All Things SCOTUS

[loomis41973]

July 9th.

 

[Irish YJ]

July 9th.

I'm guessing Trump feels confident after meetings with Collins and Murkowski if he's putting a quick date out there. MSNBC actually had a pretty good segment on the seats that could vote against party lines on both sides. With McCain potentially sidelined, it was an interesting take. I think Trump is smart enough to check his boxes with Collins and Murkowski, while also applying pressure to folks like Donnelly.

 

[Irish YJ]

'We're Looking at the Destruction of the Constitution': Kamala Harris Rips Trump's Potential SCOTUS Picks | Fox News Insider

TDS in high gear. Destructed because they are not picking.... They'd be doing a victory dance if they were in the same position....

 

[Irish YJ]

Collins: Won't support SCOTUS pick hostile to abortion rights
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/01/politics/susan-collins-supreme-court/index.html

Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.

"I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."

Collins said when she met with President Donald Trump to discuss the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, she encouraged Trump "to broaden his list beyond" his standing list of 25 potential choices.

 

[wizards8507]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">He'll choose Kavanaugh if he goes the central-casting/Ivy Leaguer route, and Barrett if he wants to trigger the libs. Edge to Barrett. <a href="https://t.co/AV5f1myLt6">https://t.co/AV5f1myLt6</a></p>— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) <a href="https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/1013784798349987840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

What would Barrett's confirmation mean for Notre Dame's law school?

 

[ab2cmiller]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">He'll choose Kavanaugh if he goes the central-casting/Ivy Leaguer route, and Barrett if he wants to trigger the libs. Edge to Barrett. <a href="https://t.co/AV5f1myLt6">https://t.co/AV5f1myLt6</a></p>— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) <a href="https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/1013784798349987840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

What would Barrett's confirmation mean for Notre Dame's law school?

Probably all kinds of threats from Maxine Waters .... No Italics.

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The group in question is <br>T H E<br>R O M A N <br>C A T H O L I C<br>C H U R CH <br><br>OMG <a href="https://t.co/IHo48cUgOL">pic.twitter.com/IHo48cUgOL</a></p>— ❤️ Jayvie ❤️ (@OneFineJay) <a href="https://twitter.com/OneFineJay/status/1013624785937489920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[domer13]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The group in question is <br>T H E<br>R O M A N <br>C A T H O L I C<br>C H U R CH <br><br>OMG <a href="https://t.co/IHo48cUgOL">pic.twitter.com/IHo48cUgOL</a></p>— ❤️ Jayvie ❤️ (@OneFineJay) <a href="https://twitter.com/OneFineJay/status/1013624785937489920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

From the article mentioned, the group in question is actually an ecumenical, charismatic Christian group called the People of Praise.

 

[Irish YJ]

Donald Trump's dream casting for America's next SCOTUS justice: Amy Coney Barrett
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/02/politics/scotus-amy-coney-barrett-donald-trump/index.html

For Donald Trump, image is everything.

How you look is a major marker for how you will do in Trump's world. You need to look the part for him to imagine you in the job. Your personal story has to stand out in the crowd.

"Presentation is very important because you're representing America not only on the national stage but also the international stage, depending on the position," Jason Milller, a spokesman for the Trump transition, told The Washington Post way back in December 2016. Wrote WaPo's Philip Rucker and Karen Tumulty:

"To lead the Pentagon, Trump chose a rugged combat general, whom he compares to a historic one. At the United Nations, his ambassador will be a poised and elegant Indian American with a compelling immigrant backstory. As secretary of state, Trump tapped a neophyte to international diplomacy, but one whose silvery hair and boardroom bearing project authority."

That "central casting" view of the world goes for reality TV contestants, Cabinet picks and, yes, likely even Supreme Court justices.

By that logic, Trump's pick to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy -- which he is set to announce July 9 -- is simple. It's Amy Coney Barrett.

