The Barrett Confirmation: Questions and Answers (Day 2)

I will be continuing to blog on the hearing and occasionally tweak highlights.  As noted earlier, I will step away for a speech at the Brookings Institution around 11 am.

9:25 — Sen. Feinstein asked Barrett about severability. This is the first real recognition that two conservative justices have indicated that they would uphold an Act like the ACA even if a provision is found unconstitutional.  There is no reason to believe that Barrett would vote differently from the expected votes of Roberts and Kavanaugh. Ironically, without a ninth vote, the case could tie which would result in the entire Act being struck down.

9:40 — Barrett is again discussing precedent. She put herself in the middle on stare decision that it is not absolute or meaningless.  She noted that reliance interests must be considered.

9:45 — Grassley is up. Primarily a critique of the Dems.

9:55 —  Barrett just said that she would be open to cameras in the courtroom. I have long advocated for the inclusion and some justices have been demonstrably opposed.

9:56 — Barrett strongly indicated that she does not agree with the use of international law as controlling in U.S. cases – a position similar to Scalia.

10:06 — Leahy is making a good point that Barrett should have said clearly that the Supreme Court’s decisions are final on both lower courts and presidents. Barrett said she was referring to Federalist 78 and that Court lacks the ability to force its will. It is the final word but relies on the other branches to enforce. Barrett did a good job in using Brown to show how the national guard was needed to enforce the ruling.

10:09 — Leahy legitimately pushed the question and asked about a president who refused to adhere to an order. Barrett again noted that other presidents have defied the law but the ruling is the final work on the law.

10:11 — Leahy is pushing on whether a president can pardon himself and Barrett refused to answer pursuant to the Ginsburg rule. Leahy said her answers were incompatible. Not sure I know what that is based on. He is pushing her on emoluments clause which again is still in litigation.  She could not and did not answer as Leahy clearly knew would happen.

10:16 — Barrett just nailed the precedent question by noting that Lawrence and Brown overruled cases. The Democrats have cited those cases, correctly, as celebrated moments.

10:24 — Sen. Cornyn is using Ginsburg’s prior article to say that the decision was “breathtaking” in Roe and questioning whether Roe was a good idea.

10:37 — Durbin is up. He had a very successful day yesterday with a rare substantive exchange with Barrett. Durbin had another strong examination. He is pushing Barrett on why she cannot answer questions that are expressly addressed in the Constitution. He asked a question under the 15th Amendment. Again, these have been very effective framing.  Barrett is holding her own. It is another moment of substance — an island in a sea of puffery.

Barrett just landed a haymaker.  Durbin said that her answer “stains originalism:  Barrett responded that it would “strain the canons of [judicial] conduct . . . it would strain Article III” to answer. Durbin was again connected with well-crafted questions but that was a great counterpunch. Barrett has reach . . . as they say in boxing.

10:45 — Durbin is returning the decisions on taking away guns versus taking away votes for ex-felons.  Barrett is again noting that there is a distinction between rights that are individual rights (as in the Second Amendment) and rights going to society like voting. Durbin was very effective in response.  These exchanges are the highlights of the hearing between two able debaters. Durbin shows how substantive questions can yield more benefits than the cheap sensational attacks of his colleagues.

10:50 — I have to run to give my speech at the even at Brookings.  I will be back on around 12.

12:35 — I’m back. Sen. Klobuchar is grilling Barrett on being the “polar opposite” of Ginsburg and says that that is a serious problem.

12:39 — Barrett just pushed back on Klobuchar on the insinuation of her questioning of bias.  I do not blame her. This is a silly line of questions that Barrett legitimately called a suggestion of a type of letter to President Trump.

12:41 — Klobuchar is seriously arguing that Barrett wrote an article before the election as a signaling to Trump. It is an incredibly low-grade attack particularly after the substantive exchange between Durbin and Barrett.

12:45 — Klobuchar just laughed at Barrett for declining to answer under the Ginsburg rule. She then turned to the irrelevant question of whether Barrett or her family have voted by mail.

12:46 — Klobuchar is dripping with sarcasm in what is becoming an openly insulting series of questions. Rather than ask like Hirono is she has committed sexual assault, Klobuchar is asking if she is a political shill.

12:58 — Sen. Sasse just gave a strong argument against the cameras in the courtroom.  Grassley is right on this issue, in my view.  The Framers loved science and new technology.  Cameras would allow all citizens to see these arguments not just people who stand in line for a small number of seats.

1:03 — Sasse just asked Barrett to list the five freedoms of the first amendment.  It is tough question for someone under the glare of television lights after hours of grilling. Barrett got four and then Sasse asked another question on why they are in the same amendment. It is rare to see such odd throws to a nominee by the sponsoring party. Not sure the majority will like the line of questioning but Sasse is very smart and was making a valid and interesting point.  Yet, it puts the nominee in an uncomfortable position since Sasse clearly wanted to lay the foundation for his own point later. I think she was relieved when he went to baseball and attacking the Houston Astros.

1:08 — wow that was a long way around to go from Houston Astros to go to judicial philosophy.

1:15 — Sen. Coons asked a good question about Griswald.  Barrett responded that Griswald is “very very very very unlikely to go anywhere.” Barrett gave another nuanced answer tied to Roe by saying that it is the foundation of a question to get a peek on a Roe decision.

1:29 — Coons is again attacking Barrett on the Texas article. Barrett has not dismissed the hold of precedent but he seems to suggest that the Court should never revisit precedent. It is an incomprehensible position and Barrett hit Coons on cases like Lawrence.  Coons said those were “grievously wrong cases.” He then said she should look at precedent through a “Ginsburg lens” rather than a Scalia lens.”

