How a Progressive Interest Group Used Fake News to Hijack Amy Barrett’s Judicial-Confirmation

[Disir]

The spurious charges Democratic senators leveled at Barrett last Wednesday came straight from a report the Alliance for Justice submitted to the Judiciary Committee. Notre Dame Law School professor Amy Coney Barrett graciously suffered many indignities during a Senate hearing last week concerning her nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, including a gamut of questions about her religious convictions. But the case marshaled against her does not necessarily derive from explicitly anti-catholic bigotry, as its critics on the right have been quick to claim. Rather, it is rooted in a concerted campaign of partisan posturing which reveals the pernicious influence of outside groups on the judicial-confirmation process. Barrett was made to defend herself against many lines of inquiry during the hearing, including charges that she would elevate personal religious conviction over established case law where the two conflict, that she believes Roe v. Wade does not enjoy so-called super-precedent status, and that in her view women do not have significant reliance interests in continued access to abortion. (In this context, “reliance interest” refers to the fact that women organize their social relations around the availability of abortion, and to the proposition that courts should respect said fact.)

Read more at: How a Progressive Interest Group Used Fake News to Hijack Amy Barrett’s Judicial-Confirmation Hearing

What's interesting is the reliance on an article that does not support what they want it to support.

 

[BULLDOG]

Quit whining. After stealing Obama's right to name a SC Judge for a year, you have no leg to stand on. Payback is a bitch, right?

 

[midcan5]

Suppose instead she were a Muslim and believed as a Muslim Amy Barrett would that her religion controlled her decisions making. Would that be OK? Of course not, and since a woman's right to control her life should remain hers, should a religious fanatic of any flavor be a SC judge? Or should they recuse themselves?

Should a Judge's Nomination Be Derailed by Her Faith?

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Suppose instead she were a Muslim and believed as a Muslim Amy Barrett would that her religion controlled her decisions making. Would that be OK? Of course not, and since a woman's right to control her life should remain hers, should a religious fanatic of any flavor be a SC judge? Or should they recuse themselves?

Should a Judge's Nomination Be Derailed by Her Faith?

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

ummm everyone gets it, the Dems hate Christians and they defend islamic hate and violence
BTW you and everyone you love was a fetus once

 

[Disir]

Quit whining. After stealing Obama's right to name a SC Judge for a year, you have no leg to stand on. Payback is a bitch, right?

I'm not a Republican. Be a jackoff somewhere else. You don't win brownie points for taking shit out of context, sugarpop.

 

[martybegan]

Quit whining. After stealing Obama's right to name a SC Judge for a year, you have no leg to stand on. Payback is a bitch, right?

If the situation was reversed the dems would have done the EXACT same thing so save my your prissy crocodile tears.

 

[Syriusly]

The spurious charges Democratic senators leveled at Barrett last Wednesday came straight from a report the Alliance for Justice submitted to the Judiciary Committee. Notre Dame Law School professor Amy Coney Barrett graciously suffered many indignities during a Senate hearing last week concerning her nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, including a gamut of questions about her religious convictions. But the case marshaled against her does not necessarily derive from explicitly anti-catholic bigotry, as its critics on the right have been quick to claim. Rather, it is rooted in a concerted campaign of partisan posturing which reveals the pernicious influence of outside groups on the judicial-confirmation process. Barrett was made to defend herself against many lines of inquiry during the hearing, including charges that she would elevate personal religious conviction over established case law where the two conflict, that she believes Roe v. Wade does not enjoy so-called super-precedent status, and that in her view women do not have significant reliance interests in continued access to abortion. (In this context, “reliance interest” refers to the fact that women organize their social relations around the availability of abortion, and to the proposition that courts should respect said fact.)

Read more at: How a Progressive Interest Group Used Fake News to Hijack Amy Barrett’s Judicial-Confirmation Hearing

What's interesting is the reliance on an article that does not support what they want it to support.

So what was the 'Fake News" that was used?

 

[Disir]

Suppose instead she were a Muslim and believed as a Muslim Amy Barrett would that her religion controlled her decisions making. Would that be OK? Of course not, and since a woman's right to control her life should remain hers, should a religious fanatic of any flavor be a SC judge? Or should they recuse themselves?

Should a Judge's Nomination Be Derailed by Her Faith?

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

Did you read the article?