Coney Barrett is, among other things:
A woman
A mother of seven
Young (in her mid-40s)
A person of faith
Reliably conservative, particularly on social issues

This, from CNN's Jeff Zeleny, speak to the casting-call nature of Trump's search:
"President Trump is increasingly intrigued about selecting the first female conservative Supreme Court justice, people familiar with the search say, repeatedly telling advisers that he likes the idea of making such a historic choice in a climate where women on the other side of the political aisle are playing such a pivotal role. ...'Can you imagine?' the president said with a smile during a conversation about the prospect of selecting a woman for the pivotal spot on the court."

If you combine Trump's love for making history (everything is record-setting or never been done before) with his emphasis on appearance (the next SCOTUS nominee has to have immaculate academic credentials, yes, but also, the robe simply has to look like she -- or he -- was born to wear it) then there is a big, flashing red arrow pointing at Coney Barrett.

Trump allies are insisting that he is poring over past decisions, judicial philosophies and the like in making the decision -- as this Bloomberg piece illustrates -- but if past is prologue, he will make a decision primarily on his gut, and his gut tends to be largely informed by the look of things.

That doesn't mean, however, that picking Coney Barrett would be without some strategic side benefits. The largest of those is the fact that she was confirmed by the Senate to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2017. She received 55 votes, including from Democrats Joe Manchin (West Virginia), Joe Donnelly (Indiana) and Tim Kaine (Virginia) as well as several moderate Republicans like Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).

While that group could make the argument that the Supreme Court is different than a Court of Appeals, it's a tough political position to be in given their past support. And a Coney Barrett nomination could also make life difficult for the likes of Democratic Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota) and Claire McCaskill (Missouri), both of whom are running for reelection in states that Trump won by double digits in 2016.

In short: The Coney Barrett pick makes a whole lot of sense. (Maybe too much sense for someone who loves the expectation-upsetting swerve of a mid-season surprise...)

 

[wizards8507]

Coney Barrett is, among other things:
A woman
A mother of seven
Young (in her mid-40s)
A person of faith
Reliably conservative, particularly on social issues

Nominating a charismatic, honorable, and eminently qualified justice... to own the libs.

 

[wizards8507]

Justice Barrett Twitter is lit rn.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Dragging Amy Barrett for her Christian faith is 1) unconstitutional if used as a religious test for office; 2) ignorant; and 3) often malicious and bigoted. She lives a life very similar to the lives of millions of her fellow citizens: <a href="https://t.co/p1Vu8Z3fvo">https://t.co/p1Vu8Z3fvo</a></p>— David French (@DavidAFrench) <a href="https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1013888289659654145?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The attacks on Amy Barrett due to her Catholicism are ... going to get her nominated.</p>— Jack Goldsmith (@jacklgoldsmith) <a href="https://twitter.com/jacklgoldsmith/status/1013874800832507905?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Honestly I just want Trump to nominate Barrett because I've waited my whole career for my firsthand knowledge of charismatic Catholicism to be relevant to a Supreme Court nomination.</p>— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) <a href="https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/1013895580798652416?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Amy Coney Barrett is a woman any normal human being would dive into a spray of bullets to save. She is noble, smart, and loving. Awesome scholar, devoted mother. The effort to paint her faith as outré is bizarre.</p>— William Dailey, CSC (@wrdcsc) <a href="https://twitter.com/wrdcsc/status/1013949224537518081?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 3, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">If the President nominates Judge Amy Coney Barrett and the Democrats attack her religion, Cardinal Dolan will be saying "I told you so" : <a href="https://t.co/eOCzqZQp2X">https://t.co/eOCzqZQp2X</a></p>— Robert P. George (@McCormickProf) <a href="https://twitter.com/McCormickProf/status/1013587459496660992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Another suggestion for what Amy Coney Barrett should wear to her confirmation hearing. <a href="https://t.co/PgDFYxhfms">pic.twitter.com/PgDFYxhfms</a></p>— Kyle Smith (@rkylesmith) <a href="https://twitter.com/rkylesmith/status/1013943702757298177?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 3, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">For those who don’t look past the tweet, it also doesn’t hurt that Judge Barrett:<br><br>✅Edited ND Law Review<br>✅Clerked at appellate level <br>✅Clerked for Scalia<br>✅Taught ND Law<br>✅Serves on 7th Circ.<br>✅Weathered religious bigotry last confirmation masterfully <a href="https://t.co/PE1ZXLbmrw">https://t.co/PE1ZXLbmrw</a></p>— Senator Hatch Office (@senorrinhatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/senorrinhatch/status/1013926396295503872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">If you believe Trump makes decisions based on image and appearance (and he does), then here's the next Supreme Court Justice<a href="https://t.co/GRVrVkrmJF">https://t.co/GRVrVkrmJF</a></p>— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) <a href="https://twitter.com/CillizzaCNN/status/1013878863410155522?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irish YJ]

