CORRUPTION in the Supreme Court

Re: Supreme Court of the United States

“Does this institution need to change in some way to regain the public trust?”

The short answer is a resounding “YES!”

Now, read on to learn at least one stunning reason why.

There’s PLENTY of brouhaha and he-said-she-said nonsense reported as “journalism” these days, and the same is absolutely true with this most recent matter concerning allegations that a previous decision from the SCOTUS, specifically referring to news that a “leak” about how a decision would be rendered in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., would be rendered.

In short, the 2014 case revolved around birth control, that the defendant, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. wanted to deny birth control to Burwell the plaintiff, and asserted that they had a legal right to do so.

In essence the ruling “permits a closely held for-profit corporation [meaning one that is privately held by an individual, family, or family trust] to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA), based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.”

---

Hobby Lobby is a multi-billion dollar, for-profit, privately held corporation owned by the Green family of Oklahoma City, OK, which has just under 1000 stores nationwide, over 43,000 employees, and describes itself as an “arts & crafts store,” which imports most, if not all, of their merchandise from China, India, Vietnam, and other developing nations. Very little, if any, of the merchandise they sell is American made.

With a net worth of $15.1 BILLION estimated by Forbes, the Green family members are Evangelical Christians, and the company was founded in 1972. In the company’s 50-year history, it, and/or its owners have been criticized for numerous deceptive and questionable activities, and have been found guilty in Federal court in 2017 of smuggling ancient middle eastern antiquities — 5,500 artifacts purchased for $1.6 billion — which were later learned to have been looted from archeological sites, and shipped in boxes deliberately deceptively labeled as “tile samples,” to their Oklahoma City corporate headquarters. For that crime, they were ordered to pay a $3 million fine, forced to return the booty, and forfeited the money which they spent to illegally purchase the loot. From 2018-2020, they also later confessed that fragments of a document which they claimed were portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls, were forgeries, though they presented them as authentic in their Washington, DC-based “Museum of the Bible.” And in March 2020, the Greens announced that they would be repatriating 11,500 additional ancient artifacts to Iraq and Egypt.

As the COVID pandemic began to rage and claim lives, dropping humans like so many flies, the company refused to close its stores in numerous locations because Deborah Green, the founder’s spouse, claimed to have “heard a message from God” to keep them open, and further falsely claimed that they were an “essential” service employer which exempted them from compliance with various states’ and local laws ordering businesses closed for public health preservation, to prevent spread of the disease. Later, under pressure from employees concerned for their own safety and welfare, the corporation acquiesced to their employees’ pressure, closed all stores, and furloughed every employee, which led at least two employees to remark, “This has all been so stressful and exhausting. I don’t want to stay home because I’m too lazy to work. I want to stay home to do my part to stop the spread of the virus.” -and- “The line our manager gave us [from corporate] was, ‘The employees got what the employees wanted; the stores were closed.’ My question was, ‘Did God tell them they needed to close the stores and not pay us?'”

---

In the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. ruling, the SCOTUS held that not only can corporations have, practice, and espouse a religion, but that they can also deny healthcare treatment to anyone in the organization who may need a medication which the corporation finds onerous, or objectionable, based upon ostensibly religious grounds.

It’s not about “rights” as the plaintiffs allege, it’s about CONTROL — specifically, control over others in an effort to manipulate them, to force them to abide by manipulator’s beliefs — NOT about individual liberty, or freedom.

This most recent revelation of a much-earlier leak comes on the heels of another similarly related, though much more blatant, and publicly observed leak: A decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a ruling from 6  so-called “conservative,” Republican-appointed Justices — 3 questionable appointments who were nominees by The Federalist Society via then-POTUS Donald Trump — whose combined opinions effectively overturned Roe v. Wade, a 1973 decision allowing abortion, and the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey which affirmed Roe. A copy of a draft in the Dobbs ruling was “leaked” to POLITICO, and was later authenticated by CJ Roberts.
see: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435/scotus-initial-draft.pdf

The 6 GOP-nominated right-wing radicals all attested, under oath, during their confirmation hearings, that Roe was well-established and settled legal precedent of very nearly 50 years, that its rendering was unimpeachable, and unquestionable. Of course, lawyers that they are, they artfully dodged giving a straight-forward and direct answer when asked their opinions of the Roe decision — stare decisis be damned. Naturally, it has led to justifiable moral outrage from many who contend that such deception under oath is an impeachable offense. And, it very well may be.

Naturally, Justice Alito, and others, have denied that any such thing occurred, and further denied that he “leaked” information on how the Hobby Lobby ruling would be made.

HOWEVER…

Rob Schenck, the longtime vehemently radicalized Evangelical protagonist in this matter, goes into GREAT DETAIL describing how he was the one whose idea to duplicitously train of a group of spies to infiltrate the SCOTUS with well-heeled, wealthy couples, to

“Praise God!” -OR- “God Damn!”? You be the judge.