1:34 — …Coons sounded like he was trying to talk himself into voting on the basis not of qualifications but the expected votes of a nominee. He succeeded. He just announced he would vote against Barrett.

1:37 — Sen. Hawley is asking Barrett if she knows of any anyone who have challenged Griswald in decades.  The question is ill-considered.  That could be used to push Barrett on answering the question on Griswald since it is unlikely to come before her. That was the reason Roberts answered the question. Barrett immediately saw the problem and told him that it could still come up indirectly as the basis for Roe.

1:40 — Hawley is now asking about Section 230 and a new opinion by Thomas in the denial of cert.  Obviously, she will not speak to such a case. He is asking about the dangers of rewriting a statute like this one. Barrett left her answer confined to subverting Congress and what is a classic “countermajoritanian difficulty” answer.

1:54 — Blumenthal is up but the mike has failed. Some will celebrate.

2:46 — Blumenthal is back and asking the same series of questions that Barrett has declined previously answer.  Barrett just said Blumenthal is pushing her to violate the code of judicial ethics. I would be more sympathetic with the questioning (as someone who have criticized the scope of the Ginsburg rule) if the Democrats, including Blumenthal, supporting nominees like Kagan in not answering such questions.

2:50 — Blumenthal is now detailing President Trump’s debt and his tax issues.  He pivoted to emoluments — an area that she again had repeatedly refused to answer. Few would argue that she should given the pending litigation. Yet, Blumenthal is pushing again for an answer.

2:52 — Blumenthal just discussed his lawsuit on emoluments which was just denied on cert yesterday and rejected in the court of appeals. I happen to agree on standing as a long advocate for legislative standing. However, I have always been skeptical of the emoluments lawsuits.

2:54 — Blumenthal is now pushing Barrett on her views of Global Warming. As Hirono would say “what the heck?”

2:57 — Blumenthal objected that he suspects Barrett is a judicial activist just after trying to influence her to vote to protect ACA based on the personal stories and appeal to her judgment on policy grounds. He also just asked her about her view of global warming as if that were relevant to the nomination. The mike thankfully then cut off again.

3:21 — Barrett just revealed that her son Liam became very upset with some of the questioning of his mother.

3:32 — Sen. Hirono is up.  Hirono just said that Barrett would destroy the “fair and balanced” court that we value.

3:36 — Hirono is again trying to get Barrett to say that she will rule based on how she views the better results for individuals under the health care law.  Barrett has said impacts are considered. Hirono however seems to be inviting Barrett to “do the right thing” by these individuals as opposed to what she believes the law or Constitution demands.

3:43 — Hirono just said that Barrett “went out of your way to send a signal” in prior cases.  Nothing could be more insulting to a jurist.

3:51: Hirono is now asking Barrett if she thinks the Administration is protecting voting rights.

3:53: Hirono just said that “the fact that you wouldn’t even bring forth the recusal process says to me that voters may decided there is an appearance of conflict.” What?

4:09 — Sen. Booker is asking whether Barrett thinks that it is wrong to separate a child from a parent to send a message.  Barrett correctly stated that he is trying to get her to enter the public debate over the Administration’s policies. No nominee could ethically engage in such a discussion.

4:27 — Booker just told Barrett the “fix is in”.

4:30 — Barrett just responded to Booker stating that she does not appear to have tried to understand racial injustice and seemed insensitive to it. She noted that she has two Haitian children and obviously both personal and legal commitment to racial justice and equality.

4:49 — Sen. Harris is up. She is again giving a speech unconnected to the nomination.

139 thoughts on “The Barrett Confirmation: Questions and Answers (Day 2)”

  1. Mr. Turkey,

    What distinguishes “sever ability” from “ bait n’ switch” in the long play ?

    If you please, Sir.

  2. Personally, FWIW, many of us regular folk learned a lot from watching Amy Coney Barrett both from her responses to questions and how she comported herself under intense hostile questioning. She is quite amazing. We like her and think she will be a fine addition to the Supreme Court.

  3. Yes, CTHD, it offends you! You must have understood me then. Let your anger enliven you and give you the courage to confront the questions implicit within that 9 minute clip discussion between the MIT professors.

    In ecology the problem of “carrying capacity” has been around a long time If you believe the Earth is reaching a carrying capacity problem, then, you’re at the threshold of implications far more dire and impersonal than whether you had kids or not. My two versus your none don’t matter, they are talking about a problem that is untenable with an 8 billion person population in which food production, harvesting, and distribution is predominantly done with fossil fuels. With no technical fix on the horizon. In other words yes they are sure that warming is coming and however unsure they are of the results, they are profoundly concerned about it. These are not frivolous men nor politicians!

    So what’s it gonna be? Go live in a cave eating grass the rest of your life, and ask all of us to do the same?
    Or, face the question of how to handle the world surplus population?

    Or maybe we can’t stop it in which case, better write to YOUR Congressperson and tell them to get moving on the infrastructure bill that neither party has seen fit to finish near 4 years after Trump said he wanted it! Cuz when those oceans rise, it’s going to take a lot more dams, levees, waterways, slipways, floodplains, drainage ditches, and new roads to deal with. And maybe even… a lot of WALL!

    Oh one more thing. If you lived in a developing country for any time, then you will understand they sure aren’t volunteering to hold off on “economic development” and stay poor while the “West” stays well off. And China’s thrown its one child policy out the door. India never had one. Do you seriously think there is anything remotely possible in “the West” when it comes to energy reduction that will lead to a sufficient reduction in time? And i got news for ya, if your “consensus” is right, sorry, but the Paris Accords are not it.

    from Reuters in 2019: “Of the 184 pledges countries made under the climate agreement, only 36 are ambitious enough to help reach the agreement’s goal of keeping global warming less than 1.5 Celsius (2.7 F) above pre-industrial levels, the report here said. Most of those 36 are by countries in the European Union.

