Paying My Respects to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Page 14 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15123149
Drlee wrote:.

They, however, do not do any of their services in Latin anymore.

Where do you get this stuff?


There are still plenty of Latin mass centers all over the Roman Church's world. I know I could write a book about my personal experiences going to several of them when I was still a ''Roman Catholic''.
#15123154
Drlee wrote:They, however, do not do any of their services in Latin anymore.

The 5:30 service down the street from me is in Latin. It's coming back with the increase in Spanish-speaking attendees. So Latin is the happy compromise for non-Spanish speakers.
#15123156
Drlee wrote:.

Biden is Roman Catholic.



Whaaat?

Catholics DO proselytize. They converted....oh I don't know.....the world. They, however, do not do any of their services in Latin anymore.

Where do you get this stuff?


Biden is a typical Catholic that likely goes to mass on Easter and Xmas Eve.
Withy regards to Latin, you need to get nuance. A large aspect of devout Catholics is tradition. As a Catholic I like to hear Latin every once in a while.

Catholics stop proselytizing a long time ago. That is now the domain of the Protestants and the Mormons.
#15123157
annatar1914 wrote:There are still plenty of Latin mass centers all over the Roman Church's world. I know I could write a book about my personal experiences going to several of them when I was still a ''Roman Catholic''.

Latin used to be the Lingua Franca in Europe. Isaac Newton wrote the Principia in Latin.
Image
#15123161
Julian658 wrote:Latin used to be the Lingua Franca in Europe. Isaac Newton wrote the Principia in Latin.
Image


Yes, it is one of the sacred languages of Christendom , part of the the heritage of the Roman Imperium. I think a good solid education should include learning Latin.
#15123164
And for the schedule going forward:

Barrett confirmation hearings to begin Oct. 12, Graham says

    Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham announced Saturday the confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett will begin Oct. 12.

    “That will be 16 days from nomination,” the South Carolina Republican told Fox News, noting other justices have been confirmed in roughly that amount of time.

    The schedule would set the judge’s confirmation vote before the full U.S. Senate to take place by the end of the month — before the Nov. 3 Election Day.

    Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro asked the chairman about Democrats potentially not showing up to the hearing, but Mr. Graham laughed at the suggestion.

    “It would make them quicker,” Mr. Graham said.

    President Trump officially tapped Judge Barrett earlier on Saturday.

    She’s currently a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and is described as a “textualist” and an “originalist” in the making for her former boss the late Justice Antonio Scalia, for whom she clerked after graduating from law school.
#15123175
Drlee wrote:They, however, do not do any of their services in Latin anymore.

Pope Benedict brought them back as a parish liturgy. Even our small church has services in Latin three or four times a year - A visiting priest comes, specially, to do the honours.

They are treated as an event by the faithful and are very popular.
#15123176
How people can condone these services in Latin is beyond me?

The overwhelming body of evidence points to the fact that if Jesus existed at all, he spoke Greek. His key followers like Paul and Matthew and Cephas had Greek names and the New Testament, supposedly the most holy scriptures ever inspired were written in Greek.
#15123178
Rich wrote:The overwhelming body of evidence points to the fact that...

Latin was the dominant language throughout the western Roman Empire.

In 323AD, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.


:)
#15123182
I'm loving the whole preemptive victomhood narrative from the GOP about how the Dems hate Catholics despite Biden being Catholic and the only Catholic president being Kennedy.

Reactionary thought is all about painting yourself as the victim so you can work the ref and make people feel pity for you until you have enough power to crush them. It's straight up borderline personality disorder made manifest into politics.

I was raised Catholic, and I don't give a shit about your stupid deity. But I know any nominee put forth by the GOP is an insane religious zealot who believes in dumb shit like physically transporting every Jew to Israel just to speed up God destroying the world because then everything will be super great. And that their conception of a perfect afterlife is basically being high as shit on opioids so that you're fine with praising said deity for eternity, but you're not high you're just really into praising a deity as part of his eternal praise choir.

I don't know why people choose to worship insecure demigods but whatever.
#15123217
And as expected, the Left is trying desperately to find something—anything—they can slander Barrett with like they did Kavanaugh. I don’t think this is going to be it, though. “She actually adopted children! Black children! From one of the most poverty-stricken countries in the world! How terrible!”:

Republicans blast left-wing critics questioning Amy Coney Barrett's adoption of Haitian children

    First there was “The Handmaid’s Tale” flap, and now Democratic activists are raising alarm about U.S. District Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s adoption of two children from Haiti.

    Republicans unloaded after Dana Houle, who has worked for both Democratic congressional offices and campaigns, tweeted Friday that he would “love to know which adoption agency Amy Coney Barrett & her husband used to adopt the two children that they brought from Haiti.”

    “So here’s a Q: Does the press even investigate details of Barrett’s adoptions from Haiti?” Houle wrote in a follow-up tweet. “Some adoptions from Haiti were legit. Many were sketchy as hell. And if the press learned they were unethical & maybe illegal adoptions, would they report it? Or not bc it involves her children,” Mr. Houle tweeted.

    The blowback on the right was immediate. “Disgusting,” tweeted Sen. Tom Cotton, Arkansas Republican. “The left now smearing Amy Coney Barrett for adopting children.”

    He added: “It was the most predictable thing in the world that Democrats would attack Amy Coney Barrett’s children.”

    Sen. Josh Hawley, Missouri Republican, called it “the Dem gameplan. Nothing but raw bigotry and hate. I promise you, this will not stand.”

    Another progressive activist, NextGen America managing director John Lee Brougher, raised concerns about the Barretts, who are White, adopting Black children. The organization is part of Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer’s NextGen network.

    “As an adoptee, I need to know more about the circumstances of how Amy Coney Barrett came to adopt her children, and the treatment of them since,” tweeted Mr. Brougher on Saturday. “Transracial adoption is fraught with trauma and potential for harm, and everything I see here is deeply concerning.”

    His Twitter account is now private. So is Mr. Houle’s, but Breitbart captured a subsequent message from Mr. Houle in which he said, “I shouldn’t have tweeted it.”

    “Not bc there is anything substantively wrong w it, but bc it was too easy to misunderstand, to mischaracterize, or use to manipulate the rubes who think I control what the press investigates. (As if!),” Mr. Houle tweeted. “Also, anyone getting the vapors at the suggestion that anything untoward might have happened in an adoption from Haiti shouldn’t.”

    Judge Barrett, who is expected to be nominated Saturday to fill the vacancy left by the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has seven children, two of whom—Vivian and John Peter—are adopted from Haiti.

Also, the American Bar Association is doing what it can for The Cause. Not happening—due to its clear Liberal bias, Conservatives have long since given up on using the ABA as a vetting organization. Though they’ll be happy to point at any “well qualified” rankings it gives to Originalist judges, as in, “If the ABA is willing to give him/her a ‘well qualified’ rating, think of how good he/she must really be!” Like Barrett, when the ABA gave her a “well qualified” ranking three years ago.

Lawyers group wants Senate to slow Amy Coney Barrett's nomination

    The American Bar Association is concerned that the U.S. Senate is moving too quickly to evaluate Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment to the Supreme Court.

    President Trump selected Judge Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Saturday night.

    Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on her nomination will last three to four days next month and begin on Oct. 12, according to Sen. Lindsey Graham, the committee’s chairman.

    In a statement released before Mr. Graham announced the timing of the hearing, the ABA hinted that it may not be able to evaluate Judge Barrett before the Senate votes on her appointment.

    “While it is important to fill any vacancy to the Supreme Court in a timely manner, the Senate process of advice and consent must allow adequate time for thorough consideration of the nomination of Barrett and must not be rushed due to partisan considerations,” ABA President Patricia Lee Refo said in a statement. “That is essential to the process of assessing lifetime appointments to the highest court in the United States. For the nation to continue to have trust in the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary, the process that places judges on the bench must be viewed as fair, unhurried, and unbiased.”

    The majority of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Committee graded Judge Barrett as “well qualified” when she was nominated to the federal appellate court in 2017.

    Ms. Refo, who became ABA president in August 2020, said the lawyers group will work as “expeditiously as possible” to grade Judge Barrett again.

    Ms. Refo’s hesitation was echoed by liberal advocacy groups and senators who want to stop Judge Barrett’s nomination from proceeding. Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron said Saturday night that she thought senators should refuse to meet with Judge Barrett.

    “If I were a senator, I would not meet with her,” Ms. Aron said on a call with reporters after Ms. Barrett’s selection on Saturday night. “This is a rushed nomination.”

    Some Democratic senators already have said they oppose Judge Barrett’s nomination. and are refusing to meet with her.

    About 30 minutes after Mr. Trump announced Judge Barrett’s nomination, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, tweeted that he would oppose Judge Barrett’s nomination and refuse to meet with her.
#15123218
SpecialOlympian wrote:Reactionary thought is all about painting yourself as the victim so you can work the ref and make people feel pity for you until you have enough power to crush them. It's straight up borderline personality disorder made manifest into politics.

Then again, it might be about highlighting to the Hispanic vote that Democrats do not really like them personally, just as they hate white working class people in flyover country now. The Democrats have been horribly cynical over the last 30 years, but they do have a devoted following who will vote for them come hell or high water. They got that level of devotion by claiming the mantel of championing the poor and working people and now whatever sort of intersectional minority they can synthesize.

SpecialOlympian wrote:I was raised Catholic, and I don't give a shit about your stupid deity.

Check out a church service schedule. You'll notice they have masses in English and Spanish, and increasingly in Latin. You may not believe in Catholicism, but if you come for the first 5 minutes of a mass, you can get a demographic view of those who do. You like to bitch about older people. Older people tend to vote. Younger people, not so much. Older people tend to go to church. Trump can cleave off a lot of Hispanic, Filipino, and other groups as the Democrats either spit or swallow their vitriol for people who follow traditional religions.

SpecialOlympian wrote:But I know any nominee put forth by the GOP is an insane religious zealot who believes in dumb shit like physically transporting every Jew to Israel just to speed up God destroying the world because then everything will be super great.

Neil Gorsuch? He just found transgender rights in legislation written at a time when such behavior was considered a mental illness.

SpecialOlympian wrote:I don't know why people choose to worship insecure demigods but whatever.

Do you mean people like your parents? As hard as it is for you to believe, even you have both a father and a mother.
#15123222
@Doug64

@blackjack21

She is a member of a weird 'speaking in tongues' Catholic cult incapable of independent thought.

"Members of People of Praise, which could not be reached for comment Saturday, also are said to be accountable to a same-sex adviser, called a “head” for men and—until recently—a “handmaiden” for women, who gives input on a wide variety of personal decisions."


:lol:
#15123224
@ingliz, the Catholic Church has already long had such advisors, they’re call confessors.

And here’s the testimony of an honest Leftist that has known Barrett personally for many years. I salute his courage, it isn’t easy to stand up to the Left-wing mob like this, and even harder if you’re a Liberal working as a professor at Harvard:

Amy Coney Barrett Deserves to Be on the Supreme Court

    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.

    Barrett, a textualist who was working for a textualist, Justice Antonin Scalia, had the ability to bring logic and order to disorder and complexity. You can’t be a good textualist without that, since textualism insists that the law can be understood without reference to legislative history or the aims and context of the statute.

    Martinez had the special skill of connecting the tangle of complex strands to a sensible statutory purpose. She clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer, who also believes in pragmatically engaging the question of what a statute is actually trying to do in order to interpret it.

    In a world where merit counts, Barrett and Martinez would both be recognized as worthy of serving on the Supreme Court. If a Democratic president with the support of a Democratic Senate asked me to recommend a current law professor for the bench, Martinez would be on my short list.

    But a Republican is president, and the Senate is Republican. Elections have consequences, and so do justices’ decisions about when or whether to retire. Trump is almost certainly going to get his pick confirmed.

    Given that reality, it is better for the republic to have a principled, brilliant lawyer on the bench than a weaker candidate. That’s Barrett.

    To add to her merits, Barrett is a sincere, lovely person. I never heard her utter a word that wasn’t thoughtful and kind — including in the heat of real disagreement about important subjects. She will be an ideal colleague. I don’t really believe in “judicial temperament,” because some of the greatest justices were irascible, difficult and mercurial. But if you do believe in an ideal judicial temperament of calm and decorum, rest assured that Barrett has it.

    This combination of smart and nice will be scary for liberals. Her old boss, Scalia, did not have the ideal judicial temperament (too much personality, a wicked sense of humor) and managed over the years to alienate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, which may conceivably have helped produce more liberal outcomes as she moved to the left.

    Barrett is also a profoundly conservative thinker and a deeply committed Catholic. What of it? Constitutional interpretation draws on the full resources of the human mind. These beliefs should not be treated as disqualifying.

    Some might argue that you should want your probable intellectual opponent on the court to be the weakest possible, to help you win. But the Supreme Court is not and should not be a battlefield of winner-take-all political or ideological division.

    It would be naïve to deny that there is plenty of politics in constitutional interpretation. There are winners and losers every time the justices take a stance on an important issue of law. Nevertheless, the institutional purpose of the Supreme Court is to find a resolution of political conflicts through reason, interpretation, argument and vote-casting, not pure power politics. It follows that the social purpose of the Supreme Court is best served when justices on all sides of the issues make the strongest possible arguments, and do so in a way that facilitates debate and conversation.

    We have a Supreme Court nominee who is a brilliant lawyer, a genuine and good person — and someone who holds views about how to interpret the law that I think are wrong and, in certain respects, misguided. I hope the senators at her hearing treat her with respect.

    And when she is confirmed, I am going to accept it as the consequence of the constitutional rules we have and the choices we collectively and individually have made. And I’m going to be confident that Barrett is going to be a good justice, maybe even a great one — even if I disagree with her all the way.
#15123227
Doug64 wrote:@ingliz, the Catholic Church has already long had such advisors, they’re call confessors.


Normal Catholics do not have to ask confessors for permission to do stuff. Barrett is pretty much required to get her husband’s permission to sit on the SCOTUS.

And here’s the testimony of an honest Leftist


What makes you think the author is leftist?
#15123230
Pants-of-dog wrote:What makes you think the author is leftist?


I said he’s a Liberal, and for why I think so, I take him at his word. From the column:

    Like many other liberals, I’m devastated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death ...

    I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions....

    And when she is confirmed, I am going to accept it as the consequence of the constitutional rules we have and the choices we collectively and individually have made. And I’m going to be confident that Barrett is going to be a good justice, maybe even a great one — even if I disagree with her all the way.
#15123238
Doug64 wrote:I said he’s a Liberal,


Is he a liberal of a leftist? The two are mutually exclusive.

and for why I think so, I take him at his word. From the column:

    Like many other liberals, I’m devastated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death ...

    I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions....

    And when she is confirmed, I am going to accept it as the consequence of the constitutional rules we have and the choices we collectively and individually have made. And I’m going to be confident that Barrett is going to be a good justice, maybe even a great one — even if I disagree with her all the way.


So he is not a leftist but instead is a liberal.

I see that you do not disagree that the SCOTUS nominee has to ask her husband’s permission.
#15123245
Pants-of-dog wrote:I see that you do not disagree that the SCOTUS nominee has to ask her husband’s permission.

I have no idea if she believes she needed her husband’s permission or not. Certainly she would have needed to discuss it with him, becoming a Supreme Court justice is a big step that’s going to have a huge impact on her family.
#15123247
@Doug64

    The most controversial aspect of the People of Praise is the practice of headship or pastoral leadership, which, according to anthropologist Thomas Csordas, is where "individual members are supervised in their daily lives by a person regarded as more 'spiritually mature.'"[38] Pastoral care is considered an important service within the community; it is believed to foster relationships of love, service and charismatic ministry.[32]:15. Each member has someone called a "head", who acts as a personal adviser. In general, heads give encouragement, correction, and help in decision-making. Men have other men as their heads. Married women are headed by their husbands. Single women and widows usually have other women as their heads. Men and women with the appropriate skills are assigned as heads by the coordinators.[citation needed] People of Praise uses the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola as a basis for counsel and discernment.[29]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_ ... _direction

The bolded text clearly indicates that she needs her husband to sign off.

This seems like the type of woman who will close all the doors that RBG opened for women like her.
#15123253
I love how the supreme court is supposed to be this neutral apolitical institution, yet everybody is utterly obsessed with the political leanings of whoever's going to be on it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The bolded text clearly indicates that she needs her husband to sign off.

This seems like the type of woman who will close all the doors that RBG opened for women like her.


She probably found a husband who eats out of her hand.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 24

Many Republicans think that disenfranchising black[…]

The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

@Finfinder If you cannot support your argument[…]

Election 2020

President Trump has been a worker in America. He […]

"Macron is one of the few leaders who worshi[…]