Today (June 26, 2022), the much-expected, leaked Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392) was publicly released on the Supreme Court’s website [see: https://www.SupremeCourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf], which the unjust Justice Samuel Alito summarized thusly:

“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, are overruled; the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

The 6 right-wing radicals similarly ignored the Constitution’s 9th Amendment, which is the statement that unenumerated rights exist:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Six Justices, including the Joker in Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and ultra-right-wing radical extremists Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett — all whom were nominated by Banana Republicans — overturned a very-nearly 50-year precedent.

By so doing, they made themselves out as liars, because ALL of the 6 in public testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, asserted that Roe v. Wade, a decision issued on January 22, 1973, was “settled law.”

• In 2020, Amy Coney Barrett was asked

Ain’t Skeered of COVID-19? Try this on for size.

Let’s pretend that you’re an “anti-vaxxer,” that for whatever insane reason, you’re not going to ever receive any FREE COVID-19 vaccination.

Let’s also pretend that you get infected with COVID-19.

And, we’ll further pretend that because of the infection, you get really, really, really sick — as in “intubated in the ICU” sick.

Should you even be there? Should you even be treated, or cared for? Should anyone have mercy upon you because you made the decision to NOT receive (reject) a FREE vaccine? After all, you’re just wasting oxygen, and taking up space.

Shouldn’t the resources that are being expended upon you, and your care (because you didn’t care enough to get vaccinated), be expended upon others who did? After all, you made the conscious decision to NOT care enough about yourself, or others, to get vaccinated.

Freedom is not, nor has it ever been, an “I’ll do what I want, where I want, when I want, how I want, because I can” type of proposition.

You see, freedom has responsibilities.

In practice, that means you can’t

Partisan Hacks Abound

One would NOT mention something if it were NOT part of the equation.

It’d be like mentioning Tostitos at a cake-baking contest, the theory of relativity to 3rd Graders, a taco soup recipe to Chinese citizens in Shenzhen, or the merits of a ’57 Chevy during discussion of a cardiac surgical procedure. TOTALLY out of place.

The very fact that SHE — Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett — mentioned it, is sufficient.

“My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.”

— Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Sunday, 12 September 2021, at the McConnell Center, University of Louisville, KY, a venue created by Kentucky Republican Senator Mitch McConnell

Similarly, one would NOT need to be convinced if a thing, saying, or claim had utterly no credibility. It’d be like claiming (falsely) that “the sun rises in the west.” Any casual observer can plainly see that the sun appears to “rise” in the east, because of the Earth’s rotation upon its axis. That is to say, Earth spins in an “easterly” direction.

But, what else could be said about a court that INCREASINGLY issues “emergency” rulings, colloquially known as the “Shadow Docket,” WITHOUT proceedings, WITHOUT hearing ANY argument?

That tactic DENIES citizens their Constitutional RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN AN OPEN & PUBLIC COURT OF LAW.

NO ONE BUT she brought up that topic.

So, yeah… Amy Coney “I’m not a partisan hack” Barrett,

NPR F***s Up

Today, A.C. Barrett was administered the Constitutional oath as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court by SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas.

She must still be administered the oath of office.

It’s only her SECOND job as a judge.

And she hasn’t even been a judge a total of 3 years yet!

Not even!!

Can you say “GREENHORN”? “Wet behind the ears”?

Recall that she came from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – her first job as a jurist, which Trump also gave her. No doubt, he’ll expect something in return.

Yesterday, the Senate confirmed her nomination along a party line vote, 52R-48D.

It only took 31 days from nomination to confirmation for the Republican Senate Majority Leader “Moscow Mitch” McConnell of Kentucky to ramrod her through the process – a record time. She must like being

Senate Approves Amy Coney Barrett 52-48

And did you know?

She has NEVER argued a case before a court of any kind in her entire life – except maybe moot court in law school.

-and-

Not only that, but…

It’s NOT Illegal For Weirdos To Serve

It’s a good thing that American Presidents don’t nominate weirdos or extremists for the Supreme Court.

Amy Coney Barrett as Hannibal Lector, the psychotic, psychopathic weirdo in the movie series “Silence of the Lambs.”

People who have 7 kids – adopted, or not – are certainly outside the norm.

As is forbidding the use of birth control – and that’s almost exclusively a religious matter.

And now that businesses can have religion, which god do they worship – Mammon? Was it the Commerce Clause that Jesus died for? Or, was it people?

But after all, “businesses are people, my friend.”

And since money is free speech, what’s next?

To be frank, being outside the norm is not illegal in the United States.

It’s not illegal to be a weirdo.

Goodness knows, there are plenty of them in all 50 states.

Belonging to a weird religious cult shouldn’t disqualify one for service – at least according to the Constitution, which has a renown “no religious test” clause.

I mean, we could have, and there is no legal compunction forbidding, Moonies to serve us in our government – any government, federal, state, or local – and, that’s perfectly A-okay according to the Constitution – as it should be.

People who believe the Earth is flat could serve us in government – and while there’s not a “no scientific test” clause in our Constitution, I would imagine that most reasonable people would agree that, like the Moonies, those who believe the Earth is flat are weirdos, and extremists.