Suppose instead she were a Muslim and believed as a Muslim Amy Barrett would that her religion controlled her decisions making. Would that be OK? Of course not, and since a woman's right to control her life should remain hers, should a religious fanatic of any flavor be a SC judge? Or should they recuse themselves?

Should a Judge's Nomination Be Derailed by Her Faith?

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

Committee Democrats, using language and citations from the report, asserted that she gave religion primacy over law in a 1998 law-review note called “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases.” The article, however, does little to further the senators’ claim. In it, Barrett specifically rejects the position they accused her of holding, writing that “Judges cannot-nor should they try to-align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge.”

Read more at: How a Progressive Interest Group Used Fake News to Hijack Amy Barrett’s Judicial-Confirmation Hearing

You should read moar.

 

[BULLDOG]

Quit whining. After stealing Obama's right to name a SC Judge for a year, you have no leg to stand on. Payback is a bitch, right?

I'm not a Republican. Be a jackoff somewhere else. You don't win brownie points for taking shit out of context, sugarpop.

OK. I understand. You're embarrassed to admit to being a republican, so you call yourself a libertarian, or just a conservative or some other monicker to hide from the republican name, but if you support republicans and their policies, you're a republican even if it does embarrass you.

 

[BULLDOG]

Quit whining. After stealing Obama's right to name a SC Judge for a year, you have no leg to stand on. Payback is a bitch, right?

If the situation was reversed the dems would have done the EXACT same thing so save my your prissy crocodile tears.

Never have before.

 

[martybegan]

Quit whining. After stealing Obama's right to name a SC Judge for a year, you have no leg to stand on. Payback is a bitch, right?

If the situation was reversed the dems would have done the EXACT same thing so save my your prissy crocodile tears.

Never have before.

Weak excuse. How many times has that exact situaton actually come up in the past 80 years or so?

 

[Syriusly]

Suppose instead she were a Muslim and believed as a Muslim Amy Barrett would that her religion controlled her decisions making. Would that be OK? Of course not, and since a woman's right to control her life should remain hers, should a religious fanatic of any flavor be a SC judge? Or should they recuse themselves?

Should a Judge's Nomination Be Derailed by Her Faith?

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

Did you read the article?

Suppose instead she were a Muslim and believed as a Muslim Amy Barrett would that her religion controlled her decisions making. Would that be OK? Of course not, and since a woman's right to control her life should remain hers, should a religious fanatic of any flavor be a SC judge? Or should they recuse themselves?

Should a Judge's Nomination Be Derailed by Her Faith?

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

Committee Democrats, using language and citations from the report, asserted that she gave religion primacy over law in a 1998 law-review note called “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases.” The article, however, does little to further the senators’ claim. In it, Barrett specifically rejects the position they accused her of holding, writing that “Judges cannot-nor should they try to-align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge.”

Read more at: How a Progressive Interest Group Used Fake News to Hijack Amy Barrett’s Judicial-Confirmation Hearing

You should read moar.

Ah the claim that it was 'Fake News" is a lie.

Because Democrats questioned this judge based upon her actual own writings.


In the paper, the two authors explore whether a Catholic judge should recuse herself from death-penalty cases if she would be unable to impartially uphold the law because of her religious convictions. “The pope and the American bishops have recently offered clear and forceful denunciations” of the punishment, they reason, and many Catholics feel morally obligated to uphold the teachings of the Church. In certain, limited circumstances, they argue, federal judges should step back from involvement in cases that might raise conflicts of conscience.

 

[BULLDOG]

Quit whining. After stealing Obama's right to name a SC Judge for a year, you have no leg to stand on. Payback is a bitch, right?

If the situation was reversed the dems would have done the EXACT same thing so save my your prissy crocodile tears.

Never have before.

Weak excuse. How many times has that exact situaton actually come up in the past 80 years or so?

Just like the only two times a president was named who didn't win the popular vote in the last 80 years or so ended up with the two worst republican presidents ever. Bush and Trump.

 

[Camp]

OMG!!! American citizens with differing opinions are using that free speech thing to promote their opinions!!!

 

[Disir]

Quit whining. After stealing Obama's right to name a SC Judge for a year, you have no leg to stand on. Payback is a bitch, right?

I'm not a Republican. Be a jackoff somewhere else. You don't win brownie points for taking shit out of context, sugarpop.

OK. I understand. You're embarrassed to admit to being a republican, so you call yourself a libertarian, or just a conservative or some other monicker to hide from the republican name, but if you support republicans and their policies, you're a republican even if it does embarrass you.

