelevant to city life. They are mostly publishing pointed headed geek articles of no consequence.

        No it would be a three way tie between the next 3 in rank. I will skip naming them, because, it’s besides the point. They are arguably “mediocre” compared to U of Chi, but, U of Chi is definitely “insignificant’ compared to them on the local level. And in a city like that, local matters

        My point is only that law school rankings per US news are not all that helpful for anything besides law students to make a pick and faculty to have a brag

        Indeed if you think that Stanford or U of Chi is as consequential to the United states as 1 & 2 Harvard and Yale? Well, of course not. Great programs but you are talking harvard and yale then you are talking the upper tier all in itself. A tier above all the rest. If only due to networking effects!

        In terms of the quality of education, the other 20 which follow are not that different. nor are the next 20 in the US News ratings below them.

        So don’t put too much stock in these ratings Benson. Lawyers don’t.

        As for Notre Dame,. I don’t need to sing its praises. It speaks for itself. Some arrogant people would dismiss it merely because it is out in “Flyover” or some piddly town in the Rust Belt just as they do Amy Coney Barrett. Denizens of the coastal areas, the big cities, the very same sort of people who are eager to destroy the Electoral College so they can lord it over the big middle of the nation once and for all. We get the idea, we know who you are.

        Funny how the mass media played up South Bend when it was Pete Buttigig talking about it every day, made it seem like everytown usa, but now when they mention Amy, it’s suddenly a hotspot for Catholic cultists! Always the contextual framing of the mass media liars and fake news.

  12. For Turley’s statement that “Some critics believed he would place Judge Judy on the bench. Instead, Trump has favored highly respected conservative jurists with great records. They have not been blank slates but those with articulated principles. They have crossed the political divide when those principles demand it.”

    Here is one of Trump’s nominees, Matthew Spencer Petersen, being questioned by Republican Senator John Kennedy about new having done a trial, second-chaired at perhaps 5 depositions:


    No, Judge Judy would have been an improvement over Trump nominees. No, as long as they are young and extremely ideological Trump likes them.

    1. Mr. Petersen is an election law maven, not a trial lawyer. He isn’t particularly young. He’s not notably conservative either. Interestingly, he didn’t bother the ABA committee.

  13. I enjoyed watching the RBG movie “On the Basis of Sex” which chronicled Ginsburg’s law school and early career.

    Now I am sure Barretr is intelligent as are most other law professors. She raises a lot of kids which is easy to do with a lifetime appointment as a law professor or a lifetime appointment as a judge, and the financial means to hire help. Went from a reasonable but not great law school, then biglaw, then a law professorship. She has a record which is probably matched by many, many other biglaw or professor types who are not on the Federalist Society, which represents a small minority of the legal profession but gains access to a far disproportionate number of judgeships.

    In short, she is nothing particularly special. No one is going to write a movie about her amazing achievements (except maybe D’nish DeSouza.)

    1. No one is going to write a movie about her amazing achievements

      Ruth Bader Ginsburg never founded a law firm and had almost no history in private practice.

  14. The19th amendment giving the right to vote to women was passed by the United States Senate. The votes for the amendment were 56 Republicans and 20 Democrats. Aborted women will never exercise their “RIGHT TO VOTE”.

      1. The Republicans could have changed the immigration law when they had both houses. The could have repealed or amended Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Act of 1965. But they chose not to. Currently, the largest number of immigrants to the U.S. are from Africa. The Republicans could have changed the law to skills-based immigration but they say on their hands. So they have no one to blame for themselves for this voting fraud sh!t show.

        1. You can lay the blame for that on the Republican Senate leadership, which insists on maintaining the filibuster on ‘principle’ and on George W Bush, who favors open borders.

        2. TIN is right before Trump the Republicans were incompetent at best when it came to immigration. There were a few notable exceptions. Then came TRUMP

Comments are closed.