The petition by an alumni group at Rhodes College is seeking to remove Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett from the school’s “Hall of Fame” due to her vote in the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The petition accuses Barrett of violating the school’s honor code by testifying untruthfully in her confirmation hearing. In reality, the letter engages in gross misrepresentations of her testimony in the latest attack on her character and honesty. It is a letter that should be condemned by people regardless of their view of reproductive rights. The letter also declares Justice Barrett to be a threat to democracy because she holds opposing views on constitutional interpretation.
The petition is directed to the school’s president Jennifer Collins and Director of Community Standards Richard Adams. While the signatories insists that they were “impelled” to write the letter, this is just the latest such letter targeting Barrett. Three alumni are listed as original authors or sponsors: Rob Marus, ’97, Katherine Morgan Breslin, ’98, and Kimberly Pillsbury Steele, ‘98.
According to the letter, the signatories’ “firm belief in the Rhodes Honor Code we all signed impels us to make this request.” However, Rob Marus and Katherine Morgan Breslin also authored a letter in 2020 opposing the confirmation of Barrett as “diametrically opposed to the values of truth, loyalty, and service that we learned at Rhodes.”
Rob Marus started a Facebook group opposing her appointment to the Supreme Court. Marus appears to be the Associate Vice President for Communications at Association of American Universities (AAU) where he handles “AAU’s writing and messaging, ensuring message consistency and clarity as well as utility in reaching AAU’s strategic communications goals.” (An inquiry was sent to Marus to confirm that he is indeed one of the main sponsors of this petition).
Marus was not writing in his capacity as a VP of the AAU and has every right to speak against the justice over the disagreement on these issues. However, if this is the same Rob Marus, it is surprising to see someone holding a high position in an academic organization at the head of a campaign to sanction a justice for holding opposing views (particularly based on such false claims). The AAU is premised on principles of academic freedom and free speech. The use of such false and misleading attacks to sanction a graduate undermines those principles.
These signatories seek to sanction Barrett for holding opposing views on issues that have divided the court and the legal profession for decades.
The latest letter repeats the false claim that Barrett misled the Senate on her views on Roe. To invoke the honor code to make such a false claim truly captures the sense of impunity exhibited by many critics today. The irony is that the opposite is true about Barrett’s answers which were more substantive than her predecessors.
At the time, I wrote that Barrett was refreshingly and surprisingly honest about her judicial philosophy and approach to Roe. She specifically rejected the claim that Roe constitutes “super precedent.” Barrett said that this term “define[s] cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category.” (Notably, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson took the same position against Roe as super precedent).
Moreover some of these same Rhodes alumni opposed Barrett because her view of Roe was clearly critical. Indeed, senators lined up to vote against her on that very basis.
In the letter, the alumni declare “It was, at best, disingenuous of Justice Barrett to admit that she did not believe Roe to be a ‘super-precedent’ yet then suggest that did not mean the case ‘should’ be overruled, despite clearly adhering to a legal philosophy that would obviously lead her to rule against Roe.” That statement perfectly captures the vacuous quality of these points. There is nothing disingenuous in saying that a case is not super-precedent but still might not be overturned. The point is only that the case is protected by the same principles of a stare decisis as other cases, which affords protection to precedent but does not make such cases inviolate. Barrett’s statement was refreshingly honest and accurate.
The alumni group also accuses Justice Barrett of being “one of the biggest current threats to our fundamental rights, the stability of our nation, and our democracy.” So the mere fact that Justice Barrett shares a view of constitutional interpretation with millions of other citizens (and many judges and lawyers), she is now a threat to our democracy?
The use of clearly false allegations in the name of upholding the honor system does not seem to concern these signatories. Yet, it is Justice Barrett who is accused of “an egregious lack of fidelity with the Rhodes Honor System.” They use the allegations to demand that “Justice Barrett be removed from the Rhodes College Hall of Fame based on the above violations of the Rhodes Honor System.”