In real life people do the right thing because it's the right thing to do.

 

[Disir]

Suppose instead she were a Muslim and believed as a Muslim Amy Barrett would that her religion controlled her decisions making. Would that be OK? Of course not, and since a woman's right to control her life should remain hers, should a religious fanatic of any flavor be a SC judge? Or should they recuse themselves?

Should a Judge's Nomination Be Derailed by Her Faith?

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

Did you read the article?

Suppose instead she were a Muslim and believed as a Muslim Amy Barrett would that her religion controlled her decisions making. Would that be OK? Of course not, and since a woman's right to control her life should remain hers, should a religious fanatic of any flavor be a SC judge? Or should they recuse themselves?

Should a Judge's Nomination Be Derailed by Her Faith?

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

Committee Democrats, using language and citations from the report, asserted that she gave religion primacy over law in a 1998 law-review note called “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases.” The article, however, does little to further the senators’ claim. In it, Barrett specifically rejects the position they accused her of holding, writing that “Judges cannot-nor should they try to-align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge.”

Read more at: How a Progressive Interest Group Used Fake News to Hijack Amy Barrett’s Judicial-Confirmation Hearing

You should read moar.

Ah the claim that it was 'Fake News" is a lie.

Because Democrats questioned this judge based upon her actual own writings.


In the paper, the two authors explore whether a Catholic judge should recuse herself from death-penalty cases if she would be unable to impartially uphold the law because of her religious convictions. “The pope and the American bishops have recently offered clear and forceful denunciations” of the punishment, they reason, and many Catholics feel morally obligated to uphold the teachings of the Church. In certain, limited circumstances, they argue, federal judges should step back from involvement in cases that might raise conflicts of conscience.

Normally, people cite their source.

This is the actual article:
http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1523&context=law_faculty_scholarship

It does not say what the Alliance claimed it did. The Democrats did not read the original article. They used information that was provided to them in a report via the Alliance.

There might be more time to read things if they stopped acting like celebrities. They might stop acting like celebrities if you stopped treating them as such.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Quit whining. After stealing Obama's right to name a SC Judge for a year, you have no leg to stand on. Payback is a bitch, right?

I'm not a Republican. Be a jackoff somewhere else. You don't win brownie points for taking shit out of context, sugarpop.

OK. I understand. You're embarrassed to admit to being a republican, so you call yourself a libertarian, or just a conservative or some other monicker to hide from the republican name, but if you support republicans and their policies, you're a republican even if it does embarrass you.

Just like you support BLM antififa and Communism for being a Liberal democrat.

 

[BULLDOG]

Quit whining. After stealing Obama's right to name a SC Judge for a year, you have no leg to stand on. Payback is a bitch, right?

I'm not a Republican. Be a jackoff somewhere else. You don't win brownie points for taking shit out of context, sugarpop.

OK. I understand. You're embarrassed to admit to being a republican, so you call yourself a libertarian, or just a conservative or some other monicker to hide from the republican name, but if you support republicans and their policies, you're a republican even if it does embarrass you.

In real life people do the right thing because it's the right thing to do.

In real life you are a republican.

 

[Disir]

Quit whining. After stealing Obama's right to name a SC Judge for a year, you have no leg to stand on. Payback is a bitch, right?

I'm not a Republican. Be a jackoff somewhere else. You don't win brownie points for taking shit out of context, sugarpop.

OK. I understand. You're embarrassed to admit to being a republican, so you call yourself a libertarian, or just a conservative or some other monicker to hide from the republican name, but if you support republicans and their policies, you're a republican even if it does embarrass you.

In real life people do the right thing because it's the right thing to do.

In real life you are a republican.

In real life, I am a liberal. You're just a sock.

 

[BULLDOG]

Quit whining. After stealing Obama's right to name a SC Judge for a year, you have no leg to stand on. Payback is a bitch, right?

I'm not a Republican. Be a jackoff somewhere else. You don't win brownie points for taking shit out of context, sugarpop.

OK. I understand. You're embarrassed to admit to being a republican, so you call yourself a libertarian, or just a conservative or some other monicker to hide from the republican name, but if you support republicans and their policies, you're a republican even if it does embarrass you.

Just like you support BLM antififa and Communism for being a Liberal democrat.

Why are you so sure about that?