    Watson, a former chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the report could be read two ways: “You can read ‘My God it’s hopeless’, or ‘My God this is a wake up call.’”

    Watson estimated that even if all nations meet their existing pledges, the world would be headed for temperature rise of between 3 and 3.5 degrees Celsius, which could lead to more extreme weather, rising sea levels and the loss of plant and animal species.”

    Four four years I have been listening to this stuff more carefully, not that I was ignorant of it before– I learned about “greenhouse effect” back in 7th grade science.

    But for four years I have been hearing nonstop trivial BS about Orange Man Bad by people who could have just passed an infrastructure bill that he wanted and yet they never saw fit to bother with. Excuse me if I don’t take the current Democratic Party Leadership seriously. If they were serious about climate change, then they could have spent at least half as much time working on LEGISLATION and COMPROMISE NEGOTIATIONS and INFRASTRUCTURE ADAPTATIONS as they did mounting one smear campaign against the guy in charge after another. ‘

    Really, do you wonder why progressives want to puke all over Biden and Kamala and the Democratic party leadership? They actually wanted some help with the pressing issues and not just 4 years of manipulative schtick. I know a few progressives and the ones I know are not.

    It’s really too bad the Democratic party leadership squandered so much credibility on the whole Russia hoax when this pressing matter was descending upon us. If a tenth of the browbeating had been spent on “honest discussion” about global warming issues instead of just browbeating the devil out of working class white people who like Trump, well, maybe there would have been some better bipartisan support for legislation?

    I think all the people commenting here are sincere decent people, on all sides. Or why waste time talking. I also think people responding to the team play cues that the Democratic party has given you, have though through the implications of global warming on either the range of possible solutions, or how they could realistically be addressed in a bipartisan system like ours. If you had then the past 4 years would have been an attempt at education, negotiation, compromise and legislation, instead of political smear campaigns about trivia nonstop.

    it’s really the biggest squandered opportunity in history. Orange Man is a spender and a construction tycoon and he was calling for an infrastructure bill all along and the Republican nobody rank and file like me would have loved it. But what do we have instead. Zilch on that account instead, and if you take global warming seriously it was quite possibly the most important thing we could have done to get moving on adaptation.

    I bet somebody could have made a deal with Trump to drop the whole Russia hoax charade if he would just stick in the Paris accords. At least that! He’s cynical and would have taken it. And lots of grease could have been spread around on infrastructure construction, greased every single politician in Washington. Would that have been worth it? if the situation is as dire as the “consensus” says? Did Pelosi try? Nah, I dont think she believes it any more than the average “climate denier” does.

    1. if global warming alarmists were serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we could have significantly reduced them by converting all electrical production to nuclear power. the fact that they reject nuclear power for “green technologies” – the equivalent of magical thinking – that cannot even come close to meeting electricity demand speaks volumes.

  4. O’k, does anyone really believe that any of these democrat senators will vote for judge Barrett? Stop the BS and theatrics and have the vote tomorrow.

    1. They are in lockstep. No Democrat would dare step out of line of what Dear Leader told them is expected. Repubs all go and do what they think is right, to heck with the party line, they do as they choose to….no so with Democrat party. Lockstep is how they operate. Always. Or else you will feel the wrath of Dear Leader. The Dems know only one way: you got your orders, now get in line.

      1. Why would anyone want to be part of a party like that? Or vote those kinds of totalitarians into power? It’s beyond belief.

      2. You have the wrong political party: it’s the Republicans who fall in lockstep behind a fat, bloated, lying narcissist television performer who is responsible for the illness of millions and deaths of tens of thousands due to his incompetence, arrogance, and refusal to follow public health guidelines and his encouragement that others also shun these measures. As a result, the economy is in the toilet and people are getting sick and dying. Businesses are closing, some for good. It’s not safe to hold in-person classes for schools, and people are hoarding toilet paper again. But…the Federalist Society gets to pack the SCOTUS with 3 judges, 2 of whom wrote briefs in Gore v. Bush (the third SCOTUS judge who wrote a brief in that case was John Roberts). Even you diehard Hannity fans have to admit this is no coincidence. Why do you think Barrett’s name was at the top of the short list approved by the Federalist Society? All of this is to defeat the will of the American people and for Republicans to maintain power they can’t get lawfully to do things like defeat the ACA, which they tried and failed to do 70 times since it was passed.

          1. Dr. Fauci said that Trump admin was doing an “impressive job” of handling the covid pandemic. Dr. Fauci said that he didn’t know what more the Trump admin could have been doing. What would Joe Biden do? Take away the state’s rights to run their own states accordingly only to follow some federal dictates? Take away our individual rights by trying to implement a federal “mask-wearing mandate”? What specifically does Joe Biden offer in his “plan” that would do any more than Trump admin has already done? Trump has listened to the “scientists” so do not use that bs line. Be specific.

            1. Joe Biden has said he would “Listen to the scientists” and if they said “shut things down, lock it down” then that is what Joe Biden would do – shut the country down – again. So how does Joe Biden’s “plan” address the closed businesses? Those out of work? Schools not opening? What is Biden’s answer that is better than anything Trump has done? If Biden would “shut it down” and “listen to the scientists” wouldn’t that result in even more economic destruction? It truly makes no sense what the Biden campaign and you are saying.

