Loading...
Title : "Having Barrett replace Ginsberg because they are women is like having Clarence Thomas replace Thurgood Marshall because they're black."
link : "Having Barrett replace Ginsberg because they are women is like having Clarence Thomas replace Thurgood Marshall because they're black."
"Having Barrett replace Ginsberg because they are women is like having Clarence Thomas replace Thurgood Marshall because they're black."
Top-rated comment on "Who is Amy Coney Barrett, the judge at the top of Trump’s list to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg?" (WaPo).From the article:
A devout Catholic who is fervently antiabortion, Barrett appeals to Trump’s conservative base. But Republicans also hope that for moderates such as Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), her gender makes her a more palatable replacement for Ginsburg, a feminist icon who spent her life fighting for gender equality....That links to a September 7, 2017 WaPo article "Did Dianne Feinstein accuse a judicial nominee of being too Christian?"
Trump first nominated Barrett to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in 2017. Previously, she’d taught law at the University of Notre Dame for 15 years, so she had no previous judicial record to scrutinize. Democrats balked at her nomination, questioning whether the academic could be an impartial arbiter because of her deep religious convictions. Republicans accused Democrats of applying a religious test in their questioning.
Amy Barrett... has spoken often of her Catholic faith and drawn opposition from liberal groups, which argue that she'd place it above the law. Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, echoed those concerns Wednesday at a confirmation hearing, telling Barrett that “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern …”I blogged about that at the time, here. Excerpt:
Is "dogma" a dog whistle, expressive of anti-Catholic bias or does it aptly characterize a person with fixed beliefs that interfere with understanding law in a properly judicial way?... We're being asked to rely on the decisions that will come from the mind of this nominee. That mind must be tested, and it can't be tested enough. There are all sorts of biases and disabilities within any human mind, and the hearings can do very little to expose the limitations of an intelligent, well-prepared nominee....ADDED: Is it too late to be annoyed by the use of "they" in the quote in the post title? Also let me remind you of what Thurgood Thurgood Marshall said as he was retiring from the Court, before Clarence Thomas was nominated:
A nominee with a mind entirely devoted to religion and intending to use her position as a judge to further the principles of her religion should be voted down just like a candidate who revealed that he'd go by "what decision in a case was most likely to advance the cause of socialism."
I'd like to think that a religious person has a strong moral core that would preclude that kind of dishonesty, but we're not required to give religious nominees a pass and presume they're more honest than nominees who are not religious devotees. That would be religious discrimination!
Q: Do you think President Bush has any kind of an obligation to name a minority justice in your place?
Thurgood Marshall: What?
Q: Do you think President Bush has any kind of an obligation to name a minority candidate for your job?
Thurgood Marshall: I don't think that that should be a ploy, and I don't think it should be used as an excuse one way or the other.
Q: An excuse for what, Justice?
Thurgood Marshall: Doing wrong. I mean for picking the wrong Negro and saying "I'm picking him because he is a Negro." I am opposed to that. My dad told me way back that you can't use race. For example, there's no difference between a white snake and black snake, they'll both bite. So I don't want to use race as an excuse.
Loading...
Top-rated comment on "Who is Amy Coney Barrett, the judge at the top of Trump’s list to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg?" (WaPo).
From the article:
From the article:
A devout Catholic who is fervently antiabortion, Barrett appeals to Trump’s conservative base. But Republicans also hope that for moderates such as Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), her gender makes her a more palatable replacement for Ginsburg, a feminist icon who spent her life fighting for gender equality....That links to a September 7, 2017 WaPo article "Did Dianne Feinstein accuse a judicial nominee of being too Christian?"
Trump first nominated Barrett to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in 2017. Previously, she’d taught law at the University of Notre Dame for 15 years, so she had no previous judicial record to scrutinize. Democrats balked at her nomination, questioning whether the academic could be an impartial arbiter because of her deep religious convictions. Republicans accused Democrats of applying a religious test in their questioning.
Amy Barrett... has spoken often of her Catholic faith and drawn opposition from liberal groups, which argue that she'd place it above the law. Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, echoed those concerns Wednesday at a confirmation hearing, telling Barrett that “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern …”I blogged about that at the time, here. Excerpt:
Is "dogma" a dog whistle, expressive of anti-Catholic bias or does it aptly characterize a person with fixed beliefs that interfere with understanding law in a properly judicial way?... We're being asked to rely on the decisions that will come from the mind of this nominee. That mind must be tested, and it can't be tested enough. There are all sorts of biases and disabilities within any human mind, and the hearings can do very little to expose the limitations of an intelligent, well-prepared nominee....ADDED: Is it too late to be annoyed by the use of "they" in the quote in the post title? Also let me remind you of what Thurgood Thurgood Marshall said as he was retiring from the Court, before Clarence Thomas was nominated:
A nominee with a mind entirely devoted to religion and intending to use her position as a judge to further the principles of her religion should be voted down just like a candidate who revealed that he'd go by "what decision in a case was most likely to advance the cause of socialism."
I'd like to think that a religious person has a strong moral core that would preclude that kind of dishonesty, but we're not required to give religious nominees a pass and presume they're more honest than nominees who are not religious devotees. That would be religious discrimination!
Q: Do you think President Bush has any kind of an obligation to name a minority justice in your place?
Thurgood Marshall: What?
Q: Do you think President Bush has any kind of an obligation to name a minority candidate for your job?
Thurgood Marshall: I don't think that that should be a ploy, and I don't think it should be used as an excuse one way or the other.
Q: An excuse for what, Justice?
Thurgood Marshall: Doing wrong. I mean for picking the wrong Negro and saying "I'm picking him because he is a Negro." I am opposed to that. My dad told me way back that you can't use race. For example, there's no difference between a white snake and black snake, they'll both bite. So I don't want to use race as an excuse.
Thus articles "Having Barrett replace Ginsberg because they are women is like having Clarence Thomas replace Thurgood Marshall because they're black."
that is all articles "Having Barrett replace Ginsberg because they are women is like having Clarence Thomas replace Thurgood Marshall because they're black." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article "Having Barrett replace Ginsberg because they are women is like having Clarence Thomas replace Thurgood Marshall because they're black." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2020/09/having-barrett-replace-ginsberg-because.html
0 Response to ""Having Barrett replace Ginsberg because they are women is like having Clarence Thomas replace Thurgood Marshall because they're black.""
Post a Comment