U.S. Supreme Court & judicial system

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,285
I wonder if anyone has asked her if she sees her black children as 5/8ths of her white children.

Anyway, I freaking HATED her statement talking about her kids. All her white kids got to have academic dreams and aspirations and personalities. Her adopted kids got talked about in context of their adoption. Except her black daughter who is as strong as a man. And it was a prepared statement - does she not see how messed up that is? It seemed like she and her husband are so lucky to have her white kids but her black children are so lucky to have them.

I wasn;t bothered so much by her talking about her kids. They appear loved and cared for. I;m REALLY bothered by the Republicans' eagerness to use her kids as props. With the unsaid subtext of "wow, she adopted black kids! That's AMAZING!" It's really not THAT amazing to adopt kids of a different race -- it's pretty common actually. And having them there day after day in her confirmation hearings is ... okay, we already saw them. They should go back to school.
 

NeilJLeonard

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,289
It was interesting to hear her agree that YKW is contagious and smoking causes cancer but wouldn't discuss climate change because that is still a debatable issue. Do these people ever evolve? Take a look around you lady...this planet is dying.
They are "christians" of some type, be it protestant or Catholic. Much science goes against their view of the bible. They will never change their view. Ever.
 

jenny12

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,733
I wasn;t bothered so much by her talking about her kids. They appear loved and cared for. I;m REALLY bothered by the Republicans' eagerness to use her kids as props. With the unsaid subtext of "wow, she adopted black kids! That's AMAZING!" It's really not THAT amazing to adopt kids of a different race -- it's pretty common actually. And having them there day after day in her confirmation hearings is ... okay, we already saw them. They should go back to school.

Totally agree. I don’t really care about her personal life and feel like the discussion of it has been used by conservatives as a cover for legitimate criticisms of her lack of knowledge of the Constitution.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,997
Except her black daughter who is as strong as a man.

I find that comment sexist in itself. Why can't a woman or girl just be a woman or a girl? Why does she have to be as strong as a man?


And wtf is wrong with Dianne Feinstein? Praising a guy who refuses to take a YKW test, allows his fellows Senators, some who tested positive, to wander around without a mask and rams through a judge a week before an election after his party didn't even give Obama's judge a hearing and he was one of the proponents? No wonder Republicans are able to walk all over Democrats. The woman needs to go!
 

skategal

Bunny mama
Messages
6,787
I wonder if anyone has asked her if she sees her black children as 5/8ths of her white children.

Anyway, I freaking HATED her statement talking about her kids. All her white kids got to have academic dreams and aspirations and personalities. Her adopted kids got talked about in context of their adoption. Except her black daughter who is as strong as a man. And it was a prepared statement - does she not see how messed up that is? It seemed like she and her husband are so lucky to have her white kids but her black children are so lucky to have them.
Yes this. I wanted to barf when I heard that.

Her white bio kids are all geniuses and defined by their accomplishments and her black adopted kids are defined by their trauma and how well they are doing now that SHE has adopted them.

So gross.....
 

Artistic Skaters

Drawing Figures
Messages
7,650
Huh? Ruth also refused to discuss how she would rule on certain issues it’s what they do. No one screamed when Kagan did it. There is really one rule for Conservatives and another for Democrats.
FYI. I was not commenting on how she would rule on certain issues. I was commenting on her omission of information that she was required to submit and her sidestepping of issues and beliefs. That's different than pondering hypothetical rulings. RBG may have not discussed hypotheticals, but she was always crystal clear about her belief in equality for women.

Further, people like Louis may not care that ACB refers to being gay as a lifestyle choice. But I do, and that's exactly what parents of my friends told them forty years ago right before they told them to burn in hell and disowned them.

Finally, don't lazily refer to me as someone observing these comments as a Democrat when you don't know my party or voting history and you are misinformed. I'm sick of the constant generalizations labeling everyone as the Dem libs this and the far left Dem that because people express disapproval and dislike of individual candidates. Kavanaugh and ACB are always going to be tainted and their opinions questioned because they were put in place by a president who lies whenever his mouth is moving, misinforms the US population on a daily basis and exhibits corruption at breathtaking levels. That has to do with Donald Trump and not my vote or views.
 
