++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have not commented on the Barrett Hearings but it should be obvious she is a classy, brilliant candidate and those attacking her or trying to trap her into answering inappropriate questions are low life's.
It is also obvious, they are more interested in campaigning than engaging in their true responsibility of "advise and consent."
This mother of seven is imminently qualified.
A second comment is those engaged in haranguing her are doing so because, they claim, she will change the direction SCOTUS. In other words, the court liberals will no longer be able to legislate through SCOTUS and may have to take a back seat. Tsk, tsk. When radical liberal Democrats do not get their way they show their true selves. They become nasty, resort to character assassination and pout like infantile's.
The third comment is, Democrats line up and belch alike and are willing to get down in the gutter and fight. Republicans are too patrician and independent. This is why Trump has been effective. He announces what he intends to do, proceeds to do his best to achieve it and thus, sets the tone of the debate which is fought on his philosophical turf. He often harms his own cause with unnecessary nastiness driven by his narcissism.
History, will show him to be one of the most effective presidents in recent history. His re-election is critical considering the pathetic state of the radicalized opposition and their, equally pathetic, chosen candidates.
My fourth comment relates to the fear tactics by Democrats, Barrett will vote to over-rule Obama Care. Even if she does, a new healthcare program will follow and incorporate changes that are positive. This needs to be said by Sen. Graham.
Trump has already outlined the structure of a new health care bill.
Female Senator's Klobuchar, Hirono and Feinstein have made fools of themselves and on the male side we have Booker, Coons, Durbin, Whitehouse and Blumenthal. They resemble "zombies."
And:
Amy Barrett threatens those who might be returning to religion since faith in everything else used to supplant it has failed. Are the '60's beginning to wear thin? Does America finally have its own Joan de' Arc?
Amy Coney Barrett’s Christian Religiosity
Sen. Dianne Feinstein was onto something worth talking about when she said, ‘The dogma lives loudly within you.’
Sen. Dianne Feinstein won’t ever repeat the phrase she made famous during Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s 2017 appeals-court confirmation hearing: “The dogma lives loudly within you.” That is a line worthy of a great drama, such as Robert Bolt’s “A Man for All Seasons.” It will remain the most memorable thing Sen. Feinstein ever said. And it should. The dogma lives loudly within you.
Though not even Sens. Mazie Hirono and Dick Durbin will revive their antique Catholic stereotypes so close to a national election, Mrs. Feinstein was onto something worth more discussion.Clearly the senator was struck that sitting before her was a relatively young woman of authentic and deep religious conviction. If this were the 1940s or ’50s, that would have passed unnoticed. Not now.
This week, the New York Times published an article by three cultural anthropologists (identified as reporters) who were sent to the Midwest and South to discover the origins of Judge Barrett’s religious belief.
Days earlier, another excavation team from the Washington Post produced a similar piece, called “Amy Coney Barrett served as a ‘handmaid’ in Christian group People of Praise.” By the Post’s model of journalistic insinuation, People of Praise is about two removes from the Branch Davidian cult.
A Justice Barrett, writes the Times, “will represent a rising conservatism subtly different” from the court’s five other Republican-appointed members. That subtle difference, the paper notes, is her “Christian” conservatism.This by itself is hardly consequential, but the Times writers make clear, repeatedly, that Judge Barrett’s religiosity is . . . well, how can one put this? Let us just say that her religiosity is conveyed as not what one would expect to find in polite company today. At least not theirs.
“Critics” say her life has been spent “in a cocoon of like-minded thinking that in many areas runs counter to the views of a majority of Americans.” For instance, “her family kept expanding, with a new child an average of about every two years.” When Mrs. Barrett got a text message that Justice Antonin Scalia had died, she “was in a church vestibule after Mass in 2016.”
Chasing Christians into the underground went out in the fourth century, but with Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination it has apparently become necessary to revive it in 21st-century America.
This isn’t just about Roe v. Wade. That subject arrives like the rain with every Republican Supreme Court nominee. What is reflected here is the profound incomprehensibility of Amy Coney Barrett to the caretakers of modern culture. There is something about her that is threateningly traditional—the big family, the unapologetic Midwestern wholesomeness, a faith that extends beyond going to church on Sunday to living her religious beliefs each day through People of Praise.
The article in the New York Times, like its companion piece in the Washington Post, is one long dog whistle. Its warning is not about Judge Barrett herself, who will fold into the life of the Supreme Court, but the possibility that others who share or are attracted to her active religiosity might be rising out there in the country to pose a threat to the secular dominance of America’s cultural mores that began some 60 years ago.
The new counter-belief system back then argued that shared community values grounded in religious belief—or virtue of the sort evident in the Barrett family—imposes unnecessary constraints on personal or private behavior.
Why this tension should have divided eventually into liberal versus conservative isn’t immediately obvious. There still are many liberal traditionalists. But it did. So now the possible appearance of a “conservative Christianity” needs to be delegitimized, or canceled, before it spreads. Perhaps it is a sign of the dominant culture’s lack of confidence in the durability of its own value system that its main tool of opposition isn’t argument but suppression and condescension.
Still, under the circumstances one may ask: What has secularist dogma achieved?
The demotion of an actively practiced religion’s self-organizing and self-disciplining function in American life has become a sustained social disaster. Though not intended as a reply to Sen. Feinstein’s concerns about belief, Attorney General William Barr defended the importance to freedom of religious practice in an eloquent 2019 speech at Notre Dame Law School.
This decline was less noticeable so long as public-school teachers still conveyed the basic ABCs of right and wrong. But they stopped doing that, which left . . . nothing. The result is on America’s streets—an increasingly absurd, often destructive chaos of half-formed personal and civic sentiments.
And so with this one person, a nominee to the Supreme Court, we arrive at Sen. Feinstein’s mystified assertion: The dogma lives loudly within you. That is true, senator, with one small edit. Her faith lives strongly within her. How sad if modern liberalism cannot abide the hopeful center of Amy Coney Barrett’s life.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++So much for independent journalism:
NYT’s Peter Beinart Rakes in Six Figures from Anti-Israel Group
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment