14 thoughts on “News/Politics 9-28-20

  1. Nice. 🙂

    Before the election. 🙂


    “Graham hopes his panel will approve Amy Coney Barrett by late October”

    “Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told Fox News Saturday he expects confirmation hearings on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court to start Oct. 12 and for his panel to approve her by Oct. 26.

    Why it matters: That would mean the final confirmation vote could take place on the Senate floor before the Nov. 3 presidential election.

    “Republicans are privately aiming for a late October confirmation vote,” AP notes.”


  2. The NYT thinks a little anti-Catholicism is a good thing.


    “Just hours before Donald Trump will presumably announce his nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, the New York Times pushed out this attempt to rehab attacks on Barrett over her Catholic faith. Give Elizabeth Bruenig this much credit — she manages to front-load the debunking of attacks on Barrett over the false People of Praise/”Handmaid’s Tale” connection. Dianne Feinstein’s comment, “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern,” is called infamous.

    However, all that is mere predicate to declare attacks on Catholicism fair game in a confirmation hearing, because of its “fundamental conflict” with “the American ethos”:

    But the animosity faced by Catholics in today’s America has little in common with its direct predecessor. Real sex-abuse scandals have replaced the imaginary ones circulated in the lurid tracts of yesteryear. White Catholics are no longer subject to the religious bigotry that once animated vicious rumors and, occasionally, violent attacks on Catholics and their places of learning and worship. Rather than regenerating a long-vanquished prejudice, Ms. Barrett’s nomination has merely renewed attention to a fundamental conflict, centuries underway, between Catholicism and the American ethos. …

    Roman Catholicism does not readily distinguish between public and private moral obligations. In the thought of John Locke, one of liberalism’s earliest architects, willingness to make that distinction was critical to participation in a tolerant society. “Basically,” the political theorist Jean Bethke Elshtain wrote in a 1999 essay, “Locke drew up a strong civic map with religion within one sphere and government in another. A person could be a citizen of each so long as that citizen never attempted to merge and blend the two.” Locke notably excluded Catholics from the religions meriting toleration because he suspected they could not be trusted to leave their faith in the appropriate sphere.

    Locke’s concern was not entirely baseless.

    I’ll say it wasn’t, but not in the way Bruenig assumes. Locke lived and worked in a society which actively barred Catholics from openly practicing their faith privately or publicly, and which excluded them from civil rights on that basis. Catholics couldn’t even vote, let alone be elected to Parliament, and were barred from many professions. All due respect to Locke’s status as a philosophical giant, but in his time and place it was the Protestants that had a tough time being able to “leave their faith in the appropriate sphere.” In fact, the liberals in Great Britain wouldn’t begin to rectify their anti-Catholic bigotry until well after a century had passed after Locke’s death, and decades after the United States guaranteed freedom of religious expression for all faiths. Locke’s exclusion is a reflection of the bigotry and political animus of his time, not exactly a commendable quality, but one that Bruenig for some reason embraces.

    Bruenig’s arguments suffer in the particulars, not just philosophically. “


  3. CBS is using edited clips to show Barrett saying what she never said. Even the WaPo called them on it.


    “Back in February of 2016, Amy Coney Barrett did an interview with CBS about filling Supreme Court vacancies. The interview was done shortly after Justice Antonin Scalia passed away and Democrats were pushing for Judge Merrick Garland to be confirmed.

    Democrats sliced the clip to make it sound as though Barrett was against filling a vacancy during a presidential election year:

    Here is Judge Amy Coney Barrett explaining why it’s wrong to fill a SCOTUS vacancy during a presidential election year. pic.twitter.com/a5H09OmgsX
    — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) September 26, 2020

    Even the Washington Post concluded that what she was saying was taken out of context. Barrett was explaining that filling Scalia’s seat should wait until after the election because there was a divided government (President Obama in the White House and Republicans controlled the Senate). In other words, Republicans wouldn’t agree to Garland’s confirmation because it was someone Obama put forth.

    The argument Barrett made was simple: replacing Scalia, the Court’s staunch conservative, with a progressive justice isn’t a unilateral move. It changes the court’s makeup. And that’s what people took issue with.