              1. Pelosi is blocking Covid relief. The Senate used the filibuster 3 weeks ago to block Covid relief. Yet the media, Democrats and Joe Biden are screaming from rooftops that it is Trump’s fault. The flatout lying being done by Joe and Kamala campaign – with ZERO pushback or correction from the Press is outrageous.

                1. Democrats passed a COVID relief bill back in May, which McConnell refused to even consider. Trump said, publicly, that he demanded that Mnuchin SHUT DOWN further talks. That IS Trump’s fault. He then reversed himself, but Trump is mentally unstable, and contradicts himself constantly. You need to stop listening to the lies put out by Fox.

                  1. Why did the Senate not consider Pelosi’s bill? Because she stuffed it to excess with $trillions unrelated to coronavirus at all: bailouts to state pension plans, payoffs to her political cronies, direct checks to illegal immigrants, tax relief for high earners in California and New York. None of it related to coronavirus. Pelosi knew it wasn’t going anywhere. And she refuses to budge or agree on any good faith offers being made by Republicans. This delay is all on Nancy Pelosi so that they can use it as an election issue to bash Trump.

                    Then just a few weeks ago Senate Democrats blocked a coronavirus relief bill – that actually provided Covid relief – by using the filibuster they have called a “Jim Crow relic” that they fully intend to blow up once they regain control.

                  2. yes listen to the lies put out by natch and CNN instead

                    Pelosi’s gambit on near everything is ask for the sun and stars and bundled them up with what’s needed, and when Trump says no, fail to compromise and negotiate in good faith, and then the fake news will blame it all on Trump

                    Do you think people don’t see that? I hear plenty of progressives who do, to say none the least of the rest of us

            2. Anonymous: more lies. Dr. Fauci’s comments were taken out of context. He said, back in March, that the CDC was doing an impressive job, and that he didn’t know what else they could do. Dr. Fauci has demanded that Trump’s campaign stop using his words out of context and for political reasons, but they refuse. Gullibles like you fall for it, and, of course, Fox won’t tell you the campaign is promoting lies and misinformation. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

              Trump is a fat, lying, narcissist who wants the presidency so he can wallow in applause and praise. Trump not only has done little to nothing about the pandemic, he has actually stymied efforts to encourage the only things known to work to control this virus, for which there is no cure (despite Trump’s lies to the contrary), and no vaccine. The things Trump has done to stymie progress, in addition to failing to insist on wearing masks, social distancing, quarantining and contact tracing for positive cases, all of which the CDC recommends: lie constantly, not only about the seriousness of this pandemic that he was aware of in February, as shown by the Bob Woodward tapes, but promoting Hydroxychloroquine, pressuring the FDA for emergency use approval, Pressuring drug manufacturers to rush an unproven vaccine onto the market without sufficient testing. The worst of all is undermining the CDC, contradicting and disputing physicians with years of experience in control of communicable disease. Trump does not “listen” to scientists: in his arrogant narcissism, he actually believes himself to be qualified to offer contrary opinions. He hired Dr. Scott Atlas, a neuroradiologist, to counter opinions from the CDC, and his personal physician, an osteopath, has demonstrably lied to the American people. Trump lies….people die. Trump is now actually promoting “herd immunity” an approach to communicable diseases that is considered dangerous and stupid. People will die unnecessarily. We do not control communicable diseases in America by encouraging most of the population to get inoculated with a deadly virus. That is third-world.

              What would Joe Biden do? He would let the communicable disease specialists at the CDC control the message about how to bring this pandemic under control, so that schools and businesses can safely open fully, and so that American travelers can be allowed to visit other countries, which they cannot do now. The US would re-join the WHO, to share information on spread and control of communicable diseases. Trump waddled his fat ass out at the so-called “briefings” because there were cameras there, to control what was being said. Biden would let the doctors control the message. He also would allow the FDA to do its job, which is to follow standard, proven vaccine development protocols, instead of some PR nonsense about “warp speed” development. The human immune system cannot be goaded into producing scientifically-valid results because of the proximity of an election. Pushing for results by a deadline is nothing more than a fat, stupid, lying politician trying to get doctors to disregard standard safety and efficacy protocols for vaccine and therapeutic drug development. Importantly, Biden has, and will, continue to lead by example. He wears masks. Trump mocks mask-wearing. Biden discourages large gatherings. Trump’s fragile ego requires them and he mocks Joe Biden for following the recommendations of the CDC to avoid superspreader events. Just last night, Trump’s campaign put up a sign for directions to the “superspreader” event–the vainglory rally. Now, doctors are bracing for the influx of new COVID patients. It’s all one big, joke. Until someone dies.

              1. “Biden has, and will, continue to lead by example. He wears masks.” Sure and the other day he wore TWO masks on his face at the same time. Double protection, eh Joe? Now, with all the precautions followed by the Biden campaign TWO of Kamala Harris’s staff got covid. Imagine that. Did someone step out of their ridiculous white circle drawn on the ground? Please.

                “Biden discourages large gatherings.” When did he say a thing about the masses of BLM/Antifa protests in the streets? Or the many large funerals and gatherings by Dems for their deceased Dem VIPs? Or the large gatherings of protests on the Mall in DC?

                The WHO is corrupt and controlled by China. The CDC does not have to balance out economic concerns and everything else – that is president’s job.

                Dr. Fauci said all those things praising the Trump admin’s response. Fauci initially told the truth and said masks do nothing. Fauci is now saying we should not gather for Thanksgiving celebrations with family!

              2. “Trump not only has done little to nothing about the pandemic…”

                This is the most outrageous flatout lie being told by Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, the corrupt media, and you! It is a flatout lie. Stop lying. You are a “superspreader” of lies!