Rhodes College should celebrate that it played a role in the education of a woman who has achieved such great success in the law regardless of disagreements with her constitutional views or positions. We can have passionate debates on those issues while showing mutual respect and civility.
That has not been the case at Rhodes College where Justice Barrett’s portraits have been repeatedly defaced. One had the words “Go F*ck Yourself” scribbled on it. Another featured Barrett as the devil, along with more profane language.
These alumni fuel such anger with these unfounded and reckless attacks. This is a controversy that should be a clarion call for the entire Rhodes College community. This is a wonderful school with an excellent academic reputation. People of good-faith should have the courage to stand with Justice Barrett as an alumna regardless of their agreement or disagreement with her views.
As a professor and a jurist, Barrett has written on these issues for decades with comprehensive and at times profound observations on how to approach constitutional interpretation. We can disagree on those conclusions while condemning those who seek to slander or cancel her.
re: Joseph Biden’s Catholicism and abortion, Bishop Robert Barron responds forcefully.
https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/barron/our-catholic-president-and-the-most-pressing-moral-issue-of-our-time/
Our Catholic President and the Most Pressing Moral Issue of Our Time
BISHOP ROBERT BARRON
Opposition to abortion is not a matter of doctrine in the strict sense of the term, but rather a conclusion drawn from moral reasoning and from the findings of objective science…..
It would be precisely analogous to someone in the nineteenth century saying that though he personally finds slavery abhorrent, he will do nothing to eliminate it or even to stop its spread. It would also be precisely analogous to someone in the mid-twentieth century saying that though his personal conviction is that Jim Crow laws are morally repugnant, he will fight publicly to keep them in place.
Bravo
The character of the people attacking Justice Coney-Brown are similar to the people who refuse to discuss contentious topic unless the other party is in full agreement with their worldview in its entirety. For example, an adult male, which is a man, who agrees with abortion is welcome to discuss abortion but a man who disagrees with the procedure even on scientific grounds, is marginalized and shouted down. Another trick practiced by the Leftist-dominated Democrats to avoid defending their position is claiming the debate is closed. This is how the challenge surrounding climate change is treated. Democrat lawmakers and Democrat activists in the media and the academia are all singing, literally, from the same sheet of music claim, anyone who disagrees with their drastic, civilization disrupting, and poverty inducing anti-fossil fuel crusade then you are racist, or something,
Instead of refering to them as Alumni (therebye diminishing that status) we refer to them as the toddlers having tantrums that they are.
So she’s allowed to have any opinion she wants, as long as it’s their pre-approved opinion. At least they can’t disappear her like Stalin did to those who fell out of favor…
I beg to differ. See the DC Gulag.
OT
CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO TAX FOR A CLIMATE, HEALTH AND TAX BILL
WHERE IS THE SUPREME COURT?
WHY DON’T JUSTICES FULFILL THEIR SWORN OATHS TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION?
__________________________________________________________________________
The Supreme Court must strike down the Inflation Reduction Act, as Congress has no power to tax for that purpose.
Congress has the power to tax only “…to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;…”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Congress passes tax bill which would also invest a total of $433 billion:
$369 billion from a suite of energy and climate-related programs
$64 billion from extending an expanded Affordable Care Act program for three years, through 2025
– CNBC
______
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;
“RESISTED BY A FORCE TOO STRONG FOR ME TO OVERCOME”
This is the communist putsch to bury everything, every last vestige, related to American freedom, free enterprise and the nation of America, once and for all, and forever.
Government cannot tax for anything but security and infrastructure (general welfare), regulate anything but money, commerce, and land and naval Forces, or “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…in exclusion of every other individual.”
You really, really are free but you can’t handle the truth.
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
______________
That (i.e. the essential principles of the Constitution) doesn’t happen because the Supreme Court doesn’t MAKE it happen.
That doesn’t happen because Justices fail to fulfill the oaths they swore to support the Constitution; rather, they support the principles of communism.
Republicans must have impeached the entire judicial branch in 2000 when they had the presidency and Congress.
For America to succeed always did require the actions of good men.
They are all RINOs.