    From WaPo (emphasis mine):

    But the full context of Barrett’s remarks make clear she was saying no such thing. In fact, she was explicitly making a point about how rare such a scenario would be in divided government — a situation we don’t have today, with a president and Senate controlled by the same party.

    Coney noted that the only recent example of a Senate controlled by the opposite party confirming a president’s nominee in a presidential election year was Anthony M. Kennedy — a Ronald Reagan appointee whom the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed in early 1988. That vacancy was different from what was happening in 2016, she noted, because it actually came about in 1987, and the Democratic Senate was replacing a moderate Republican appointee (Lewis F. Powell Jr.) with a moderate Republican appointee.

    “We’re talking about Justice Scalia, the staunchest conservative on the court, and we’re talking about him being replaced by someone who could dramatically flip the balance of power in the court,” Barrett said. “It’s not a lateral move.””


  4. The soon to be confirmed ACB is getting praise from all sides.


    “Like many other liberals, I’m devastated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, which opened the way for President Donald Trump to nominate a third Supreme Court justice in his first term. And I’m revolted by the hypocrisy of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s willingness to confirm Trump’s nominee after refusing to even allow a vote on Judge Merrick Garland.

    Yet these political judgments need to be distinguished from a separate question: what to think about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump has told associates he plans to nominate. And here I want to be extremely clear. Regardless of what you or I may think of the circumstances of this nomination, Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

    I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions. Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them.

    I got to know Barrett more than 20 years ago when we clerked at the Supreme Court during the 1998-99 term. Of the thirty-some clerks that year, all of whom had graduated at the top of their law school classes and done prestigious appellate clerkships before coming to work at the court, Barrett stood out. Measured subjectively and unscientifically by pure legal acumen, she was one of the two strongest lawyers. The other was Jenny Martinez, now dean of the Stanford Law School.

    When assigned to work on an extremely complex, difficult case, especially one involving a hard-to-comprehend statutory scheme, I would first go to Barrett to explain it to me. Then I would go to Martinez to tell me what I should think about it.”

    Liked by 1 person

  5. This would be a way bigger story were the parties reversed.


    “Shocking moment BLM organizer plows her car into crowd of Trump supporters in California and injures two – before she is arrested and charged with attempted murder

    Two Trump supporters were injured on Saturday in Yorba Linda, California, when driver Tatiana Turner, 40, ploughed into the crowd

    Turner, the founder of pro-BLM group Caravan4Justice in Yorba Linda, was arrested a short distance away after she fled the scene and charged with attempted murder

    Car was caught on video accelerating into the crowd of Trump supporters, as an opposing Black Lives Matter demonstration was taking place nearby”


  6. This should be fun.


    “Graham says Andrew McCabe testifying Oct. 6, warns something ‘more damning’ coming amid FISA fallout

    The South Carolina senator warned of a ‘day of reckoning coming'”

    “Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Sunday former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe will testify on Oct. 6, adding that “something else … more damning” is coming amid fallout over the controversial Steele dossier.

    Graham also wants to hear testimony from FBI agent William Barnett, he told “Sunday Morning Futures.” Barnett served on Robert Mueller’s team and said he believed the special counsel’s prosecution of former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn was part of an attitude to “get Trump.”

    “When you look at what Mr. Barnett says and the way they defrauded the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] court, you get a clear picture that these people are on a mission to go after Trump,” Graham said on Sunday. “Can you imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, that if the Republicans had done this? There’s a day of reckoning coming. Just stay tuned, and there’s more coming. There’s something else coming, more damning than this, believe it or not.”


  7. Not a big fan of Rush, but when he’s right, he’s right.


    “RUSH: Folks, I am of the opinion that it looks to me like everybody in that town was colluding with the Russians except for Trump. For crying out loud — and do you know we wouldn’t know what we learned yesterday, last night and today if it weren’t for Judge Emmet Sullivan?

