President Donald Trump on Saturday announced his nomination of federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court to fill the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Barrett was selected from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is believed to be a top candidate.
Right on cue, Democrats roll out the “working moms who go to church and Bible study are weird” platform.
So, media outlets have begun digging into her background, many of them with the intent of finding unfavorable information about the woman who could become President Donald Trump’s third Supreme Court appointment of his first term. Barrett’s Catholic faith has been a primary focus.
Newsweek published an article that claimed in the headline that a Catholic group Barrett is a member of was the inspiration for “The Handmaid’s Tale,” a novel by Margaret Atwood that was recently made into a television show. This is not true, and Newsweek had to issue a correction.
“Correction: This article’s headline originally stated that People of Praise inspired ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’. The book’s author, Margaret Atwood, has never specifically mentioned the group as being the inspiration for her work,” the correction read.
Note: I can’t say I’m an expert on the Handmaid’s Tale. Does the plot involve a woman graduating from law school, getting high-powered clerkships, becoming a highly regarded law professor and jurist, then possibly ascending to the highest court in the land?
The whole thing made Democrats seem dumber than usual. Amy Coney Barrett’s Catholic group that referred to women members as “handmaids” refers to the Annunciation in Luke’s Gospel. In the passage, where Mary is told she will be bearing Jesus Christ, Mary signals her submission to the will of God and says: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.”
The passage is about faith and obedience to God, not sexism. Besides, the group dropped the use of the word “handmaid” anyway. Not because it was wrong, but because, like abortion, the group knew it was hopeless to expect secularists to understand.
There are 51 million Catholics in the United States.
Ray Otton says
Personally, I think it’s a great line of attack. Throw in a few smears about her adopting a couple of Haitian kids and it’s a winning strategy…………………no , really.
Scotiagirl says
There are already 5 Catholics on the US Supreme Court, Barret will bring the number to 6 when confirmed. Pelosi and Biden are also Catholic. What is the big deal?
Ray Otton says
Well, they can’t go with rapist, so, you know, run with what ya’ got.
I think the shock over how the Kavanaugh hearings blew up gave them amnesia, ‘cuz they’re about to repeat the whole exercise again.
It’s gonna be GREAT. I tell ya.
Stuart Bell says
How could you be a catholic and believe it is ok to murder babies? Thou shalt not kill is simple. There are estimated 1,000,000,000 Roman Catholics in the world, all who believe that Mary is able to give salvation, that the Seven-Sacraments are essential to salvation, that the pope speaks for God upon the earth, that the priest has power to forgive men’s sins, and that good works can get them into Heaven. What a bunch of satanism! The Bible teaches that we are saved solely by Christ’s righteousness, which is through faith in His precious literal, physical, blood that washes our sins away (1st Peter 1:18-19; Hebrews 9:12,24; Revelation 1:5; Romans 3:25).
MJM says
It is illegal in the U.S.A. to keep anyone from getting a job with your decision being based on age or religion. Job applications no longer ask for your birthdate when you apply. The application just goes to the next question which is “Where and when did you go to High School and graduate?” So they get around the age question directly but still determine darn near exactly what your age is.
Religion ? You are correct Scotiagirl, there isn’t and should not be any big deal about a Catholic on The Court. Yet the democratic coalition of Senators is expected to attack this nominee all around her religion but not her religion directly. A veiled threat is a very dangerous situation in a court room, and a veiled attack in these hearings should also be looked up in the same way, in my not so humble opinion. We shall see what will happen. When it comes to accountability I like to give everyone just enough rope get all hands working together, or just enough to hang themselves.
From what I am hearing of this nominee, her scholastic achievements, her insight, her balanced methods of determining decisions and her pleasant professional demeanor just make her an extraordinary jurist. Then there is the other side of her, where she has the talent and reaction times to mother 7 kids through this world in her van in what I understand is also with extraordinary direction, insight and motherly love. I have a feeling that anyone who unfairly attacks her for decisions she makes for families or worship will publicly discover they have a tiger by the tail, and I look forward to the way that she snarls back.