Though he supported the Constitution, he was not supported by Congress; the last patriotic American Supreme Court Chief Justice was Roger B. Taney, who told Lincoln that he was illicit and to cease and desist:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”
“I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861
____________________________________
If the judicial branch and Supreme Court cannot be compelled to support and enforce the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution, there is, and never was, any hope for the success of the Constitution and America.
All Hail The Deep Deep State Swamp!
Hip, hip, hooray!
Re: academic indoctrination/pursuit of conformity in thinking. This is a true story, meant as an analogy. When I learned to write (first or second grade?) I was a year younger than my fellow students, and I tended to favor my left hand. Since my name starts with “L,” I had difficulty in effecting the proper SLANT and tended to write straight up and down. The teacher would go up and down the aisles watching us, and would stop and slap my left hand with a ruler and remove the pencil/pen and place it in my right hand. I was a straight-A student except for penmanship, for which I would get “Cs,” and I can remember feeling “defective” because the teacher would “correct” me in front of other students. My mother called the school, and the teachers never corrected me again. If my parents had sided with the school, I likely would have grown up to believe that left-handers were defective humans.
To this day, I golf/play guitar/use scissors, etc. with my right hand, but my left hand has more precision for fine-tuned tasks. I am also “ambidextrous” in my thinking, tending to want to hear both sides. So, as the good professor opens his forum to opposing views, let’s continue to honor him by considering differing viewpoints and responding/debating on the merits.
I had similar experience. I’m left handed, but when I started school I was forced to write with my right hand.
Justice Abe Fortas also graduated from Rhodes College, his tenure on SCOTUS lasting all of 4 years. Fortas resigned in disgrace for charges of breach of ethics and it appears having a too familiar personal relationship with Lyndon B. Johnson, a known racist. Yet these alumni give Fortas a pass. But of course!
After Johnson nominated him for the position of chief justice in June 1968, Senators questioned the appropriateness of his close personal relationship to the President, as well as his acceptance of an honorarium raised by friends and clients for his teaching a course at American University. Senate opposition prompted Johnson, who by that time had announced he was not running for re-election, to withdraw the nomination for the chief justiceship. Nearly a year later, Life magazine reported that Fortas had received a sizable honorarium for serving as a consultant to a charitable foundation, a financial relationship that many viewed as unethical. After months of controversy, Fortas resigned his seat on the Court in May 1969.
https://news.rhodes.edu/stories/southwestern-supreme-court
Nice try, Turley, but it won’t fly. Even REPUBLICAN Senator Susan Collins said Barrett lied. You call Barrett’s word games “refreshingly honest honest and accurate,”, which is nothing but your spin. Others strongly disagree. Barrett knew how the majority of Americans felt about the right of abortion, she knew there were attacks against the right of abortion in the hopper for the SCOTUS and she deliberately used weasel-words to imply she wouldn’t do what she did. The Dobbs opinion language, of which Barrett approved, said the Roe decision was “egregiously wrong”. But, when she was up for nomination and testified, she never alluded to this. She parrotted the same lie Gorsuch and Kavanaugh did: that Roe was “established precedent” and that she respected the principle of stare decisis. She knew that if she told the truth, she wouldn’t get a seat on the SCOTUS. She wanted that seat to specifically strip away women’s right to abortion because of her Catholic faith, which, in and of itself, is a violation of her oath to preserve and protect the Constitution, which clearly does not conscious important SCOTUS decisions relying on religious doctrine that most people disagree with. Barrett would likely go along with stripping away marriage equality, sex between consenting adults and the right of contraception. We all know Republicans wouldn’t allow her to be impeached: hell, they wouldn’t even impeach Trump for trying to leverage aid approved by Congress to Ukraine in exchange for ginning up lies about Biden, or even for fomenting an insurrection as a last-ditch effort to retain power he cheated to get in the first place. So, it’s about time someone with a conscious stood up to sanctimonious hypocrites like Barrett. She doesn’t belong in any Hall of Fame, and down the road, her name will live in infamy. Your effort to defend her is just plain lame.
lol. You ignore, like Collins the RINO, she said it was NOT SUPERPRECEDENT like Brown. She was clear that Roe was merely ‘precedent’ because it was decided, but not because it was inviolate.