              3. ‘So much has been said that is inaccurate about Covid-19 and President Trump’s response that Newt felt he had to set the record straight. This YouTube video “Saving 2,000,000 lives-Trump versus Covid” is one we think you will find very eye opening.’ -Newt Gingrich

        1. Filling vacancies is not “packing the court.” Expanding the court is packing the court. Why is it okay for Joe and Kamala to hide out and refuse to answer questions on nearly anything? The press is literally running interference on behalf of the Biden campaign.

          1. Look at CNN’s website. CNN literally disappeared the Hunter Biden laptop story.

            Twitter is censoring NY Post, the Judiciary Committe, the GOP, and others. Literally blocking, hiding, removing, locking out “news” that is harmful to Joe Biden’s campaign.

            Reporters, instead of asking questions and investigating the story, are working overtime to debunk the story as conspiracy and russian disinformation.

            Mind boggling election interference by social media and mainstream press on behalf of Joe Biden.

            1. Hunter Biden is NOT a “story” because Fox News and Limbaugh try to make it into one to deflect attention away from the new daily COVID case records. Twitter blocks and removes lies and dangerous content, like misrepresentations about COVID, to help save lives. We haven’t “turned a corner”. Cases are reaching new record levels, and Trump discourages wearing masks, mocks Biden for wearing one, mocks Biden for holding only small groups, accusing him of hiding in a basement, instead of the superspreader” events Trump holds, which are criminally irresponsible and fails to lead by example, mainly due to his ego and need for affirmation by cheering crowds of dumbasses. People will die as a result.

              1. “Twitter blocks and removes lies and dangerous content….” only those that hurt or harm Democrats and the Joe Biden campaign. Twitter does not block or remove disinfo/lies/smears/anonymous unsourced stories that harm Trump. Have you noticed that? Instead Twitter makes sure those stories are “trending” on Twitter.

              2. “Hunter Biden is NOT a “story”…..Au contraire, Hunter Biden’s emails ARE a story. And there is more to come….

        2. Lastly, the ACA needs to be called Obamacare because as we all know by now, it is nothing resembling “affordable”. It is entirely unaffordable and un-usable for most. It was not popular when it was rammed through and it is remains unpopular.

        3. As the Federalist Society is a fine and patriotic civic organization, of course Natch is opposed to it.

  5. Sen. Harris asked Barrett about a bunch of facts, and Barrett was willing to agree with some of them (e.g., smoking can cause cancer) and not others (e.g., re: racial discrimination in voting — and Harris read a quote from C.J. Roberts’ opinion about it, I think from the Shelby County case).

    I don’t recall which Roberts’ quote Harris used re: the existence of racial discrimination in voting, but here’s an example: there are multiple places in the U.S. “with an undisputed history of serious problems with racial discrimination in voting.” She wouldn’t agree. She also wouldn’t agree with the scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. She considers those statements are contentious.

    1. “There are multiple places in the U.S. “with an undisputed history of serious problems with racial discrimination in voting.”

      a friend of mine is looking to relocate., he was too shy to ask for a list of these places, please provide?

      1. Kurtz, the quote from Chief Justice Roberts is “Consider once again the components of the record before Congress in 2006. The coverage provision identified a known list of places with an undisputed history of serious problems with racial discrimination in voting.”

        If you want to know, look it up in the Congressional Record. I don’t have a burden of proof for Roberts’ statement.

        1. Ha, ha Young. She must have missed the joke.

          Guess what. Im not crying in my cheerios over this trifling ‘problem”

          If you want a real problem get on over to answering my repeated questions about global warming and how climate advocates presume to solve the problem elaborated by Professor Hutchinson. I only posted it like 3 times the past 2 hours. why dodge it?

          maybe you guys have not thought through the implications of your advocacy well enough.

          no technological fix is in sight that can reach the “steady state of co2 emissions” desired by climate utopians

          not with 8 billion carbon emitting humans consuming food that’s worldwide based mostly on fossil fuels for fertilizer harvesting and distribution

          not unless the “West” ie US get reduced 99% in fossil fuel consumption which would be like Stone age level leading to dieoff

          so who’s going to die if you are right? Us or the spare billions in the third world>? What are your plans? You want an honest discussion you better watch that clip over and over and assimilate it. Then be ready for some very dark conclusions

            1. hey Young, the total lack of honesty or at least the total lack of perceptiveness, is obvious

              this is why I found the conversation between the two professors interesting. one is a computer geek and the other a physics geek and they both understand the question and were at least smart enough to recognize the implications. I can’t seem to get any of my Democrat friends to take this question seriously and I have been asking it for months now. I just get blank stares as they search for a reason to tell me I am wrong.

              See if we just concede that the “climate science” is right then there are some very dark and ugly questions of devastating human magnitude right at the doorstep. Why wont they talk about them?

              I have been left with the impression that they simply do not understand their claims, in most cases, and in other cases, they do not believe their own contentions

              it’s really almost a pointless exercise to go down this road. the funny thing is a small number of “climate advocates” have and they are called “Climate doomers.”

              They’re the honest ones. Honest because they have enough smarts to comprehend the contentions, and take them seriously. But put them aside– the “climate activist” have declared them ‘as dangerous as climate deniers.”

              Well anyhow. Presently my thinking is, the skeptical Republican attitude makes sense, because if you take them with complete seriousness, the implications are purely genocidal, Of somebody– necessarily– So, again, the main question is, who do the climate activists plan on eliminating to achieve their aims? Which billions have got to go? and how?

              or maybe we can look again to one of the scientific deniers who have good qualifications and look into their “peer review.”

              are the models accurately predictive and if so why not?

              let them tune into a dense presentation from a Stanford U chemist who criticizes climate modelling. Kind of boring unless you like math and science but here’s a lot of interesting material

              1. “are the models accurately predictive and if so why not?”