Nominating a charismatic, honorable, and eminently qualified justice... to own the libs.

Yup... I liked the last part of the article best, about those who already approved her once...

That doesn't mean, however, that picking Coney Barrett would be without some strategic side benefits. The largest of those is the fact that she was confirmed by the Senate to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2017. She received 55 votes, including from Democrats Joe Manchin (West Virginia), Joe Donnelly (Indiana) and Tim Kaine (Virginia) as well as several moderate Republicans like Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).

While that group could make the argument that the Supreme Court is different than a Court of Appeals, it's a tough political position to be in given their past support. And a Coney Barrett nomination could also make life difficult for the likes of Democratic Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota) and Claire McCaskill (Missouri), both of whom are running for reelection in states that Trump won by double digits in 2016.

In short: The Coney Barrett pick makes a whole lot of sense. (Maybe too much sense for someone who loves the expectation-upsetting swerve of a mid-season surprise...)

 

[Armyirish47]

Yup... I liked the last part of the article best, about those who already approved her once...

Just like Merrick Garland who breezed through!

 

[Irish YJ]

Just like Merrick Garland who breezed through!

It will be interesting. It's going to be hard for those who already approved her, to not approve here. I'm sure some will. It will also be interesting how those female senators treat her. Never a dull moment.

 

[wizards8507]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We're very likely to lose Roe Vs. Wade. Some men may think that doesn't concern them. Make it.<br><br>If you're single and dating, add a &#55357;&#56425;*⚖️ emoji to your dating profiles to show people you won't date/sleep with anyone who doesn't support a woman's right to choose.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Lysistrata2018?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Lysistrata2018</a></p>— Jennifer Wright (@JenAshleyWright) <a href="https://twitter.com/JenAshleyWright/status/1013805193547452417?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

These people are so gross, but they may have stumbled into a winning formula here. Let's end abortion and casual sex in one fell swoop.

 

[Irish YJ]

Koon, has the Pope weighed in on SCOTUS candidates yet?

 

[Irish YJ]

fox reporting that the list is now cut to three finalist.

Kavanaugh, Kethledge and Barrett

 

[Irish YJ]

Democrats are furious about Trump and the Supreme Court – They have only Obama to blame
Liz Peek: Democrats are furious about Trump and the Supreme Court – They have only Obama to blame | Fox News

Though they won’t admit it, Democrats are suffering continued fallout from the arrogance of the Obama White House. Liberals are furious that President Trump will have the opportunity to appoint another justice to the Supreme Court, thus cementing a conservative majority for the foreseeable future.

Moreover, liberals are upset that the Trump administration may have convinced Justice Anthony Kennedy to recently announce his retirement, viewing that effort as dirty pool. That Kennedy, age 81, is nobody’s fool – and is unlikely to have been manipulated – appears irrelevant.

The real offense, which actually merits outrage from the left, is that President Obama did not convince liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire during the many years that Democrats controlled the Senate.

Ginsburg is 85. She will surely leave the bench in the next few years, opening up the possibility that the Supreme Court will have an even greater conservative cast – one that might indeed persist for a generation.