People who believe in alchemy – the fraudulent and disproven notion that gold can be made from lead, various ores, or things that do not contain elemental gold – could be elected, or appointed, and serve us in our government.

Why, even those who have belonged to the Ku Klux Klan have served on the Supreme Court – Hugo Black, an Alabamian.

And the virulently infamous racist George C. Wallace was elected as Alabama’s governor FOUR times.

Stranger things have happened.

May they never happen again.

---

theguardian.com

Revealed: Ex-members of Amy Coney Barrett faith group tell of trauma and sexual abuse

by Stephanie Kirchgaessner, in Washington, D.C.
Wednesday 21 Oct 2020, 0500 EDT
Last modified on Wednesday 21 Oct 2020, 2337 EDT

---

Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the supreme court has prompted former members of her secretive faith group, the People of Praise, to come forward and share stories about emotional trauma and – in at least one case – sexual abuse they claim to have suffered at the hands of members of the Christian group.

In the wake of the allegations, the Guardian has learned that the charismatic Christian organization, which is based in Indiana, has hired the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan to conduct an “independent investigation” into sexual abuse claims on behalf of People of Praise.

The historic sexual abuse allegations and claims of emotional trauma do not pertain specifically to Barrett, who has been a lifelong member of the charismatic group, or her family.

But some former members who spoke to the Guardian said they were deeply concerned that too little was understood about the “community” of People of Praise ahead of Barrett’s expected confirmation by the Senate next week, after which she will hold the seat formerly held by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Two people familiar with the matter say that more than two dozen former members of the faith group, many of whom say they felt “triggered” by Barrett’s nomination, are participating in a support group to discuss how the faith group affected their lives.

“The basic premise of everything at the People of Praise was that the devil controlled everything outside of the community, and you were ‘walking out from under the umbrella of protection’ if you ever left,” said one former member who called herself Esther, who had to join the group as a child but then left the organization. “I was OK with it being in a tiny little corner of Indiana, because a lot of weird stuff happens in tiny little corners in this country. But it’s just unfathomable to me – I can’t even explain just how unfathomable it is – that you would have a supreme court justice who is a card-carrying member of this community.”

Barrett was not asked about her involvement in People of Praise during her confirmation hearings last week, and has never included her involvement with the group in Senate disclosure forms, but has in the past emphasized that her religious faith as a devout Catholic would not interfere with her impartiality.

People of Praise is rooted in the rise of charismatic Christian communities in the late 1960s and 1970s, which

On Interpreting The Constitution

Amy Coney Barrett before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary for her nomination to the United States Supreme Court

Much has been made in recent days about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the President’s nominee to fill the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Barrett has her critics. I am one. But there are other criticisms, including of the rushed process, which I too, hold. Rushed things hardly ever have good results.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has indicated that the full Senate will most likely have a vote on Judge Barrett on Monday, 26 October 2020 – a mere 31 days since her nomination on 26 September 2020. In stark contrast, her initial nomination to the Federal judiciary took 5 months 24 days.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has published a paper entitled “Supreme Court Appointment Process: President’s Selection of a Nominee,” (R44235) first published on October 19, 2015, and updated periodically, and most recently on September 28, 2020, which answers some essentially basic questions about the nomination process, and provides background, and historical overview for the same. The “CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.”

Regarding Judge Barrett’s Judicial “style” which she and others call “textualism,” and or “originalism,” it seems to me to be a rather bizarre way to think of the document which forms the foundation of our government, which has endured since it was written and ratified in the late 1700’s. Doubtless, the Founders, and those alive then could not begin to conceive of plucking stardust from an asteroid (which NASA recently did) to analyze, communicating instantaneously with someone on the opposite side of the globe using video teleconferencing on a hand-held device, traveling faster than the speed of sound, splitting the atom, and using laser light to communicate, so why would we begin to imagine that we should adhere to some arbitrary, or even capricious standard to interpret what it means to, or for us, today?

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot expressed it best in this brief story, why “originalism” and “textualism” are misguided rules.

CHICAGO (WBBM NEWSRADIO) — Mayor Lori Lightfoot said she is preparing for when Amy Coney Barrett takes her seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. She was asked to share her thoughts Tuesday on the judge and minced no words.

Mayor Lightfoot was first asked if she views the U.S. Constitution as Judge Barrett does, as an “originalist.”

Originalists firmly believe all statements in the U.S. Constitution must be strictly interpreted based on the original understanding at the time the Constitution was adopted. They do not believe in the concept of a “Living Constitution” that can be interpreted in the context of current times.

“You ask a gay, black woman if she is an originalist? No, ma’am, I am not,” Lightfoot laughed.

“That the Constitution didn’t consider me a person in any way, shape or form because I’m a woman, because I’m black, because I’m gay? I am not an originalist. I believe in the Constitution. I believe that it is a document that the founders intended to evolve and what they did was set the framework for how our country was going to be different from any other.”

“But originalists say that, ‘Let’s go back to 1776 and whatever was there in the original language, that’s it.’ That language excluded, now, over 50 percent of the country. So, no I’m not an originalist.”