                No, they are not predictive. One after the other has toppled.

                Using data from the Hadley Climate Research Unit in East Anglia the Independent infamously said children would no longer know what snow was in England. That prediction was followed by several killing winters that buried the country in snow and saw Arctic Owls in Wales.

                The site watssupwiththat is good.

    2. Of course she does CTHD. The GOP knows why they picked her. It’s not her”judicial philosophy” it’s her politics. Our racist posters here are amused and heartened.

      1. Says the bigoted “racist” poster named Joe Friday who uses black Americans to push a self-serving political agenda rooted in your inability to deal with the fact that you didn’t get your Hillary “Super Predators” Clinton participation trophy.

    3. Turns out that the Roberts’ quote was “voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that.”

      Apparently Barrett doubt it.

    4. Turley writes: “Sen. Harris is up. She is again giving a speech unconnected to the nomination.”

      I am grateful for Turley’s excellent commentary but here I disagree. Senator Harris reined in yesterday’s “speechifying” and was at her prosecutorial best today.

      In addition to the cancer-causing risk of smoking, the infectiousness of Covid-19 is another fact Judge Barrett affirmed at the request of Senator Harris. But as CTHD points out, Barrett would not affirm the fact of anthropogenic global warming. Now, in the eyes of the left, Judge Barrett might as well be a flat-earther:

      Barrett’s position on global warming is in sharp contrast with Kavanaugh’s:

      And the Pope’s:

      This was a substantive moment in the hearings. Surely, under the circumstances, this nominee’s views on climate change are relevant to her Supreme Court confirmation? Surely there is less need for her to claim judicial independence on this “settled point of science” than there is for her to defend a rigorous personal/professional firewall with respect to abortion?

      1. Jonathan Maxson,

        You might not be aware but this weblog is configured to only permit two or fewer hyperlinks per comment. I edited your comment above by removing the protocol from the third hyperlink you included so that it would post.

        If you would like for the readership to review more than two links, this may be accomplished by posting multiple comments of two or fewer hyperlinks each.

      2. For how many centuries have Popes been experts on climate change?

        Variation on how many divisions does the Pope have?

        1. Indeed Rhodes, that’s why the whole ideas of air travel and heart surgery failed. If only we could have proved they might work, imagine the world we’d live in!

    5. There is no “scientific” consensus that man-caused climate change is occuring.

      Oh and a quick question: How many sexes are there?

    6. “the scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is occurring”

      How does “anthropogenic climate change” explain the Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age?

      Answer: It doesn’t.

      Of course you know absolutely nothing about earth science. But that doesn’t prevent you from Parroting DNC talking points.

  6. Judge Barrett has injected “race” again, saying that there is still racial discrimination in society……..Unless she is speaking about the BLM’s racial discrimination against whites, and other races, I am very disappointed in her statement.

    1. Yep. In the end, they’re all liberals. You want conservatives, go back to 1789. Take the Wayback Machine, Sherman!

    2. Cindy, there is still racial discrimination in society on both sides.

      Barrett would be lying if she said that racial discrimination doesn’t exist anymore.

      1. Racial discrimination against blacks has largely vanished. Against whites and Asians it is going strong.

        1. Young, BLM has a solution for that situation, which is tailor made to create further resentment, and awaken old prejudices and breath new life into them.
          If you send them $50 it will help keep the riots er I mean the solution going

          1. Yes, Kurtz, BLM is awakening old prejudices and is making me wonder if the old prejudices were as far off the mark as I was led to believe. Nothing so convincing as living up to them. Or is it down?

            I imagine you saw the Smithsonian poster that, stupidly, characterized blacks and whites as actually living up to their stereotypes. Somebody clued them in and they took it down so I guess we won’t see it everywhere on black history month.

            1. ah well museums often produce things that later run afoul of social tastes and taboos
              let me introduce you to Madison Grant, a foremost conservationist of his era, He lived November 19, 1865 – May 30, 1937

              he was a lawyer but also [from wiki]

              “Grant was a close friend of several U.S. presidents, including Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover, and also was an avid conservationist. He is credited with saving many natural species from extinction, and co-founded the Save the Redwoods League with Frederick Russell Burnham, John C. Merriam, and Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1918. He is also credited with helping develop the first deer hunting laws in New York state, legislation which spread to other states as well over time.

              He was also the creator of wildlife management;[citation needed] helped to found the Bronx Zoo, build the Bronx River Parkway, save the American bison as an organizer of the American Bison Society, and helped to create Glacier National Park and Denali National Park. In 1906, as Secretary of the New York Zoological Society, he lobbied to put Ota Benga, a Congolese man from the Mbuti people (a tribe of “pygmies”), on display alongside apes at the Bronx Zoo.[5]

              Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, he served on the boards of many eugenic and philanthropic societies, including the board of trustees at the American Museum of Natural History, as director of the American Eugenics Society, vice president of the Immigration Restriction League, a founding member of the Galton Society, and one of the eight members of the International Committee of Eugenics. He was awarded the gold medal of the Society of Arts and Sciences in 1929. In 1931, the world’s largest tree (in Dyerville, California) was dedicated to Grant, Merriam, and Osborn by the California State Board of Parks in recognition for their environmental efforts. A subspecies of caribou was named after Grant as well (Rangifer tarandus granti, also known as Grant’s Caribou). He was a member of the Boone and Crockett Club (a big game hunting organization) since 1893, where he was friends with president Theodore Roosevelt. He was head of the New York Zoological Society from 1925 until his death.”

              [a selection of his works, besides his best seller which was fifth on the list. I have it hidden in my secret library of forbidden books, don’t tell!]