Why did President Obama not plan for such a possibility, which would at least have guaranteed four liberal votes on the court? The obvious answer is that he never anticipated that the opportunity would pass.

Even though he received what he called a “shellacking” in the 2010 midterms, and even though the GOP made unprecedented political gains during his tenure, President Obama was always convinced the country was behind him.

As Mara Liasson wrote for NPR in 2016: “During Obama's eight years in office, the Democrats have lost more House, Senate, state legislative and governors seats than under any other president.” She noted that the Obama legacy includes “one huge failure: a diminished Democratic Party.”

In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., invoked the so-called “nuclear option,” discarding traditional filibuster protections for the minority party in favor of requiring only a simple majority to approve judicial and executive branch nominees. He carved out an exception for people put forward for the Supreme Court.

The next year – with CNN describing President Obama as an “unpopular president limping through his second term” – Republicans reclaimed control of the Senate. As a result of that achievement, President Obama’s chances of securing a liberal majority on the high court all but disappeared.

In the spring of 2016, Senate Republicans blocked a vote on Judge Merrick Garland, who President Obama nominated to the Supreme Court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Republicans said the looming election should allow Americans to decide which party’s president could appoint the next Supreme Court justice.

Last year, with partisanship riding high in the Senate, Republicans extended Reid’s majority rule provision to include Supreme Court justices, clearing the path for confirming Judge Neil Gorsuch to become a Supreme Court justice. President Trump’s pick to take Justice Kennedy’s place will have to win a majority of Senate votes, which is no mean task.

Now liberals are anguishing about the potential reversal of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationwide.

Three Republican senators – Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Susan Collins of Maine – have indicated they will not vote for a Supreme Court nominee who suggests he or she might not respect the precedent of earlier rulings allowing abortion. Moreover, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona has not shown up in the Senate since last year because he is being treated for brain cancer, and cannot be counted on to be able to cast a vote.

With the GOP having but a two-vote advantage in the Senate, the path is narrow.

Still, there is little question that the court will likely soon move to the right, and there is little Democrats can do about it.

President Trump has said he will announced his Supreme Court pick Monday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has made it clear he wants to vote on the new nominee this fall.

It was President Obama who left his party in this position. His anti-business agenda was unpopular, but was never revisited. Democrats’ losses over the past decade stemmed in large part from a slow-growth economy that never gained momentum of the sort we have witnessed since the election of President Trump.

Stagnant wages, sluggish job growth and lagging capital investment never prodded President Obama to reach out to the business community or to partner with it in reviving the economy.

The Obama White House could not have imagined President Trump’s plan to lower corporate taxes and ease up on regulations. Even through eight disappointing and costly years of economic underperformance, President Obama seems to have never doubted his policies.

In President Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhode’s book “The World as It Is: a Memoir of the Obama White House,” President Obama asks his aides, after Donald Trump’s election: “What if we were wrong?” It was, as The New York Times noted, a moment of “rare self-doubt.”

President Obama’s destruction of his party has largely been overlooked by Democrats, but his indifference to the future of the Supreme Court is an act of political malpractice impossible to ignore.

Recent Supreme Court rulings have not gone well for Democrats. These include Janus v. AFSCME (the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), which could undermine the influence of public employee unions that generally support Democrats in elections; the upholding of President Trump’s travel ban on countries that pose a national security risk; and the ruling in favor of a baker who refused to produce a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

These decisions and others hint at the influence of the new conservative Supreme Court, and the damage that will done to the progressive movement.

And the retirement of Justice Ginsburg could be next.

 

[connor_in]

Justice Ginsburg bemoans partisan divide in Congress

JERUSALEM (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed hope the traditional "bipartisan spirit" of congressional hearings for judges will once again prevail in Washington, rather than the votes of recent years that have mostly divided along party lines.

Speaking at a Jerusalem cinema on Thursday after the screening of "RBG," the breakout hit documentary about her life and career, Ginsburg said she would not address past or present personnel changes on the court, in apparent reference to Justice Anthony Kennedy's upcoming retirement.