Mayor Lightfoot said she’s deeply worried about some of Judge Barrett’s stated views, for instance, being against gay marriage.

“I deeply worry about this woman’s stated views. She’s on the record on a number of different things, not the least of which is thinking that gay marriage is something that shouldn’t be countenanced. And she’s got soulmates in Justice Thomas and others, who think that the decision by the Supreme Court…should somehow be rolled back,” Lightfoot said.

“What should I tell my daughter — that somehow now my wife and I are no longer married? That we’re no longer legitimately recognized in the eyes of the law? That is dangerous, dangerous territory. And what about a woman’s right to choose? We’re gonna keep re-litigating this issue, and we’re gonna make abortion illegal, as Amy Coney Barrett thinks it should be?”

The Mayor also called Republicans “hypocrites” for pushing the Barrett nomination when they put off taking up the Merrick Garland nomination by President Obama.

“The hypocrisy is something that is a bitter pill for me to swallow,” Lightfoot said.

Amy Coney Barrett Served On Gay-Hating Schools’ Board

This is what the soft hatred of bigotry cloaked in religious garb looks like.

This revelation should come as no surprise, that a radicalized right-wing religious zealot should serve at a high level on the Board of Directors for three schools in three separate states under a common umbrella would discriminate.

Below her image are three more images of the same type thing.

This person must NOT be confirmed to the nation’s highest court!

And toward that end, perhaps it may alarm you to know that a Ku Klux Klansman has been seated on the nation’s highest court.

No, it’s not any of the current members.

It was Hugo Black, of Alabama.

https://timeline.com/hugo-black-justice-klan-4877fcf6ac75

You can read Matt Reimann’s excellently succinct August 15, 2017 article via the link above. Of note, Mr. Justice Black was also a “textualist” on matters of interpretation of the Constitution – the same thing late Justice Scalia said he was, and which Judge Barrett says she is.

The primary problem with that alleged “style” of interpretation, is that it’s nonsensical. Here’s a succinctly brief statement why from Chicago, IL Mayor Lori Lightfoot:

“CHICAGO (WBBM NEWSRADIO) — Mayor Lori Lightfoot said she is preparing for when Amy Coney Barrett takes her seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. She was asked to share her thoughts Tuesday on the judge and minced no words.

“Mayor Lightfoot was first asked if she views the U.S. Constitution as Judge Barrett does, as an “originalist.”

“Originalists firmly believe all statements in the U.S. Constitution must be strictly interpreted based on the original understanding at the time the Constitution was adopted. They do not believe in the concept of a “Living Constitution” that can be interpreted in the context of current times.

““You ask a gay, black woman if she is an originalist? No, ma’am, I am not,” Lightfoot laughed.

““That the Constitution didn’t consider me a person in any way, shape or form because I’m a woman, because I’m black, because I’m gay? I am not an originalist. I believe in the Constitution. I believe that it is a document that the founders intended to evolve and what they did was set the framework for how our country was going to be different from any other.

““But originalists say that, ‘Let’s go back to 1776 and whatever was there in the original language, that’s it.’ That language excluded, now, over 50 percent of the country. So, no I’m not an originalist.”

“Mayor Lightfoot said she’s deeply worried about some of Judge Barrett’s stated views, for instance, being against gay marriage.

““I deeply worry about this woman’s stated views. She’s on the record on a number of different things, not the least of which is thinking that gay marriage is something that shouldn’t be countenanced. And she’s got soulmates in Justice Thomas and others, who think that the decision by the Supreme Court…should somehow be rolled back,” Lightfoot said.

““What should I tell my daughter — that somehow now my wife and I are no longer married? That we’re no longer legitimately recognized in the eyes of the law? That is dangerous, dangerous territory. And what about a woman’s right to choose? We’re gonna keep re-litigating this issue, and we’re gonna make abortion illegal, as Amy Coney Barrett thinks it should be?”

“The Mayor also called Republicans “hypocrites” for pushing the Barrett nomination when they put off taking up the Merrick Garland nomination by President Obama.

“”The hypocrisy is something that is a bitter pill for me to swallow,” Lightfoot said.”

Here’s an excerpt introduction from the article “A U.S. Supreme Court justice was in the Ku Klux Klan—and he remained on the bench for 34 years. Hugo Black was exposed just after his confirmation, but it made no difference.“:

The September 13, 1937 front page of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette printed an image of Black’s KKK resignation letter.

“Hugo Black had been associate justice of the Supreme Court for less than a month when the news broke. In September of 1937, an exposé by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette found proof of Black’s membership in the Ku Klux Klan. He had joined in September of 1923, and resigned in July, 1925, as one of his first moves before running for one of Alabama’s U.S. Senate seat. Ironically, the smoking gun was Black’s resignation letter, written in legible longhand on Klan stationery, which appeared on the paper’s front page.

