Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died.

[HVC]

Anyways it's widely reported that Trump is likely to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat - Trump was quoted as saying he was "saving her" for RGB's seat.

Dems have strong arguments to make on the procedural fairness issue - in particular if done during a lame duck session (why do they even have these?).  But I've all ready seen some stuff on Twitter that makes me fear Dems will go after Judge Coney Barrett for her religious faith (she's a practicing Catholic), which would be quite damaging and could drive some voters into Trump's arms.

Uhm, she's the most protestant catholic i've ever heard of

Ms. Barrett told the senators that she was a faithful Catholic, and that her religious beliefs would not affect her decisions as an appellate judge. But her membership in a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise never came up at the hearing, and might have led to even more intense questioning.

Some of the group's practices would surprise many faithful Catholics. Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a "head" for men and a "handmaid" for women. The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.

Current and former members say that the heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home, and how to raise children.

Legal scholars said that such loyalty oaths could raise legitimate questions about a judicial nominee's independence and impartiality. The scholars said in interviews that while there certainly was no religious test for office, it would have been relevant for the senators to examine what it means for a judicial nominee to make an oath to a group that could wield significant authority over its members' lives.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/amy-coney-barrett-nominee-religion.html

[HisMajestyBOB]

Biden is also Catholic. The objection to Amy Coney Barrett's religiosity is that she wants to impose it on others.

[Barrister]

Dems and left-wing people in general don't give a shit about other people's faith, BB. That's a tired old horse you're flogging.

They care about statements like "life begins at conception" which have zilch to do with faith.

Zoupa, just google her name and read up on her nomination to the whichever district court of appeals.  It was all about her religion.

HMBob - she very much denies she wishes to impose her religion on others.  But she does say her decisions are "informed" by her faith.

[garbon]

Anyways it's widely reported that Trump is likely to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat - Trump was quoted as saying he was "saving her" for RGB's seat.

Dems have strong arguments to make on the procedural fairness issue - in particular if done during a lame duck session (why do they even have these?).  But I've all ready seen some stuff on Twitter that makes me fear Dems will go after Judge Coney Barrett for her religious faith (she's a practicing Catholic), which would be quite damaging and could drive some voters into Trump's arms.

Uhm, she's the most protestant catholic i've ever heard of

Ms. Barrett told the senators that she was a faithful Catholic, and that her religious beliefs would not affect her decisions as an appellate judge. But her membership in a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise never came up at the hearing, and might have led to even more intense questioning.

Some of the group's practices would surprise many faithful Catholics. Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a "head" for men and a "handmaid" for women. The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.

Current and former members say that the heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home, and how to raise children.

Legal scholars said that such loyalty oaths could raise legitimate questions about a judicial nominee's independence and impartiality. The scholars said in interviews that while there certainly was no religious test for office, it would have been relevant for the senators to examine what it means for a judicial nominee to make an oath to a group that could wield significant authority over its members' lives.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/amy-coney-barrett-nominee-religion.html

She sounds like a fruit loop who has no chance of impartiality.

[HVC]

But BB says she'll be impartial. Who should i trust?

Also, BB how dare you ignore my post

[Sheilbh]

Uhm, she's the most protestant catholic i've ever heard of

White, American, "traditional", conservative Catholics are all insanely Protestant - seriously it's an entire movement of people with access to Wikipedia lecturing the Pope because they, personally, disagree with his take on theology

[Barrister]

But BB says she'll be impartial. Who should i trust?

Also, BB how dare you ignore my post

I have no idea if she's impartial or not.  I'm not exactly up on members of the 7th District Court of Appeals.  Now if you want opinions on the Alberta Provincial Court - Criminal division (Edmonton) I'm your man.

I read your post - still sounds like it's all about her religion.

[Barrister]

But anyways the politics of the thing - even if you disagree it's an attack on her religion, you know that's how the GOP and right-wing media will spin it.

So strategically - why give them that opportunity?  Make it about the process / Merrick Garland and play that quote by Lindsay Graham where he explicitly promised they'd never nominate a USSC Justice during an election year about a billion times.

[HVC]

But she's not a "normal" catholic. In general, at least in canada and europe, they seem to be less pushy about their beliefs (when compared to the various protestant' variations). But she's not normal, she's in a weird catholic cult. i would very much question her beliefs and her judicial integrity (plus her over all decision making skills).

also, what the hell America, even your Catholics are weird. What's in the water down there.

[Sheilbh]

But anyways the politics of the thing - even if you disagree it's an attack on her religion, you know that's how the GOP and right-wing media will spin it.

So strategically - why give them that opportunity?  Make it about the process / Merrick Garland and play that quote by Lindsay Graham where he explicitly promised they'd never nominate a USSC Justice during an election year about a billion times.

So I suppose - is the Merrick Garland precedent a good thing? It's 1 year now, given how polarised the US is it doesn't strike me as implausible that it becomes two years if the President's party loses mid-terms and the Supreme Court is institutionally weakened. It doesn't strike me as particularly unlikely that it actually sits with only 7-8 members for extended periods of time. The last thing the American system needs in my view is another sort of paralysed limb of government.

From the perspective of defending the instituion I think there's an argument to saying the Garland argument was bogus then and it's bogus now and try to defeat the nomination on its own basis.

[merithyn]

I don't think it's crazy to push the "Roe v Wade" issue with her. It's a known quantity. It's not a question. It's come up with every USSC nominee since the 70s.

The woman believes that other women should adhere to her religious morals, regardless of their own. That's enough to not sit her on the Supreme Court.

[Barrister]

But she's not a "normal" catholic. In general, at least in canada and europe, they seem to be less pushy about their beliefs (when compared to the various protestant' variations). But she's not normal, she's in a weird catholic cult. i would very much question her beliefs and her judicial integrity (plus her over all decision making skills).

also, what the hell America, even your Catholics are weird. What's in the water down there.

So only people who belong to the right sort of religions get to sit on the Supreme Court?  That sounds... dangerous.

[Barrister]

I don't think it's crazy to push the "Roe v Wade" issue with her. It's a known quantity. It's not a question. It's come up with every USSC nominee since the 70s.

The woman believes that other women should adhere to her religious morals, regardless of their own. That's enough to not sit her on the Supreme Court.

You know that overturning Roe v Wade wouldn't make abortion illegal, right?  The issue would be left up to the states.

Overturning Roe v Wade I think would be like a dog that catches a car - Republicans would have no idea what to do with it.  They've gotten a lot of mileage over the right to life issue, but there's very little public support for a blanket ban on abortion.

[Sheilbh]

So only people who belong to the right sort of religions get to sit on the Supreme Court?  That sounds... dangerous.

I do think the lack of Protestant representation on the 6 Catholics and 2 Jews Supreme Court is an issue

[Syt]

But she's not a "normal" catholic. In general, at least in canada and europe, they seem to be less pushy about their beliefs (when compared to the various protestant' variations). But she's not normal, she's in a weird catholic cult. i would very much question her beliefs and her judicial integrity (plus her over all decision making skills).

also, what the hell America, even your Catholics are weird. What's in the water down there.

So only people who belong to the right sort of religions get to sit on the Supreme Court?  That sounds... dangerous.

"Some of the group's practices would surprise many faithful Catholics. Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a "head" for men and a "handmaid" for women. The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.

Current and former members say that the heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home, and how to raise children."

(see HVS's post above)

I'm fine with religious people being in positions of government authority. This, however, sounds more like a cult than just another Christian sect.