But the liberal icon did bemoan how partisan the process of picking a justice has become.

"I was considered by some a controversial person because of my affiliation with the American Civil Liberties Union," she said about her 1993 confirmation hearings. "There wasn't a single question asked of me during the hearings about my ACLU connections. The vote was 96-3.

"When Justice Breyer was nominated the next year the vote for him was also in the 90s. Since then the Senate has tended to divide along party lines and I think that's unfortunate," she continued. "During my confirmation hearings, perhaps my biggest supporter was Orrin Hatch, the Republican senator from Utah. I hope someday we will get back to the bipartisan spirit prevailing with respect to the confirmation of judges."

Ginsburg is in Israel to receive a lifetime achievement award from the Genesis Prize Foundation, a prominent Jewish organization. The 85-year-old Ginsburg was just the second female Supreme Court justice and often cites her Jewish heritage as a source for her love of learning and sensitivity to the plight of minorities.

"RBG" has added to her unlikely status as pop culture icon, first created by the 2015 book, "Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

The documentary traces her legal work advancing rights for women leading up to her 1993 elevation to the top court, and her role as a justice since — and also touches on the cultural phenomenon that has ensued, including bobblehead dolls, tattoos, T-shirts and coffee mugs bearing her likeness that have become hipster staples. A Hollywood biopic is also slated for release later this year.

As the court's senior liberal justice, Ginsburg spoke warily about a Trump presidency before the 2016 election. "I don't want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs," she said.

She later also apologized for calling President Donald Trump a "faker."

In Jerusalem, she steered clear of any such references, focusing instead on how the court could bring even ideological opposites together. She spoke about her unlikely friendship with the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative stalwart.

"I miss him very much," she said.

Ginsburg appeared in her trademark glasses and ponytail, a blue-and-white shawl draped over her shoulders. With three retired Israeli Supreme Court judges in the audience she spoke about how much progress women have made in her lifetime and how her own Judaism has inspired her sense of justice.

The Genesis Prize Foundation sponsors the annual Genesis Prize, an award informally known as the Jewish Nobel that includes prize money, for which Ginsburg was initially a candidate. Pulling her "pocket constitution" from her bag, she said she could not accept it because it would amount to receiving something from a foreign state. Instead, the former winners of the prize, including former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, actor Michael Douglas, violinist Itzhak Perlman and sculptor Anish Kapoor nominated her for the foundation's first lifetime achievement award.

Ginsburg said she was driven by the Jewish values of pursuing justice and "Tikkun Olam," repairing the world.

"I am a judge, born, raised and proud of being a Jew. The demand for justice, for peace, for enlightenment runs through the entirety of Jewish history and Jewish tradition," she said at her award ceremony. "I hope that in all the years I continue to have the good fortune to serving on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States I will have the strength and courage to remain steadfast in service of that demand."

 

[RDU Irish]

Democrats are furious about Trump and the Supreme Court – They have only Obama to blame
Liz Peek: Democrats are furious about Trump and the Supreme Court – They have only Obama to blame | Fox News

I think the Dems were overconfident Hillary was going to waltz in to the White House and didn't fight the Supreme Court slow play - expecting they would get a more liberal nomination after the election.

Obama isn't the only arrogant one in the party.

 

[Irish YJ]

Justice Ginsburg bemoans partisan divide in Congress

Didn't care for her views, but respect her life and service.
She refused to answer Qs on certain topics during confirmation, which I think we'll see a lot of this round as well.

 

[Irish YJ]

I think the Dems were overconfident Hillary was going to waltz in to the White House and didn't fight the Supreme Court slow play - expecting they would get a more liberal nomination after the election.

Obama isn't the only arrogant one in the party.

Yup on overconfidence, but not sure on their assumption of a more liberal nomination given the Senate makeup. Personally, if I'm the president, anytime a SCOTUS from my party hits 80, I'd be having a conversation.