“Franklin Roosevelt, who nominated Hugo Black, was implicated in the scandal, which threatened to have far-reaching consequences for the president’s New Deal image. What was once seen as shrewd politics — the New Deal-friendly textualist was confirmed with a 63–16 vote — had become a disgrace. “Millions of Americans,” wrote one Indiana newspaper, “will not forget this sole tangible accomplishment of President Roosevelt’s attempted ‘liberalization’ of the Supreme Court.”

“When asked by the press to remark on the scandal, Roosevelt brushed questions aside, saying, “I only know what I have read in the newspapers. I know that the stories are appearing serially and their publication is not complete. Mr. Justice Black is in Europe where, undoubtedly, he cannot get the full text of these articles. Until such time as he returns, there is no further comment to be made.”“

---

apnews.com

Barrett Was Trustee At Private School With Anti-Gay Policies

By Michelle R. Smith and Michael Biesecker
October 21, 2020 at 10:51:08 AM CDT

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett served for nearly three years on the board of private Christian schools that effectively barred admission to children of same-sex parents and made it plain that openly gay and lesbian teachers weren’t welcome in the classroom.

The policies that discriminated against LGBTQ people and their children were in place for years at Trinity Schools Inc., both before Barrett joined the board in 2015 and during the time she served.

The three schools, in Indiana, Minnesota and Virginia, are affiliated with People of Praise, an insular community rooted in its own interpretation of the Bible, of which Barrett and her husband have been longtime members. At least three of the couple’s seven children have attended the Trinity School at Greenlawn, in South Bend, Indiana.

The AP spoke with more than two dozen people who attended or worked at Trinity Schools, or former members of People of Praise. They said the community’s teachings have been consistent for decades: Homosexuality is an abomination against God, sex should occur only within marriage, and marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

Interviewees told the AP that Trinity’s leadership communicated anti-LGBTQ policies and positions in meetings, one-on-one conversations, enrollment agreements, employment agreements, handbooks and written policies — including those in place when Barrett was an active member of the board.

“Trinity Schools does not unlawfully discriminate with respect to race, color, gender, national origin, age, disability, or other legally protected classifications under applicable law, with respect to the administration of its programs,” said Jon Balsbaugh, president of Trinity Schools Inc., which runs the three campuses, in an email.

The actions are probably legal, experts said. Scholars said the school’s and organization’s teachings on homosexuality and treatment of LGBTQ people are harsher than those of the mainstream Catholic church. In a documentary released Wednesday, Pope Francis endorsed civil unions for the first time as pope, and said in an interview for the film that, “Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God.”

Barrett’s views on whether LGBTQ people should have the same constitutional rights as other Americans became a focus last week in her Senate confirmation hearing. But her longtime membership in People of Praise and her leadership position at Trinity Schools were not discussed, even though most of the people the AP spoke with said her deep and decades-long involvement in the community signals she would be hostile to gay rights if confirmed.

Suzanne B. Goldberg, a professor at Columbia Law School who studies sexuality and gender law, said private schools have wide legal latitude to set admissions criteria. And, she said, Trinity probably isn’t covered by recent Supreme Court rulings outlawing employment discrimination against LGBTQ people because of its affiliation with a religious community. But, she added, cases addressing those questions are likely to come before the high court in the near future, and Barrett’s past oversight of Trinity’s discriminatory policies raises concerns.

“When any member of the judiciary affiliates themselves with an institution that is committed to discrimination on any ground, it is important to look more closely at how that affects the individual’s ability to give all cases a fair hearing,” Goldberg said.

The AP sent detailed questions for Barrett to the White House press office. Rather than providing direct answers, White House spokesman Judd Deere instead accused AP of attacking the nominee.

“Because Democrats and the media are unable to attack Judge Barrett’s sterling qualifications, they have instead turned to pathetic personal attacks on her children’s Christian school, even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that religious schools are protected by the First Amendment,” Deere said in an email.

Nearly all the people interviewed for this story are gay or said they have gay family members. They used words such as “terrified,” “petrified” and “frightening” to describe the prospect of Barrett on the high court. Some of them know Barrett, have mutual friends with her or even have been in her home dozens of times. They describe her as “nice” or “a kind person,” but told the AP they feared others would suffer if Barrett tries to implement People of Praise’s views on homosexuality on the Supreme Court.

About half of the people asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation against themselves or their families from other members of People of Praise, or because they had not come out to everyone in their lives. Among those interviewed were people who attended all three of its schools and who had been active in several of its 22 branches. Their experiences stretched back as far as the 1970s, and as recently as 2020.

NOT WELCOME

Tom Henry was a senior at Trinity School in Eagan, Minnesota, serving as a student ambassador, providing tours to prospective families, when Barrett was an active member of the board.

In early 2017, a lesbian parent asked him whether Trinity was open to gay people and expressed concern about how her child would be treated.

Henry, who is gay, said he didn’t know what to say. He had been instructed not to answer questions about People of Praise or Trinity’s “politics.”

The next day, Henry recalled, he asked the school’s then-headmaster, Jon Balsbaugh, how he should have answered. Henry said Balsbaugh pulled a document out of his desk drawer that condemned gay marriage, and explained it was a new policy from People of Praise that was going into the handbook.