Which is why Democrats keep trying to use it as a litmus test. They knew it was a poor decision and that it was always vulnerable to reinterpretation. If it was inviolate, nobody would ask, just like nobody asks about Brown vs Board of Education or Loving vs Virginnia.
What you people keep ignoring is that THE SUPREME COURT HAS OVER-TURNED 230+ SUPREME COURT DECSIONS. They don’t always get it right. And even super-liberals like Ruth Bader Ginsberg thought Roe was wrongly decided.
Barrett played word games, just like Turley does. She had previously written about a work-around for Roe, and that’s why, privately, and in committee hearings, she was asked about it several different ways. She was nominated after vetting by the Federalist Society specifically because of her opposition to the right of abortion. Senator Collins had said, before Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were nominated, that she wouldn’t vote in favor of any judge who would overturn the right of abortion. You imply that there is some sort of hierachy in terms of SCOTUS precedents. I missed that in Con law class. Where can I find the reference to the hierarchy of SCOTUS precedents? And, please explan what degree of “super” precedent is inviolate and the legal support for this. There isn’t any. Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh knew this was a hot-button issue that was important to Republicans to keep their 30% support from slipping further. It was politics, pure and simple. Senator Susal Collins called Barret, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch liars. So, regardless of what Hannity and Tucker say, it isn’t just “Democrats” who considered abortion rights to be a litmus test. Roe was NOT a “poor decision” according to the view of most Americans. Ruby-red Kansas proved that. And, where is it written that Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia are “super precedents”? In fact, Loving relies on the same Constitutional principles as Roe, Lawrence, Obergefell and Griswold, all of which are subject to reversal, per Uncle Tom Clarence Thomas. Of course, he omitted Loving v. Virginia because he’s married to a white woman. The deceit and hypocrisy of Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh stink. Most Americans agree.
How…many…more….times… do we have to come back to this.
Neither Barrett nor the Supreme Court “strip[ped] away women’s right to abortion.” If that were true, the majority of states (to which SCOTUS deferred) would not be permitting/condoning some form of abortion/termination. Did you say you were a lawyer?
moseszd is correct.
I think it”s fair to say that Dobbs took away a constitutional right to an abortion that was recognized in Roe and Casey.
RE:”I think its fair to say that Dobbs took away a constitutional right to an abortion that was recognized in Roe and Casey..”I think its fair to say that Dobbs obliged the Court to reexamine Roe/Casey in the light of the present day and, given that, caused the Court to find the original decision wanting. Not the first instance in the history of the Court that this has happened. “Holy ‘Big Yellow Taxi’, Batman!”
Explain something to me: what about the “present day” is different than 1973 vis-a-vis the rights of a woman who wants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Explain this to me as well: how can it be that a woman in Kansas has a Constitutionally-protected right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, but a woman in Indiana would be subject to prosecution as a felon for doing the same thing.
RE:”Explain something to me: what about the “present day” is different than 1973″ THIS is what’s different. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19-1392
Either codify under Federal law and hoped it won’t be overturned, or change hearts and minds among the several states. I am opposed to any legislation which would deem unlawful the crossing state lines for the purpose of undergoing the procedure.
The “hearts and minds” of MOST Americans are to support Roe. Republicans have gerrymandered themselves into outsized power in 26 states, but they only hold about 30% actual support of the American people. The crazy quilt of laws in the US regarding abortion proves that this is not an issue that should depend on your address. The fundamental rights of privacy and personal liberty are protected by the Constituion. Explain to me the logic of how abortion can be a felony in Indiana but a Constitutional right in Kansas. You can’t. The issue is whether the government should have a voice in a woman’s decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy prior to fetal viability. Roe said that a woman’s right to privacy and personal liberty trump any state interest up to the age of fetal viability. Those rights to individual freedom and privacy have nothing whatsoever to do with whether she lives in Kansas or Indiana.