I also think they should cap age at 80 or 85. And if I'm a SCOTUS and want my values to continue, I'm going to retire if I'm 80 or more if my party is in power just to ensure my views continue.

I'm just happy they misjudged. Hopefully if AB is nominated, they won't go on an anti-Catholic campaign.

 

[Legacy]

Does anyone want to comment on the charismatic covenant community People of Praise?

NOT RELIABLE GUIDES
An analysis of some covenant community structures (nd.edu) (Warning - 152 pp)

Just an excerpt:

Most decisive is that to leave the covenant community is to leave the most real experience of Christian community one has ever known. But even worse, it is to separate oneself from the body of Christ. This is why people who leave these communities are often shunned by other members109 and are spoken of as no longer brothers and sisters in Christ or even no longer Christian. To leave what one has experienced as the body of Christ entails either a complete rethinking of what that body is or an admission of spiritual failure and a consequent acceptance of guilt.

In short, to leave a covenant community is emotionally and intellectually far more difficult than to change colleges or careers or to break a wedding engagement. It is more akin to divorce. The departing member knows that he is leaving not just an organization, but an entire way of life. Having invested himself totally in this life, he faces losing it all, and with it the most powerful experiences of religion he may ever have had.

While I'm at it,

Alumni Lawyers to Fr. Jenkins
DECEMBER 16, 2017

AN OPEN LETTER TO FATHER JENKINS
FROM NOTRE DAME ALUMNI ATTORNEYS (Barrett was not one of a signatories)

 

[Irish YJ]

Christians supporting other Christians regardless of which flavor of Christian they are... Committing to a life of service, and in support of each other.

Meh.

Except the libs will label it as an evil anti abortion cult whom chooses to save life instead of sacrifice it... They will play up the Handmaiden label even though the group was created before the book.

should be another fun liberal shit show...

 

[Irish YJ]

Amy Coney Barrett criticized for ties to People of Praise: A look at the group

Amy Coney Barrett criticized for ties to People of Praise: A look at the group | Fox News

 

[RDU Irish]

Yup on overconfidence, but not sure on their assumption of a more liberal nomination given the Senate makeup. Personally, if I'm the president, anytime a SCOTUS from my party hits 80, I'd be having a conversation.

I also think they should cap age at 80 or 85. And if I'm a SCOTUS and want my values to continue, I'm going to retire if I'm 80 or more if my party is in power just to ensure my views continue.

I'm just happy they misjudged. Hopefully if AB is nominated, they won't go on an anti-Catholic campaign.

But it would be a mandate from the people! Hillary would have had four years to nominate liberal after liberal - not to mention so many Rs would vote for a well credentialed liberal way before any D would break ranks for a more than deserving conservative. You can bet McCain would make the trip for Hillary but not The Don.

And this silly game of "liberal for liberal" and "conservative for conservative" is super weaksauce. Elections have consequences and Dems have been losing them all over the place.

 

[Irish YJ]

But it would be a mandate from the people! Hillary would have had four years to nominate liberal after liberal - not to mention so many Rs would vote for a well credentialed liberal way before any D would break ranks for a more than deserving conservative. You can bet McCain would make the trip for Hillary but not The Don.

And this silly game of "liberal for liberal" and "conservative for conservative" is super weaksauce. Elections have consequences and Dems have been losing them all over the place.

The whole lib for lib and cons for cons is stupid. Perhaps the libs at some point will try and pull an FDR and attempt to increase the number of SCOTUSs to benefit their agenda.

I've seen no peep or comment from McCain's camp, nor any reports on him. That is in itself a little strange to me. Did I miss something?

 

[loomis41973]

Kethledge and Barrett seem to be front runners. Don't count out Mike Lee.



I don't think Kavanaugh is the Trump type.

 

[Sea Turtle]

Kethledge and Barrett seem to be front runners. Don't count out Mike Lee.



I don't think Kavanaugh is the Trump type.

Hopefully Barrett gets it.

 

[loomis41973]

Hopefully Barrett gets it.

Would love to see it.