“He looked me right in the eye and said, the next time that happens, you tell them they would not be welcome here,” Henry recounted. “And he said to me that trans families, gay families, gay students, trans students would not feel welcome at Trinity Schools. And then he said, ‘Do we understand each other?’ And I said, yes. And I left. And then I quit the student ambassadors that day.”

Balsbaugh, who has since been promoted to president of Trinity Schools Inc., says his recollection of the conversation “differs considerably,” but declined

Amy Coney Barrett And Radicalism – Religious & Political

Perhaps by now you’ve heard of the sad and tragic news out of France, that recently, Samuel Paty, a 47-year old male teacher was brutally decapitated by a radicalized 18-year old, Russian-born male Muslim student. Though one committed the heinous act, at least 10 students have been arrested for participation in the plot. The prime suspect is a Chechen refugee.

According to Reuters, the episode began when several Muslim parents were angered earlier this month after Paty taught a mandatory “moral and civil education” class on freedom of expression, and had shown to his pupils 12 cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, which were originally published in a Danish newspaper before republication in Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical publication renown for their anti-establishment satire poking fun at the far right, and aspects of Catholicism, Judaism and Islam.

The Guardian reported that a parent of one of the students in Paty’s class had posted a response to an angry video complaining about the class. The respondent wrote: “I am a parent of a student at this college. The teacher just showed caricatures from Charlie Hebdo as part of a history lesson on freedom of expression. He asked the Muslim students to leave the classroom if they wished, out of respect … He was a great teacher. He tried to encourage the critical spirit of his students, always with respect and intelligence. This evening, I am sad, for my daughter, but also for teachers in France. Can we continue to teach without being afraid of being killed?”

The French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo recently republished for a second time the same cartoons (also seen here) the day before the beginning of a French trial of

Judging Amy: Is Amy Coney Barrett A Right-Wing Radical?

With the nomination and practical acceptance of Amy Coney Barrett being ramrodded through roughshod by the Republicans, it’s almost a practical assurance that the Judge from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will fill the seat vacated by the recent death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

It’s worth noting that the Federal Judicial Center “the research and education agency of the judicial branch of the United States Government,” notates her history (to date) as being a “nominated to the bench as Judge, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, was by POTUS Donald J. Trump on May 8, 2017, to a seat vacated by John Daniel Tinder. She was confirmed by the Senate on October 31, 2017, and received commission on November 2, 2017.”

So if she’s approved to be a Justice on the Supreme Court, it will have been done in less time than it took for her original nomination to be confirmed to the Federal judiciary – 5 months 24 days, versus 3 weeks 3 days/24 calendar days (to date), and counting.

Amy Coney Barrett at investiture to the Federal bench, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Proceeding therefrom, it now appears that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will no longer be tilting at windmills, but instead, will be significantly tilting toward the far right side of the political spectrum – the right-wing nut job side.

So, given that Judge Barrett, whom for one year clerked for late Justice Antonin Scalia, well-known for his interpretive style on the court – which he called “originalism,” and “textualism” – we can expect more nonsensical rulings in the 40+ years to come, the time for which she could reasonably be expected to rule.

Just like Neil Gorsuch’s infamous “Frozen Trucker” case.

And just so you’ll know – not that you would know – there’s a rather telling, and disturbing side of Judge A.C. Barrett’s judicial perspective, and interpretive style.

Case in point to illustrate: Kanter v Barr – a case in which she dissented involving a man who pleaded guilty to one count of a Federal Felony – mail fraud involving Medicare.

In the court’s ruling – an “en banc” decision, involving three judges – they wrote that:

Amy Coney Barrett’s Forced Hearings Are Political Rape, And She Likes It

I have enumerated several reasons why Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett should be rejected for a seat on the United States Supreme Court.

Amy Coney Barrett: Will she follow the law of recusal? – October 15

Day 1: Judge Amy Coney Barrett Brings 6 Little Human Shields To Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing – October 12

Why Amy Coney Barrett Is Unqualified – October 6

Potential Supreme Court Nominee: Right Turn Only? – September 21

Here’s another one which points out the utter hypocrisy of the GOP and the religious right wing community in moving her nomination forward shoving her nomination down American’s throat.

Think of it as a form of political rape.

As I’ve written previously – she’s allowing herself to be used.

And apparently, she likes it.

---

ReligionDispatches.org
Why Amy Coney Barrett’s Religion is Fair Game
By John Stoehr October 14, 2020

On Monday the Senate Democrats [avoided and ignored] the subject of religion. During the first day of Appellate Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings, they focused on health care and how Donald Trump’s third nominee might rule after the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments next month on the Affordable Care Act. Avoiding religion was probably wise given the Republicans’ level of fake outrage over fake “religious bigotry.” The rest of us, however, don’t need to play along. Barrett’s Catholicism is fair game.