Last edited:

BittyBug

The missing ingredient
Messages
22,709
They are "christians" of some type, be it protestant or Catholic. Much science goes against their view of the bible. They will never change their view. Ever.
Except that if Barrett truly is a Catholic, she should be taking her personal cues from the Pope, who was very clear in his encyclical, Laudato Si, that humans are responsible for destroying the planet and that we must change our ways.
 

becca

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,901
She brought up her daughter being strong because when she came to them people felt she might have disabilities.

i personally think she is a good role model especially for conservative religious. In some Catholic circles women are looked down for having careers.
 

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,633
Why is it strong Conservative women get so disregarded by liberals. The women is a mother of seven! And she is also a highly educated lawyer. Before she became a judge she was a professor at a prestigious law school. I think that’s really impressive.

I can't speak to liberal's views of Conservative women in general. But in this case, it might have something to with the fact that this is a woman who would take a constitutional right (right to privacy) away from women and push the rights of American women back half a century.

I know that you are pro-life, Becca, but don't think that the majority of American/women people are.

The rest of the western developed world has seemingly moved on and abortion is a done deal. Or appeals to be. Never say never - that which has been given can also be taken away. But I don't see any men's rights on the line - though should acknowledge that outlawing abortion can have adverse impacts on men (e.g 18 years child support for a poor man who supports a woman's right to choose).

Women's bodies remain negotiable in the US. :( A women's right to choice does not have the same weight or value as a man's rights to freedom of speech and worship. Yes, women have those rights as well, but they were rights initially given to men and are not specific to women, as reproductive choice is.
 
Last edited:

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,997

Louis

Private citizen
Messages
14,993
Further, people like Louis may not care that ACB refers to being gay as a lifestyle choice. But I do, and that's exactly what parents of my friends told them forty years ago right before they told them to burn in hell and disowned them.

She said "sexual preference" instead of "sexual orientation," in the context of saying she would not discriminate on that basis, and she later apologized for using the term.

I don't believe she said "lifestyle choice." If she did (I haven't been following all of the coverage), I'm happy to be proven wrong.

i personally think she is a good role model especially for conservative religious. In some Catholic circles women are looked down for having careers.

It's clear to me that people are parsing every word, not objectively, but looking for "gotcha!" reasons to paint her as some kind of extremist.

Nothing makes liberals crazier than a successful woman who has defied all of their "rules" on what successful women have to do, behave like, etc. Most of the people who describe themselves as "feminists" only support women who subscribe to their own narrow ideology. The fact that ACB has Black children is really agitating them. ACB threatens to destroy their tired tropes -- that religious people are hypocrites, conservatives are racist, women are second-class citizens, etc.
 
Last edited:

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,633
Nothing makes liberals crazier than a successful woman who has defied all of their "rules" on what successful women have to do, behave like, etc. Most of the people who describe themselves as "feminists" only support women who subscribe to their own narrow ideology.

Feminism is by no means a narrow ideology and has always been characterized by debate and disagreement.

And I don't think she has defied the 'rules', not in this day and age.

The issue is that she threatens a constitutional right for women (right to privacy) and could set women's rights back half a century.

A woman's right to reproductive choice is not a narrow issue at all, especially given that it affects the rights of half the population. And affects men's lives substantially, also.


The fact that ACB has Black children is really agitating them. ACB threatens to destroy their tired tropes -- that religious people are hypocrites, conservatives are racist, women are second-class citizens, etc.

:confused:

I don't think any feminists are agitated because she has black children. It's been fairly common for white people to adopt children of color for quite some time now.

And FYI, women do remain second-class citizens in most of the world (e.g. women in Saudi Arabia need the permission of guardians to travel or study, so many women must hide their heads or their bodies). Even in the developed western world, women have not achieved full equality and equal access to the rewards and opportunities of society. Last I heard, women still earn about 76 cents to the male dollar. And in general lack the job stability of their male counterparts.

It is women's bodies that remain negotiable, not men's. Pharmacists have the right to refuse to administer birth control pills, but it would never occur to them to refuse men condoms. Or not that I've heard.
 

MichaelK

Well-Known Member
Messages
832
Pharmacists have the right to refuse to administer birth control pills, but it would never occur to them to refuse men condoms. Or not that I've heard.
What does one thing has to do with the other? Last time I've heard birth control pills don't work in men so they will not want to buy and use them and condoms can be purchased by men and women.
 

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,633
What does one thing has to do with the other? Last time I've heard birth control pills don't work in men so they will not want to buy and use them and condoms can be purchased by men and women.

