Amy Coney Barrett

[GURPS]

Newsweek Forced To Issue Major Retraction After It Smears Amy Coney Barrett, Claims She Belongs To Sect That Inspired ‘The Handmaids Tale’


The problem? People of Praise’s “handmaids” are little more than spiritual advisors, according to sources familiar with the 1,700-member group that spoke to The Daily Wire. And as National Review Online’s David Harsanyi points out, Barrett’s partner’s “authority” must be severely limited, given that her “knuckle-dragging misogynistic religious fanatic husband has only let the poor woman out of the house twice. Once, to serve a 15-year stint as a law professor at a highly prestigious university,” and the other to serve on the 7th Circuit.

Deeper than that, though, it turns out Newsweek’s story is actually completely wrong based on information from Atwood herself, which Newsweek points out in its “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 note read. “A New Yorker profile of the author from 2017 mentions a newspaper clipping as part of her research for the book of a different charismatic Catholic group, People of Hope. Newsweek regrets the error.”

“The clipping includes a spokesperson for the People of Hope sect based in Newark, New Jersey saying, ‘We’re all Roman Catholics. We differ in the sense that we are a Charismatic group, which would mean that we have prayer meetings, during which there is raising of hands, singing and speaking in tongues,'” the outlet notes. “People of Praise has never had a presence in the state of New Jersey.”

 

[Grumpy]

Betting that if Barrett is nominated, some Dem in the hearing will question her about the "Handmaids' story, not knowing that it was retracted by Newsweek and was total BS.

 

[GURPS]

Both Are In The Same Church, But Media Love Joe Biden’s Faith And Hate Amy Coney Barrett’s



The media loves to fawn over the pious and heartfelt Catholicism of Joe Biden. Now they’re talking about the Catholic faith of Amy Coney Barrett, the frontrunner to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But you’ll notice a very different tone. The key differences are their adherence to their faith’s actual teachings, as well as their political leanings.

The Washington Post can’t call Barrett a “devout Catholic” without including in the same sentence that she is “fervently antiabortion.” Meanwhile, Biden touts his Catholicism — despite his support for abortion, which church teaching expressly calls a “moral evil.”

The Post also notes that, when Barrett was first nominated to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, “Democrats balked at her nomination, questioning whether the academic could be an impartial arbiter because of her deep religious convictions.” If Biden has deep religious convictions, it has never bothered the Post.

Newsweek went further, suggesting that the religious community Barrett and her family are part of was the inspiration for “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood. In the book’s dystopian world, Newsweek says, “women’s bodies are governed and treated as the property of the state under a theocratic regime.”

 

[Kyle]

Democrats Post Job Listing For Supreme Court Nominee Accusers

WASHINGTON, D.C.—In anticipation of Trump's upcoming announcement of who he will nominate to the Supreme Court, the Democrats have posted a nationwide job listing for believable accusers to tarnish the reputation of whoever Trump nominates. The best candidates from all applicants will be invited...

babylonbee.com

 

[limblips]

The democratic modus operandi. Put out a known lie and then retract it a few days after being called out on it. They know that the damage is done and the retraction is Section B page 8 news. This is the left's idea of free speech and responsible journalism.

 

[BOP]

Betting that if Barrett is nominated, some Dem in the hearing will question her about the "Handmaids' story, not knowing or caring that it was retracted by Newsweek and was total BS.

Tweaked it just a bit for you.

 

[Hijinx]

Of course they will bring up the Handmaids story, they got the Russian hoax stuck up their asss and they are still using that.

 

[GURPS]

Amy Coney Barrett Thinks the Second Amendment Prohibits Blanket Bans on Gun Possession by People With Felony Records

In the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects the right to own guns for self-defense. At the same time, the majority opinion mentioned some "presumptively lawful regulatory measures," including "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill." But both Barrett and her two colleagues on a 7th Circuit panel, who upheld the federal and Wisconsin bans that Kanter challenged, agreed that Heller did not settle the question of whether the Second Amendment allows the government to disarm someone like him.

"The constitutionality of felon dispossession was not before the Court in Heller, and because it explicitly deferred analysis of this issue, the scope of its assertion is unclear," Barrett wrote. "For example, does 'presumptively lawful' mean that such regulations are presumed lawful unless a historical study shows otherwise? Does it mean that as-applied challenges are available? Does the Court's reference to 'felons' suggest that the legislature cannot disqualify misdemeanants from possessing guns? Does the word 'longstanding' mean that prohibitions of recent vintage are suspect?"

In addressing a question that she and the majority agreed Heller left unresolved, Barrett considered English common law, proposed and ratified provisions of state constitutions in the U.S., and firearm restrictions enacted in the 18th and 19th centuries. Her conclusion:

History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislatures imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791—and for well more than a century afterward—legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.

 

[SamSpade]

You know - I am not crazy about the idea of felons owning guns. I am only recently accepting the idea that felons can VOTE.