Yes, I know. Highly influential liberal pundits, and some liberal pundits striving mightily to become influential, argue that religion should be off limits. First, they say, because a person of sincerely held religious beliefs can adjudicate impartially. Second, there’s enough to talk about without bringing up Barrett’s faith. While I presume these liberals mean well (to be clear, in presuming this, I’m being generous), they’re wrong.

They assume, for one thing, that religion and politics can be disentangled. Sometimes they can be. Sometimes they can’t. For another, these liberals behave as if politics is somehow taking religion hostage. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote Monday night: “When politicians use faith as an excuse to pass and uphold laws that seize control of people’s bodies but not guarantee them healthcare, feed the poor, shelter the homeless, or welcome the stranger, you have to wonder if it’s really about faith at all.”

No, you don’t have to wonder. It’s about their faith, full stop. Millions in this country—white evangelical Protestants and conservative white Catholics chief among them—root their genuinely held religious beliefs in opposition to modernity, which is to say, in politics. There is, therefore, no appreciable difference between them. The more our society moves in the direction of greater freedom, equity and justice for all people, the more these revanchists believe their faith is under siege; and the more they feel their faith is under siege, the more prepared they are to go to war over “religious freedom.”

I don’t know if Barrett intends to help reverse Roe any more than you do. I do know—and you know—that that’s why Donald Trump picked her. That’s why she accepted his illegitimate nomination. Overturning Roe, or at least gutting it in order to

Amy Coney Barrett: Will she follow the law of recusal?

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the President’s nominee to be a Supreme Court Justice, has dodged the question of recusal on any potential case which might come before her which would be brought by the President on any matter pertaining to the 2020 General Election. She dodged because she replied that she would follow the law of recusal.

She said in part that, “I commit to you to fully and faithfully applying the law of recusal. … I will apply the factors that other justices have before me in determining whether the circumstances require my recusal or not. But I can’t offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.”

When asked about the law of recusal, she said in part that, “I can’t offer an opinion on recusal without short-circuiting the entire process.”

When specifically asked about election cases, she stated to the effect that it wasn’t a question she could answer “in the abstract.”

Obviously, she is aware of the law’s requirements, but what is concerning is if she will obey (follow) the law.

There could be an argument made that she has no interest in the case, per se, at least insofar as she was not a member of the President’s administration, nor had she done any work for him.

There are several disconcerting aspects of this matter, none of which concern her judicial temperament, nor her judicial philosophy, nor her rulings. First is that she has allowed herself to be used by the GOP and the President to force her, as their nominee, through the confirmation process in the midst of an ongoing election. Already, millions of people have voted.

Secondarily is Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s actions, in conjunction with the President’s efforts, to rush the nominee through the process. Rushed things are rarely done with high quality, or long-term thoughtfulness. Further, that “Moscow” Mitch McConnell has deliberately stalled, or “killed” well over 400 bills from the House of Representatives is prima facie evidence of his contempt for the Constitution, and legislative process. And that he has similarly refused to act upon any bill which would first, and foremost, deal with the matter of the coronavirus, aka COVID-19, and the needs of the people for their health, their needs for economic sustenance, and more, is again, hard-core evidence not merely of a lack of caring, but is an abandonment of his responsibilities to the American people, not merely to the citizens of Kentucky whose interests he is supposed to represent.

To the extent that Amy Coney Barrett participates in that wretched process, she is complicit in it all. She has, in effect, become a political tool, and is doing so knowingly.

Were she to have requested a delay of her hearings until after the election – a delay of a few mere weeks – she would likely have not garnered such opposition. For she is, in my considered estimation, more than a well-qualified jurist, and would be a good addition to the United States Supreme Court. Even 88 University of Notre Dame faculty members wrote an open letter to her, stating that it was “vital” that she “issue a public statement calling for a halt to your nomination process until after the November presidential election.”

In the letter, those faculty members also wrote in part that, “The rushed nature of your nomination process, which you certainly recognize as an exercise in raw power politics, may effectively deprive the American people of a voice in selecting the next Supreme Court justice,” and stated that “you can refuse to be party to such maneuvers. We ask that you honor the democratic process and insist the hearings be put on hold until after the voters have made their choice.”

And goodness knows, we need more legal diversity on the nation’s highest court, and I don’t mean to refer to sex, ethnicity, or any physical factor – I mean to refer to the schools of law which the nominees have attended. And as she herself has noted,

“I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the Court. I would be the first Justice to join the Court from the Seventh Circuit in 45 years. And I would be the only sitting Justice who didn’t attend law school at Harvard or Yale. I am confident that Notre Dame will hold its own, and maybe I could even teach them a thing or two about football.”

Would she be my pick?

Perhaps not, but again, it is the rushed nature of this event which is most exceedingly distasteful. Hypocrisy has neither a pleasing aroma, nor taste.

Finally, there are other matters concerning the Supreme Court which desperately need to be addressed, which undoubtedly will not have an opportunity to be discussed simply because of the Senate Majority Leader’s deliberately destructive tactics to “kill” legislation.