Pharmacists can refuse to give women contraceptives due to the 'conscience clause' SFAIK. I have never heard of a pharmacist refusing a man a condom because it would prevent birth. There appears to be no conscience among pharmacists who opposes a woman's right to control her own body when it is men who are controlling a woman's body.

So the two have a lot to do with each other. Condoms are okay, because they give men control over their bodies. The contraceptive pill is not okay, because it gives women control over their bodies. Let's just keep woman in her place.
 

Louis

Private citizen
Messages
14,993
Where does one need to buy condoms from a pharmacist? :confused: You can buy them freely from the shelf, buy them on Amazon, in vending machines, pick them up for free in many bars..... And women can use condoms too.
 

allezfred

#EpidemiologistsNotEconomists
Staff member
Messages
56,660
I am one of the few people here on this board who has had experience in living in a Catholic theocracy and condoms here used to be illegal. When they were finally made legal, you could only get them on prescription and later in pharmacies only. This continued until the early 1990s even during the AIDS crisis. Uber Catholics like ACB totally support a ban on condoms and would rather people die than use them. #EverySpermIsSacred
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
32,961
There was a semi-famous Romanian film made over ten years ago called 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days that chronicled the difficulty of getting an illegal abortion in Communist-era Romania. I remember seeing how jarring it was and how frank the depiction was and how important it was to have at least one friend (almost always another woman) to help you and go through that hardship with you. However, at the time, people in the U.S. who watched it fell into two camps mostly, 1) warning that it could easily happen here again and does happen here despite living in a post Roe v. Wade world due to so much pushback and 2) those who saw it as a historical piece and didn't connect it to the U.S. or thought the abortion debate was so unrelatable to 2000s America....

Well, now there's a new movie I watched called Never Rarely Sometimes Always that is gaining attention that takes place in modern-day U.S. where a minor woman in Rural Pennsylvania is pregnant and tries to induce an abortion herself because in PA, a minor cannot get an abortion without consent of her parents/guardian. Her cousin, with what little money they have, decide to go to New York City to get an abortion because New York doesn't have such rules, but there are still a lot of complications and the fact they have to stay the night in a strange city with little money and no shelter. Things slowly reveal themselves as to why she can't go to her parents for consent, etc. I know some people are going to argue this movie exaggerates things or brings up the worst case scenarios, but this is actually much more common than people think especially for those who work in reproductive rights and see all kinds of cases/clients. This is not close to being out of the realm of probability. And this is America....

Things like this makes us so backwards and this where people want to take us.
 

jeffisjeff

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,116
I suspect ACB's long-standing affiliation with People of Praise, and that group's position regarding the role of women in the household, is contributing to how people are interpreting the "strong like a man" statement. Sure, it could be meaningless and people could be reading too much into it. However, for a nomination to the SC, statements made in a Senate hearing are typically carefully considered and they are evaluated within the context of the individual's public record, which seems perfectly fair, rather than some kind of over-reaction.
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,884
Nothing makes liberals crazier than a successful woman who has defied all of their "rules" on what successful women have to do, behave like, etc. Most of the people who describe themselves as "feminists" only support women who subscribe to their own narrow ideology. The fact that ACB has Black children is really agitating them. ACB threatens to destroy their tired tropes -- that religious people are hypocrites, conservatives are racist, women are second-class citizens, etc.

There are valid and significant reasons why people on the left, and feminists, have issues with Barrett. First and foremost, her political positions. She is anti-choice. She is anti-IVF. (Funny how that take rears its ugly head again after the recent discussion here.) She has "no opinion" on whether presidents need to accept peaceful transfer of power, whether voters can be intimidated at the polls, whether climate change exists, whether Obamacare or even Medicare is constitutionally allowable. She has given no assurances that she will NOT act to remove existing rights and programs that people in this country rely upon in their lives. Her positions on the issues are sufficient reason for people to object to her, whether they are feminists or not. But certainly, women have more to lose from her possible influence on the Court.

Barrett's personal life is less important than her actual opinions on the issues. But it is not irrelevant either. Yes, most feminists are going to have a problem with a woman who belongs to a fringe religious group that actively advocates for men playing the dominant role within a married couple and officially being the woman's "head," to whom she must defer. (What was that "tired trope" of women being second-class citizens in conservative circles?) As to her black children, it sounds like people mostly object to what Barrett says about them, not the fact that she adopted them. (But I haven't yet had a chance to read/hear her statements about this.)