RE:”. Roe said that a woman’s right to privacy and personal liberty trump any state interest up to the age of fetal viability. ” SCOTUS re-visited Roe/Casey due to Dobbs v., demurred and overturned it. Ginsburg also had issues with it. That’s the process. You disagree. There’s a way forward. You already know what that is. There may be a better law arising from these ashes. .
Roe definitely recognized a right to abortion even though it didn’t exist. The Supreme Court corrected that mistake and very little has changed.
I agree with your comment, as stated. But neither did the Court conclude/decide that abortion was unconstitutional, which media/progressives/left-wing commenters would have John Q. Public believe. Such inference is not backed by actual Court rendering (nor Court dicta, I believe). Thanks for your thought, which I do believe is “fair” and correct.
“But neither did the Court conclude/decide that abortion was unconstitutional . . .”
You’re right. Instead, they took the cowardly route, by allowing states to criminalize abortion.
I cannot disagree with you. But then, neither one of us (a presumption on my part) likely read/listened to all the briefs and arguments before the Court. Meaning, maybe the Court believed this wasn’t quite the “ripe” case needed to address such a seminal/cardinal issue. Maybe they are waiting until more/a majority of states fine-tune or change their positions, so all challenges can be handled for once and for all?
Our courts are required to read the constituton as written – not as you would wish them to.
If you do not like the constitution as it is – change it. We have done that 27 times.
Abortion is not a right. It is not a natural right. It is not a civil right.
That means Roe was wrongly decided.
The cowardly thing would be to bow to the violent angry mob.
Given that Justices are facing a barage of death threats for this decision – obviously they did not make a cowardly choice.
But as is typical they left has very strange meanings for words.
1984 was a warning, not a how to manual.
If you want abortion to be legal – pass federal law (likely unconstitutional too) or change state laws.
Abortion, just like a heart bypass is a procedure, not a Right. No one has a Constitutional Right to a medical procedure.
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________
You’re beating your head against the wall.
“Crazy Abe” understood what needed to be done; he backed into office with 38.9%, nullified the Constitution, seized power, and ruled by “executive order,” proclamation and the barrel of a gun.
Forget the beast, take the country.
To Lin,
“How…many…more….times… do we have to come back to this.”
26 states are controlled by Republicans, based primarily on gerrymandering. MOST Americans, even in red states, did NOT want Roe overturned. Kansis proved that. And, for the last time, people like you do NOT speak for “we” or “us”.
Natacha, look on aisle 11 at Wal-Mart. Big sale on coat hangers!
“These alumni fuel such anger with these unfounded and reckless attacks. This is a controversy that should be a clarion call for the entire Rhodes College community. This is a wonderful school with an excellent academic reputation.“
*********************
Here’s a contradiction in terms. It is decidedly not a “wonderful school.”‘ Rather, it’s a pathetic woke school run by pusillanimous administrators who seem to have produced an army of cowards as alumni. All too proper to call a spade a spade or in this case an arse an arse. This gang trades on past glories and expects us all to salute their prior achievements as current ones.Sorry pal but you’re a shadow of your former self and a quiet, slinking-away demise might be your best option. I’ll salute you but you might find the finger count a little lacking. RIP wokeicidy; we really knew yet.
“Ye” for “yet.” Where’s my darn editor function?
The good professor is strict and demanding, no?
The anomaly is ubiquitous and understood by all.
Carry on, Esquire.
Bad form but, in my estimation, Halls of Fame are overrated. My experience is that you buy your way in there with donations or by soliciting donations. If you get in the old fashioned way on merit (exceedingly rare) you become a poster boy. It’s always best to earn a place in your own personal Hall of Fame. Less crowds at the door and the commemorative game and speeches are way shorter.
If you do not agree with me, you are [select one or more]; a racist; a misogynist; anti Christian; an anti-semite; an islamaphobe; a homophobe; a fascist; a Nazi; a nut job; just plain stupid.