The verbatim transcript of her remarks has not yet been prepared by the Congressional Record. When it is ready, it will appear here:
https://www.congress.gov/event/116th-congress/senate-event/328163?s=1&r=8

Hearings to examine the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, of Indiana, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 116th Congress (2019-2020)

Committee:	Senate Judiciary
Related Items:	PN2252
Date:	Tuesday October 13, 2020 (9:00 AM EDT)
Location:	216 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Website:	https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/

And so, for your benefit, here is the law of recusal to which she referred. You can, and should, read it for yourself. It’s not difficult to understand, and is straightforward, without mumbo jumbo jargon.

28 USC 455: Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
Text contains those laws in effect on October 12, 2020

From Title 28-JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART I-ORGANIZATION OF COURTS
CHAPTER 21-GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO COURTS AND JUDGES

Jump To:
Source Credit
Amendments
Change of Name
Effective Date

§455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as

Day 1: Judge Amy Coney Barrett Brings 6 Little Human Shields To Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing

––Day 1: Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing: Blumenthal Urges Barrett To Recuse From Cases Involving Election––

Perhaps you’ve read, and therefore know, my earlier opinion on that matter.

I have also said that she should recuse herself, because he and his campaign are PLANNING on a Supreme Court fight in the course of this election – much WORSE than Bush v Gore, which will make that case look like a cakewalk. And, the President is COUNTING ON HER SUPPORT.

He has said as much:

“We need 9 justices. You need that. With the unsolicited millions of ballots that they’re sending, it’s a scam; it’s a hoax. Everybody knows that. And the Democrats know it better than anybody else. So you’re going to need 9 justices up there. I think it’s going to be very important. Because what they’re doing is a hoax, with the ballots. I think this will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think it’s very important that we have 9 justices. I think it’s better if you go before the election because I think this scam that the Democrats are pulling, it’s a scam, this scam will be before the United States Supreme Court. And I think having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation. If you get that. I don’t know that you’d get that. I think it should be 8-to-nothing or 9-to-nothing, but just in case it would be more political than it should be.”

(Hearing him talk is like listening to the idiotic babbling of a toddler – incessantly repeating himself.)

He is suborning her prejudicial support of his court case. That is a corrupt practice, not only for an independent judiciary, but for the Office of the President.

Precedent for recusal could be found in

Why Amy Coney Barrett Is Unqualified

True to form, radicalized, far right-wing political extremists are portraying Judge A.C. Barrett as a victim. The “poor, pitiful me” routine has taken hold in the GOP, Tea Party and other such ilk. Self loathing has never been more popular, it seems. But it does seem rather peculiar that it should find residence in the right, when for years we’ve been told that it is the political left who are such whiners and crybabies.

Aaaah… the political hypocrisy! You can smell the stench of its cooking all the way from the banks of the Potomac in Washington, D.C.

And the blindly vicious ambition! Its unmitigated violence permeates the miasmatic ether surrounding the city, all the way to the Chesapeake Bay, and beyond.

They’re both forms of pollution which Congress continues to ignore, and which are far more damaging than even dirty water, or air. For their poison, while not permanent like PFOS or PFAS, the man-made “forever chemicals” used in making non-stick coatings which are found even in newborns’ blood, there are few, if any, filters to remove such contaminants from the necessary processes we employ to govern ourselves.

While “organic,” such contaminants are far from resembling a healthy backyard compost pile where grass clippings, leaves, eggshells, coffee grounds, vegetable peelings, and other such items begin their transformation process to become rich humus, fertile soil for vegetable and plant growth. Their forms, while neither ephemeral, nor impermanent, per se, are causative of other illnesses and diseases transmitted even to the 3rd and 4th generations, and beyond – all preventable – and must be guarded against by every generation.

The only difference being, is that disorders caused by those infections are preventable by conscience, not by manufacture. And the inoculation against such infection and affliction is love.

“Contrary to the impression many have of Barrett, what is most striking about her record is not the looming specter of theocracy, but her enduring opposition to what many Christians believe justice and mercy demand, presented under the aspect of originalism — an ersatz catechism, written in the pages of her judicial opinions, that fuses the political aims of the religious right with the constitutional theories of the late Antonin Scalia.”

There is NO “war” against religious faith in this nation, nor has there ever been. Neither has there ever been any alleged “war against Christmas” by our government, nor by its elected officials and administrators… like Federal judges, and other lifetime appointees. Although, it is curious how an officially non-sectarian, non-religious government sponsors a Federal holiday acknowledging a deity, thereby giving deference, homage and support to the same.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Rather, our Founders, not all of whom were religious-minded, were cognizant of others’ desires to express themselves through the practice of a privately-held conviction of faith – if they so chose – collectively and individually, according to the dictates of their conscience, and allowed to the greatest extent possible the practice of the same, without impingement upon the practices of government, and without obtruding upon others, who might, or not, agree with them. The Founders thought that aspect of individual liberty was so inherent, so inviolable, so sacrosanct to the public good, that they ensconced it, along with a few others, and made it and them First, and foremost among all others which followed.

Our fundamental foundational governing document, the Constitution, ensures and guarantees rights to