              The Caribou. New York: Office of the New York Zoological Society, 1902.
              “Moose”. New York: Report of the Forest, Fish, Game Commission, 1903.
              The Origin and Relationship of the Large Mammals of North America. New York: Office of the New York Zoological Society, 1904.
              The Rocky Mountain Goat. Office of the New York Zoological Society, 1905.
              The Passing of the Great Race; or, The Racial Basis of European History. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1916.
              New ed., rev. and Amplified, with a New Preface by Henry Fairfield Osborn. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1918
              Rev. ed., with a Documentary Supplement, and a Preface by Henry Fairfield Osborn. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1921.
              Fourth rev. ed., with a Documentary Supplement, and a Preface by Henry Fairfield Osborn. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1936.
              Saving the Redwoods; an Account of the Movement During 1919 to Preserve the Redwoods of California. New York: Zoological Society, 1919.[27]
              Early History of Glacier National Park, Montana. Washington: Govt. print. off., 1919.
              The Conquest of a Continent; or, The Expansion of Races in America, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1933.
              Selected articles
              “The Depletion of American Forests”, Century Magazine, Vol. XLVIII, No. 1, May 1894.
              “The Vanishing Moose, and their Extermination in the Adirondacks”, Century Magazine, Vol. XLVII, 1894.
              “A Canadian Moose Hunt”. In: Theodore Roosevelt (ed.), Hunting in Many Lands. New York: Forest and Stream Publishing Company, 1895.
              “The Future of Our Fauna”, Zoological Society Bulletin, No. 34, June 1909.
              “History of the Zoological Society”, Zoological Society Bulletin, Decennial Number, No. 37, January 1910.
              “Condition of Wild Life in Alaska”. In: Hunting at High Altitudes. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1913.
              “Wild Life Protection”, Zoological Society Bulletin, Vol. XIX, No. 1, January 1916.
              “The Passing of the Great Race”, Geographical Review, Vol. 2, No. 5, Nov., 1916.
              “The Physical Basis of Race”, Journal of the National Institute of Social Sciences, Vol. III, January 1917.
              “Discussion of Article on Democracy and Heredity”, The Journal of Heredity, Vol. X, No. 4, April, 1919.
              “Restriction of Immigration: Racial Aspects”, Journal of the National Institute of Social Sciences, Vol. VII, August 1921.
              “Racial Transformation of America”, The North American Review, March 1924.
              “America for the Americans”, The Forum, September 1925.

              1. Number 5 looks interesting as do several others. Thanks for the list. I may look for some of them though I am choked with books now. Shelves, garage, and storage. Checked, $26 in hardcover. Should be interesting.

                I suppose you know John Muir is in trouble now and the University of Edinburgh has removed David Hume’s name from one of its towers.

                I watched ‘The Medici’ on Netflix not long ago and Savonarola’s Bonfire of the Vanities that led Florentines to burn hundreds of priceless paintings and books and clothes and jewelry to cleanse the town and it made me think of what is happening now. We are letting our petty Savonarolas destroy our heritage, helping them in some cases.

                When in Florence I went to the spot where the people of Florence finally got around to burning Savonarola, the last vanity to be destroyed. I was smug at that spot. I hope we as a people realize what they are doing before much longer but it does not appear as if there is much call for hope.

                1. Yes, and, one pertinent difference being, Savonarola opposed the plutocrats of his time, but the iconoclasts and petty tyrants of political correctness today are backed by them.

        2. New issue of NEJM arrived today with 2 political pieces on ACA from a Biden v Trump approach.
          Behind a paywall. Excerpt follow

          Oct 15

          Health Policy in a Biden Administration

          S. Glied PhD
          New York University, New York.

          Effective pandemic response requires a complementary set of economic initiatives so that people can afford to minimize their exposure, businesses can prudently close down temporarily, and health care providers can encourage patients to delay elective procedures. A Biden administration could enhance financial protections in response to the pandemic and future health emergencies; Biden’s plan calls for automatic increases in federal matching rates for state Medicaid programs, subsidized COBRA coverage, and both expanded access to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces and more generous insurance within the marketplaces in the event of a health emergency. It would also move away from an “America First” ethos: as Biden wrote in a January op-ed, “No other nation has the resources, the reach or the relationships to marshal an effective international response.”2 So his administration would prioritize reestablishing U.S. leadership and investment in global health preparedness by restoring U.S. participation in the World Health Organization and expanding the global presence of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most of these actions could be taken by the president alone, or follow closely on the House Democrats HEROES Act (H.R. 6800), increasing the chances of enactment under a Democratic Congress.

          One of the devastating sequelae of our weak response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been that millions of American have lost their jobs and, consequently, their health insurance. The coverage provisions of the ACA have partially mitigated these effects. But the Trump administration’s regulatory actions had begun to erode the ACA’s coverage expansions before the pandemic began, and the administration is currently arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court that the entire ACA, including its protections for people with preexisting conditions and the financial supports that have enabled 20 million people to gain coverage, should be overturned. A Biden administration could restore the ACA’s original functionality by rolling back Trump administration regulations and actions and could take actions to thwart Trump’s effort to have the Supreme Court invalidate the law.