The campaign against Barrett is odious. I vehemently disagree with her about abortion. However, you do not win an argument by erasing your opponent.
That said, some are getting wrong the details of this case.
Rhodes does not have a law school. Barrett graduated from there ugrad. She graduated from Notre Dame law school.
“The AAU is premised on principles of academic freedom and free speech.” (JT)
I think JT is conflating AAU and AAUP. AAUP is “premised on . . .” AAU is essentially a lobbying organization for research universities seeking government grants.
“The campaign against . . .”
Oops. Forgot to sign in.
RE:”However, you do not win an argument by erasing your opponent.” Where logic is concerned your point is well made. Where Hitler’s ‘Night of the Long Knives’ is concerned, your point is not. The latter is abroad in the land in varied guise.
AAU is essentially a lobbying organization for research universities seeking government grants.
No doubt conforming with the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion agenda of The Great Reset.
“No doubt conforming with the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion agenda of The Great Reset.”
Yep. While forcing americans to pay for it:
“The Association of American Universities (AAU) has long asserted the importance of diversity to the missions of research universities. Today, on behalf of AAU’s member universities, the Board of Directors reaffirms the association’s commitment to achieving a diverse student body through a comprehensive process using race as one of many factors in making individual admissions decisions.”
Thanks Sam. Gotta get the “right” DEI score if they want to scarf at the public trough.
“Gotta get the “right” DEI score . . .”
And the “right” ESG score:
“As climate change events continue to cause substantial widespread loss, damage, and financial costs [blah, blah, blah].”
In reality, of course, the right ESG score is like golf: The *lower* the better.
Thanks. I meant ESG.
RE:” In reality, of course, the right ESG score is like golf: The *lower* the better…”https://flgov.com/2022/07/27/governor-ron-desantis-announces-initiatives-to-protect-floridians-from-esg-financial-fraud/
MISSION STATEMENT
AAU member universities collectively help shape policy for higher education, science, and innovation; promote best practices in undergraduate and graduate education, and strengthen the contributions of leading research universities to American society.
https://www.aau.edu/who-we-are
Pull harder and keep trying to climb the ladder by pulling others down. You seem rooted at step one.
“Pull harder . . .”
Did you miss my “Oops?” Or did you intend to attribute that despicable, nihilistic motivation to me?
Sam, my response was to an anonymous poster’s comment. The response conflicted with the usual way ATS responds, both at the beginning and the end. Generally I respond in order, so I wouldn’t have seen your response until after I responded. That is a problem with the blog. There is no ability to erase comments and correct them. The words “I think JT is conflating” were too pleasant for ATS, but nevertheless, I dislike the unceasing tearing down of JT by the leftists on this blog, even the ones that are not ATS or his pretend friends.
If, however, this post I responded to was one of yours, you don’t have such a history, and I interpret the “I Think” portion kindly rather than another hostile attack from a mindless leftist.
I didn’t have the slightest idea what your Oops comment was all about, nor did I see it before posting my own. You do not fit the profile of the person I directed my comment to, so I am sorry if you think I was attacking you. I wasn’t.
“I am sorry if you think I was attacking you.”
I didn’t think you were. I figured that it was just an innocent case of mistaken identity, caused by my forgetting to sign in. You understandably thought that the “anon” comment was ATS, in which case you motivation point was spot on.
None the less, I appreciation the “sorry.”
“you do not win an argument by erasing your opponent”? Say what?
The entire Cancel Culture is based on the proposition that you DO win an argument by erasing your opponent.
Remind me, which ideology is it that practices Cancel Culture? Methinks the Left!
When I was growing up in West Tennessee in the 50s and early 60s, Rhodes was called Southwestern and it had a reputation as a place where Southern elitists kids went instead of Memphis State or a more down-to-earth school. Therefore, this does not surprise me. I was surprised, however, when I learned that Justice Barrett, a Catholic girl from Louisiana went to a school associated with the left-wing Presbyterian church in the USA.