RM says
This extraordinary judge’s achievement is in the top .00000001% of United States citizens and should be cherished!!
The demise of those that denigrate her will not cause any sorrow.
Ray Otton says
One correction MJM.
They are in no way veiled attacks. They are blatant attacks and they are going to blow up in they’re pinched little faces big time.
It will be GLORIOUS and it couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch.
RM says
This extraordinary judge’s achievement is in the top .00000001% of United States citizens and she should be cherished!!
The demise of those that denigrate her will not cause any sorrow.
Ray Otton says
Now do Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman on the SC…………..and a Republican.
This extraordinary judge’s achievement is in the top .00000001% of United States citizens and she should be cherished too, or does the fact that she doesn’t fit the narrative negate her extraordinary accomplishments?
Also
“The demise of those that denigrate her will not cause any sorrow.”…………………is that a death wish for those who don’t think the same way you do?
Bruce Gittinger says
Jesus taught love and compassion, truth and justice. The fruits of the spirit are love joy peace patience kindness gentleness and self-control. To which of these characteristics of devout Christians do Democrats and progressives object?
MJM says
The ones where Jesus throws the democrats out of the temple for grabbing a handful from the collection plate.
Paul Plante says
For which a howling mob of them turned around and hung his *** from a tree.
Ray otton says
“To which of these characteristics of devout Christians do Democrats and progressives object?”
Democrats and progressives reject the Christian belief that life begins at conception.
We really don’t need to discuss other rejections of devout Christian faith, this one will do fine.
Sorin Varzaru says
“Democrats and progressives reject the Christian belief that life begins at conception.”
I can’t speak for other people, but in my case my problem is not what you choose to believe, it’s that you are trying to impose your beliefs on people who don’t share them. I know of no systemic issue of Democrats forcing people to have abortions. if you believe that a fertilized egg is a person, feel free to treat it as such. Just don’t tell others, who don’t share your BELIEFS what to do.
Paul Plante says
In New York state, Sorin, a truly progressive state that you would love, and in turn, it would greatly love you, you and it being symptico, as it were, on the same wavelength; with respect to murdering children, and you will like this, Sorin, in New York state, thanks to Progressive governor Andy Cuomo, you can kill a new-born as its head is sticking out and it won’t be murder; to the contrary it would be for the good of a society that doesn’t mind murdering children and paying a fee to do so.
Paul Plante says
After requiring all federal and state legislators and officers to swear or affirm to support the federal Constitution, Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
This prohibition, commonly known as the No Religious Test Clause, banned a longstanding form of religious discrimination practiced both in England and in the United States.
In doing so, it provided a limited but enduring textual constitutional commitment to religious liberty and equality that has influenced the way Americans have understood the relationship between government and religion over the last two centuries.
Supporters of the Constitution defended the prohibition against test oaths as advancing religious freedom and protecting less politically powerful faiths against discrimination.
They also argued that laws requiring religious tests were futile.
Men without principles would easily evade the laws’ purpose through sham compliance while honest men who followed the dictates of their conscience would be barred from office.
As is true of virtually all constitutional provisions, the No Religious Test Clause in Article VI only restricts governmental action.
Private citizens do not violate the Constitution if they vote against a political candidate because of his or her religion.
A harder question, which has provoked considerable contemporary debate, is whether the Clause extends beyond a ban against oaths and prohibits government officials from taking the religious views of an individual into account in selecting or confirming that individual for a federal position—such as an appointment to the Supreme Court.
Madam X says
Mr. Gittinger, you are using a wide brush with your question and I find it accusatory.
Bruce Gittinger says
It is an honest question. How much broader can you get than to object to someone’s Christian faith. My question stands.