          A Democratic victory could also mean the development and passage of legislation to close the remaining gaps left by the ACA. Beyond providing access to coverage, meaningful health policy would also guarantee that financial protections are strongest for people who are already in poor health; a Biden administration and a Democratic-controlled Congress could bolster the ACA both to increase the number of people covered and to buttress protections for people with preexisting or high-cost conditions by limiting out-of-pocket costs. They could work to make the coverage available on the ACA marketplaces more generous — for instance, requiring the benchmark plan to cover 80% rather than 70% of expenses. Biden’s current plan would increase existing subsidies and extend subsidies to people higher up the income scale so that coverage would never cost more than 8.5% of a household’s income. Estimates suggest that these two enhancements could reduce the number of uninsured Americans by about 4 million, while millions more would have lower out-of-pocket costs.3 This plan would require legislation and incur budgetary costs (which would need to be offset by savings or other revenue sources), but the fact that similar legislation has already passed in the House makes the outlook promising.

          Health Policy after a Trump Election Victory

          M.V. Pauly PhD
          Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

          The chances of a Republican presidential victory in the November election are unclear, but future changes in U.S. health policy depend even more on another unpredictable event: the U.S. Supreme Court decision on a constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). If the ACA remains in effect, any changes in a second Trump administration are likely to be modest and to represent a continuation of efforts begun during President Donald Trump’s first term. If the ACA is ruled unconstitutional, then regardless of who wins the election, far-reaching legislative changes will be required, possibly in a divided-government setting. Nevertheless, assuming that no Covid-related twist keeps the health care system from returning to its prepandemic status, the current administration’s policy efforts provide a guide to what might happen after the Court rules — especially given that the Republican National Committee has not written a new platform.

          Particularly since the Republican effort to repeal and replace the ACA failed, the Trump administration has used executive orders and administrative rule changes to shift health policy, even as it has continued to attack the ACA through the courts. The most politically prominent rule changes have tried to combine protection for high-risk people seeking individual insurance with changes aimed at allowing some low-risk purchasers to pay lower premiums for different kinds of plans than those required under the ACA. Obamacare’s modified community rating was meant to protect people with preexisting conditions, but there is a trade-off between permitting some people with expensive medical conditions to obtain individual private coverage at moderate premiums and encouraging lower-risk people to buy coverage. Through rule changes, the administration has therefore created a patched-together system of short-term insurance policies and individual access to less-restricted group insurance plans, allowing consumers to avoid Obamacare’s rating and coverage strictures. Such efforts to make an end run around community rating (for example, using guaranteed renewability for short-term plans or state-based high-risk pools) while maintaining an option for high-risk people are likely to continue.

          It’s important to note that the fraction of the population that could be affected by either protection of high-risk people or the creation of a parallel insurance market to cater to lower-risk people is rather small, so the odds of benefiting from either are low. Most Americans who are or become high risk have guarantees of protection as long as they can continue receiving employment-based insurance coverage, individual insurance coverage, or Medicaid. Pre-ACA laws that remain in effect prohibit private insurers from singling out high-risk people for higher premiums if they continue their private group or individual coverage; the ACA coverage and rating rules matter only for people who become uninsured while ill and therefore are high risk. So although any high-risk person might theoretically have to seek unsubsidized individual insurance at community-rated ACA premiums, the proportion of the population running that risk in any one year is probably less than 2%, or fewer than 6 million people.

        3. Was the requirement in the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802, that immigrants be “…free white person(s), denied and precluded by the Constitution? Were the general vote criteria of 1789, those being male, European, 21 and 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres, denied and precluded by the Constitution? Which article and section deny the holding of opinion, choice or “discrimination” on any issue? The Founders knew when they adopted the Constitution that slavery was untenable and not long for this nation. Did that understanding mean that the entire Constitution was soon to be nullified and all freedoms abrogated?

          May I enjoy vanilla ice cream and eschew the chocolate rendition?

          By what authority do you force the impossible mixture of political oil and water through the liberal application of the political emulsifiers, redistribution of wealth and social engineering.

          I read that the Constitution merely provides maximal freedom to individuals while it severely limits and restricts government to its enumerated role of providing security and infrastructure.

          Thank you for your mercy, General Secretary.

          It is very likely that the Constitution allows Americans to choose and to be as discriminating as they like, in the absence of dictatorship and tyranny, with the full understanding that property damage and bodily injury are illegal.

          Most certainly, on Sunday, the pastor should encourage the members of the congregation to do unto others as they would have others do unto them.

      2. Rhodes………Blanket statements like that play into the hands of the liberals and allows them to perpetuate blacks as victims. Listen to the old time Civil Rights icons like Bob Woodson and others affiliated with the 1776 Unites project. They say there is not systemic racism……it’s just an excuse.
        Of course there will always be people who don’t like someone based on race. That’s called life. It is not against the law for an individual to be a racist. That’s their right, and no one’s business, unless they violate Civil Rts laws.

            1. Not yet! Just finished my last season of fighting forest fires and traveled south to Guatemala, Puerto Barrios, and arrived in a guerilla war. Returned to Mexico City almost broke, hitched a ride north and got out in Sherman, Texas with $5,00 in my pocket and 1,800 miles from home. Will cover the trip hitchhiking back and then returning to work in the lead smelter. At about that point I wonder if I should try to get back in school–I had been kicked out– and do something with my life. Way to go yet to wrap up.

              1. Young…….such a rich, exciting life! Looking forward to the day it’s published….I’m sure you are, too!

                1. My wife is. I am a bit shocked by some of it and not sure I should let it go. My tentative subtitle is “I Don’t Think I Will Do That Again”. Said it many times beginning in the 2nd grade when I tried to open a .22 bullet with a hammer. Don’t do that. Or when I made a smoke screen by burning phosphorous in my backyard and blanketed the neighbors yards with an impenetrable cloud. They knew something was wrong but they couldn’t see where it was coming from, thank goodness. One thing after another like that.

                  Thanks for the encouragement, though. It helps.

                  1. Young…..LOL…..that seems like a perfect subtitle. I swear, some of your little side stories are so funny!

Comments are closed.