I just wish that these little fascist cry babies could realize that when they look at themselves in the mirror they will soon be seeing Robespierre and the ultimate haircut. Ask not for whom the bell tolls….
RE:” Robespierre and the ultimate haircut…” Given that they have knowledge of the person and the subtlety of your remark.
Start a pressure campaign to force AAU to fire that SOB for holding odious opinions inconsistent with the AAU. Hunt down those Rhodes students that defaced her portrait and expel them, strip them of any scholarships. They need to feel consequences for their intolerance. So long as this is a consequence free one way affair for which they get accolades from their fellow travelers, we will just get more of this nonsense. Professor Turley’s appeal to their better angles is falling on deaf ears.
I wonder, with medical students walking out on speakers and legal students not being about to stand alternate views, what happens to half the country (or I dare say 2/3) when we need medical or legal assistance? This is a truly frightening trend. I can just say my age will keep me from seeing the end; I fear for my grand/great-grand kids.
There already was an incident where a med student allegedly inflected pain on a patient due to political differences. She posted a tweet “suggesting” this violation of The Hippocratic Oath. She was placed on extended leave, but never faced punishment.
Ideally, we will see the formation of two different societies where the two shall never meet.
At worse, Civil War 2.0.
Upstate: “There already was an incident where a med student allegedly inflected pain on a patient due to political differences”
*******
I think the med student was a Muslim and the patient was a Jew. Religion and politics were mixed in her decision. She should never become a doctor.
RE:”She should never have become a doctor.” Josef Mengele;M.D; Bashar-al-Assad, M.D.; Ayman al-Zawahiri, M.D. The ‘Hypocrytic’ Oath is alive and well..
Medicine used to be described as a vocation, a higher calling, one that the physician performed because it was nascent. My favorite imagery included Catholic nuns running hospitals, treating the indigent gratis while physicians used sliding fee schedules. I recall those days. It is what drew me, in part, to be a physician. Those Catholic hospitals collapsed bc medicine became so expensive and revenue driven. HCA was ascending. With the shifting of our world’s moral axis into a dictatorship of relativism, medicine today has become a tool. It is a tool for academic medical centers, hospitals/ clinics and medical groups to earn revenue while calling it “health care”. The “care” is not even remotely there, the “health” is debatable. They are more like banks with ATMs for patients to insert their 3rd Party Payer / CMS cards so as to fill the coffers of the hospitals and medical groups with cash. Treatment efficacy and clinical results are way down the list. The one sacred Physician-patient relationship does not exist. EMR is king, along with call centers, and layers upon layers of administrative work.
It is also a medium for government health leaders (e.g. Fauci, Walensky, etc) to bludgeon people into submission. When presenting medical data must be massaged, BOHICA.
“CDC Dropped More Than $30K on Media Training for Rochelle Walensky, Amid Much Derided Press Appearances: Report”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cdc-dropped-more-than-2430k-on-media-training-for-rochelle-walensky-amid-much-derided-press-appearances-report/ar-AA104nEL
RE:”Medicine used to be described as a vocation, a higher calling, one that the physician performed because it was nascent…. I recall those days. It is what drew me, in part, to be a physician.” “Yes, there was something that stirred in me, as a young child, from those hands on doctor’s house calls when I was ill.” Now a retired oral surgeon, I had that calling. As well does my son, a caring and well loved gastroenterologist. His patience is growing thin and, at the age of 52 with over 20 years in, he looks forward to an early retirement.
Corporate medicine is a different animal from the medicine practiced in the past.
I have the same fears.
Putting aside the goal of the petition for a minute, I think an analysis of what all the justices said before nomination, during confirmation, and on the Supreme Court would be interesting and informative. While the analysis on Barrett should be more thorough and objective, the petition/letter is pretty good start, especially compared to other petition statements.
While the analysis on Barrett should be more thorough and objective,
That would lead to the opposite conclusion. That Barrett is well grounded in Constitutional jurisprudence.
I really hate politics. As far as I can tell, it is a sign of corruption.
You can enjoy any belief and take any positions as long as their inline with mine.