 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
32,961
And of course feminists who CARE about reproductive rights (autonomy over one's body this is not an optional thing) would care if a woman who will be named on the Supreme Court may help make rulings taking away those rights for all of us. I mean, that's the only thing that makes sense. It's like calling out people fighting for racial justice who don't support people who want to scale back on the Civil Rights Act (any of them). How narrow-minded!

Was that supposed to be some sort of call-out? Also, the fact that some think her having black children negate anything shows just how out-of-touch some are with racial discussions in this country. The only people impressed with such things while they keep the status-quo are those who never thought about racial issues that much. There's something strange about people thinking they succeeded in "catching them" when they haven't done anything of the sort. It goes back to just wanting to own the libs or something immature like that. People's lives must be so great that they have to get their kicks off with fighting and trying to "own" people who annoy you during Internet fights.
 

Louis

Private citizen
Messages
14,993
The Supreme Court can’t take away most of the things people say it can. People need to stop applying this activist and all-powerful view of Supreme Court justices to everyone. Most of us don’t believe that, and most of the judges we support don’t believe that either.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
32,961
I don't need anybody telling me how to react to or analyze the Supreme Court. I've been extensively studying the history of the Supreme Court, the evolution of the Court, their decisions and their effect on policies for a long time now. I even went to school for three years to study those things and work in a field that continues to deal with judges and the appellate level and observes trends in Constitutional Law. There's a reason why legal scholars and lawyers are the ones who are the most worried about the courts. We know what it can do, and we know what all justices can do no matter how lay people try to paint only one side as "activist". It's all very nuanced and subtle in part and not-so-subtle in others. Most people have no idea what has been happening and how our future has been shaped and what we have now been conditioned to accept thanks to court decisions.
 

BittyBug

The missing ingredient
Messages
22,709
Nothing makes liberals crazier than a successful woman who has defied all of their "rules" on what successful women have to do, behave like, etc. Most of the people who describe themselves as "feminists" only support women who subscribe to their own narrow ideology. The fact that ACB has Black children is really agitating them. ACB threatens to destroy their tired tropes -- that religious people are hypocrites, conservatives are racist, women are second-class citizens, etc.
LOL thanks for the mansplaining.

Liberal here. I don't have any rules for what a successful woman should be, couldn't care less that Amy Coney Barrett has children, much less Black children, but I'm not sure that you can say she's not a hypocrite. There are an awful lot of conservative Catholics in this country who rebuff what they call "cafeteria Catholics," avowing that a true Catholic can't pick and choose which portions of the Church's doctrines are worthy of compliance. And yet, here we are with a whole lot of conservative Catholics, including Barrett, who willfully ignore much of the Pope's directions, especially as it relates to responsibility for others and this earth. My god she thinks ripping children away from their parents is perfectly acceptable. If that's not counter to the Church's teaching, I don't know what is.

And she's most definitely a liar, which is a violation of the 10 commandments. There is no way, ZERO CHANCE, that she has not heard of Trump's views on the ACA, and yet she testified under oath that she did not know where Trump stood on the ACA. That's one of just many false statements she made, whether in fact or by omission.
 

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
37,278
And women can use condoms too.
On her .... penis??

(I assume you meant she can buy them and have her partner use them?)
I suspect ACB's long-standing affiliation with People of Praise, and that group's position regarding the role of women in the household, is contributing to how people are interpreting the "strong like a man" statement. Sure, it could be meaningless and people could be reading too much into it. However, for a nomination to the SC, statements made in a Senate hearing are typically carefully considered and they are evaluated within the context of the individual's public record, which seems perfectly fair, rather than some kind of over-reaction.
A Supreme Court nominee prepares for these hearings and parses every possible question and everything they say. In a prepared statement, there is the opportunity to re-write and re-write until it says exactly what you want it to.

For people to then say we're over-parsing these statements is just making excuses. She said exactly what she meant to say about everything.

And she's most definitely a liar, which is a violation of the 10 commandments.
Well just one of them. To be technical about it. ;)
 

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
37,278
This article says "court-packing" is originalist. :lol: It also says Lincoln did it so it's very GOP, I guess. 🤷‍♀️ The first is an opinion but the history of the numbers on the court and who added and who subtracted was interesting.


ETA instead of adding to the court, why not subtract? Cut it back down to 7 and get rid of the two newest members. They are 2 of the 3 weakest members anyway.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information