Stuart Bell says
You better go check with the black community leaders and see what they think…
Stuart Bell says
What makes you think he or anyone else really cares what you, who uses a fake moniker, thinks is accusatory?
Now don’t respond all at once with a typical knee jerk answer. Think before you type, I want an honest answer.
Paul Plante says
And talk about somebody spouting irresponsible and ignorant gibberish and sounding like the witless fool she really is in doing so, we have this prime example, to wit:
“President Trump and his party and Judge Barrett will overturn the Affordable Care Act.”
“And they won’t stop there.”
“They have made clear that they want to overturn Roe vs. Wade and restrict reproductive rights and freedoms.”
That spew of ignorant and mindless gibberish is pouring forth from out the mouth of none other than Democratic vice-presidential nominee Karmela Harris, who herself claims to be a lawyer, albeit a very stupid one, given that Trump and his party and Judge Barrett are incapable of overturning anything.
If Judge Barrett is going to get a chance to overturn anything, there must first be a case put before her, which she has no control over happening, given she can’t bring a suit herself and then decide on it exclusive of the other members of the Supreme Court, who again she has no control over.
So why is Karmela spewing this ignorant BULL****, other than she is nothing more than a stupid, ignorant Democrat?
tokenny says
“And talk about somebody spouting irresponsible and ignorant gibberish .. take a look in the mirror – it’s on the Court docket for November
Paul Plante says
Karmela Harris sounds hysterical and literally out of her mind when I heard her on the radio news this morning going off about how this new judge who isn’t even on the Supreme court is going to vote for anything, as if Karmela, who sounds like a dangerous lunatic not in possession of her wits, is going to vote for anything.
You like dangerous lunatics, tokenny, not so myself.
Paul Plante says
Said another simpler way, tokenny, the hysterical Karmela Harris has no more idea than does the man in the moon how any judge is going to vote on anything and as a vice presidential candidate she should not be spewing ignorant hysterical BULL***** pretending that she does know.
Paul Plante says
If Karmela Harris really wanted to go after a judge who clearly does not belong on the United States Supreme Court, that judge’s name is one you know well, tokenny – Sonia Sotomayor:
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/op-ed-should-sonia-sotomayor-resign-in-disgrace/#comment-77384
Talk about our rights as a free people being in the hands of a tyrant or despot, those hands are hers!
MJM says
Well this is an opinion forum, so I care what everyone has to say as long as they present it in a manner of discussion rather than insulting.
As far as someone’s opinion not being appreciated because it is incognito, obviously I don’t think that makes any (my) opinion less valid. Many famous writers with many wonderful things to say have used pen names. I’d say Mark Twain is a perfect example, and with how many books he’s sold, I’d say it’s been quite proven that many agree.
In the meantime, to further cement my not so humble opinion, anyone please google the phrase “Jesus throws the mob from the temple”. The explanation that wikepedia and others quickly give to one and all that it wasn’t money being taken. My previous mention was a simple quickie reference. It was the type of business being conducted and how much of it was harming others, like the widows, the poor, and the downtrodden of the temple.
Commerce was being conducted that was shaky and harmful. The weaker in the congregation were being harmed. The needy who were doing good work were being harmed and bullied.
I think that gives MadamX my explanation of whom the democrat party is harming. They are not helping Senator Scott and Pres. Trump create even more wonderful opportunity zones in this country. Prior to the chinese virus being deliberately introduced to try to kill the world, our economy was the best it has ever been for the minorities in this country. The median income for blacks and latinos had never been better. As well as the employment rate.
THAT is what I don’t like about Joe Biden. He’s been there for 47 years and never did that. He wants to go back to doing things his way and keep people poor. Mr. Trump is giving the downtrodden opportunities. Ask and listen to Kim Klacik and Candace Owens.
Here comes your choice to keep the same ol same ol, or to continue going in a better direction. We can’t be afraid of positive change or of bucking against a terrible system that has never done what it said it would.
Trump Jr. in 24 !