    If Emmet Sullivan hadn’t insisted on this stuff with Lt. General Flynn, then we would not have seen the documents that the FBI tried to hide. They were released some time ago’ now they were demanded to be produced. If it weren’t for the fact that Judge Sullivan can’t wait to put Flynn behind bars (which isn’t gonna happen), we wouldn’t have learned what we now know — and this has been known by so many people for so long.

    Do you know that the people in this investigation actually went out and got liability insurance for themselves because they knew how rotten what they were doing is? They knew that the Mueller team was all about getting Trump? There are two investigators on this team telling each other, “This is not looking good, Jack.” “I know, Fred.” There’s a distinct get Trump attitude with these people.

    The source, folks… Trump was right. Trump has been right about all of this. The source for the Steele dossier… Now, the Steele dossier, remember, there’s not a single thing in it that is true. There’s not an allegation. There’s not an assertion. There’s not a single word in it that is true. It is literally made up. The source for the Steele dossier was investigated by the FBI for being an asset for Russia.

    The guy had contacts in Russia. Trump has been right about this from the get-go. The FBI knew the Steele dossier was bogus. They knew there was nothing to it. They still went and got FISA warrants. But what this news is today, is the sub-source — which really is not the deal. He’s the primary source. This guy’s actually the primary source. This is the guy that fed Steele the BS. So in a way, he’s actually the primary source.

    They call him the sub-source because Steele’s name is on the dossier, so he is presumed to be the primary source. But he was fed this stuff by a Russian agent, a Russian asset. Folks, this is… It really is, even though it’s kind of an in-the-weeds thing to try to explain but I’m gonna give it my best shot here. It really is a bombshell of a report.

    Christopher Steele’s “main source was the subject of a two-year FBI investigation between 2009 and 2011 under suspicion of being a Russian spy and a threat to American national security.” Obama knew it, everybody knew it, and yet they used this guy when he became the source for Steele in the Steele dossier. The FBI says that this source “had previously contact with the Russian embassy and Russian intelligence officers.”

    We know the name of the sub-source thanks to Paul Sperry — and we know that he for a time wondering in a Democrat think tank, the Brookings Institution, or Institute. The FBI knew about this investigation into the Russian spy, 2009 to 2011. The FBI knew about this investigation into the source in December of 2016. It knew!

    The FBI knew they were relying on information from a suspected Russian spy.”


    And these hacks ran with it anyway.


  8. More bad news for Biden…. 🙂


    “Trump Surging With Hispanic and Black Voters In Critical States”

    “Joe Biden has a problem. Actually, he has a few problems. Recent polling shows that Donald Trump is running much stronger with Hispanics and black voters than he did in 2016. Those are demographic groups that Biden needs to win big if he has any hope of winning the election. If Trump’s strength with these voters continues, it will doom Biden and lead to a second Trump term.

    In Florida, an NBC/Marist poll conducted earlier this month showed President Trump with 50 percent of the Hispanic vote to Biden’s 46 percent. In 2016, Clinton won 62 percent of Hispanics compared to 35 percent for Trump. Trump is also outperforming 2016 with black Floridians. The same poll shows him with 11 percent support compared to 8 percent in the last election. If those numbers hold, Florida is simply unwinnable for Biden.

    Polling in other states tells a similar story. A poll of 750 likely voters conducted for the Center for American Greatness in Nevada by Pulse Opinion shows Biden leading Trump by just a single point (49 percent to 48 percent). As in Florida, Trump is running strong with Hispanics, getting 47 percent support to Biden’s 49 percent.

    For comparison, Trump got 29 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2016 to Hillary Clinton’s 60 percent. The poll also shows Trump with 41 percent of the black vote. Interestingly, he also ran stronger among bin Nevada in 2016 than he did nationally, so this is a continuation of that trend.

    The Nevada survey also shows Trump with a slightly higher favorability rating compared to Biden (48 percent versus 46 percent) which undercuts the narrative that this is a race between a likable Biden and an unlikable Trump. This despite the constant drubbing Trump takes from elite media and the concomitant puffing of Biden.”


  9. Ah yes…. the old double standard….



  10. A religious person who believes the bible and church’s teachings…

    Oh…. the horror…. 🙄



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.