But I can't dispute that despite practice, and tradition - there really isn't a good constitutional argument for them not owning guns. There's a practical reason to be sure. But not a constitutional one.

To ME this says, she's really the right choice.

 

[pontificator]

She's right. The phrase, "...shall not be infringed..." is pretty clear.

Despite Trump being a bumbling idiot in virtually all aspects of his presidency, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were excellent SCOTUS choices. I suspect whomever the third one is will be just as good.

I wonder why he listens to advisers with respect to SCOTUS nominations, but appears not to for everything else?

 

[GURPS]

- there really isn't a good constitutional argument for them not owning guns.

IMHO the decision really depends on the Crime

 

[pontificator]

IMHO the decision really depends on the Crime

Well your humble opinion doesn't really matter here; only the Constitution does and it doesn't "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean it "depends on the crime."

You maniacal leftist - why do you hate our Constitution?

 

[phreddyp]

Well your humble opinion doesn't really matter here; only the Constitution does and it doesn't "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean it "depends on the crime."

You maniacal leftist - why do you hate our Constitution?

HAhahahaha sometimes you are you are the funniest poster here . This is one of those times !

 

[SamSpade]

Well your humble opinion doesn't really matter here; only the Constitution does and it doesn't "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean it "depends on the crime."

You maniacal leftist - why do you hate our Constitution?

Oh please - we already put restrictions on freedom of speech for very obvious and logical reasons. Not the least of which is, some speech isn't protected because it endangers others - the shouting "fire" in the theater argument - or deliberately provocative - the "fighting words" argument - or defamatory. Not all speech is completely protected. The intent of free speech is to protect people from governmental reprisal should they say things about the government. It never grants the right to say whatever you want about anything.

It does stand to reason we might put restrictions on the right to own and use a gun - for example, we obviously don't allow TODDLERS to own or use guns. Without even knowing the laws, it stands to reason we would not allow someone severely mentally impaired to use one.

We GENERALLY operate on the idea that once a person has completed their sentence, that they've "done their time". All is not "forgiven" but generally, their pain has ended. We STILL make exceptions for persons who - for example - are guilty of sex crimes with children - because such things are not going away.

This is why we have laws - to make exceptions, because life is not simple, and reality can't be codified.

I'm making the leap of logic that you KNOW this.

 

[Ken King]

Oh please - we already put restrictions on freedom of speech for very obvious and logical reasons. Not the least of which is, some speech isn't protected because it endangers others - the shouting "fire" in the theater argument - or deliberately provocative - the "fighting words" argument - or defamatory. Not all speech is completely protected. The intent of free speech is to protect people from governmental reprisal should they say things about the government. It never grants the right to say whatever you want about anything.

It does stand to reason we might put restrictions on the right to own and use a gun - for example, we obviously don't allow TODDLERS to own or use guns. Without even knowing the laws, it stands to reason we would not allow someone severely mentally impaired to use one.

We GENERALLY operate on the idea that once a person has completed their sentence, that they've "done their time". All is not "forgiven" but generally, their pain has ended. We STILL make exceptions for persons who - for example - are guilty of sex crimes with children - because such things are not going away.

This is why we have laws - to make exceptions, because life is not simple, and reality can't be codified.

I'm making the leap of logic that you KNOW this.

Actually, there are no restrictions on speech, there are consequences for using some forms of speech. You can say anything you want at any time, but your words might cause you trouble.

As to the 2nd Amendment, it is the only right that declares it shall not be infringed, though it certainly has been. Once a person is no longer under the control (and thus protection) of the State (Federal or otherwise), that person should regain the right and ability to protect their life, liberty, and property. If a person's crime is so egregious as to deny them this right then they should remain under the absolute control of the State through incarceration or termination.

 

[pontificator]

Oh please - we already put restrictions on freedom of speech for very obvious and logical reasons. Not the least of which is, some speech isn't protected because it endangers others - the shouting "fire" in the theater argument - or deliberately provocative - the "fighting words" argument - or defamatory. Not all speech is completely protected. The intent of free speech is to protect people from governmental reprisal should they say things about the government. It never grants the right to say whatever you want about anything.

It does stand to reason we might put restrictions on the right to own and use a gun - for example, we obviously don't allow TODDLERS to own or use guns. Without even knowing the laws, it stands to reason we would not allow someone severely mentally impaired to use one.

We GENERALLY operate on the idea that once a person has completed their sentence, that they've "done their time". All is not "forgiven" but generally, their pain has ended. We STILL make exceptions for persons who - for example - are guilty of sex crimes with children - because such things are not going away.

This is why we have laws - to make exceptions, because life is not simple, and reality can't be codified.

I'm making the leap of logic that you KNOW this.

Poor take.

With respect to speech it is NOT restricted. The remedy is punishment after-the-fact, thus the "fire in a crowded theater" apothegm. With respect to firearms, you are advocating for pre-emptive restrictions of them.

If something can be taken away, it is a privilege, not a right - driver's license, firearm, voting. These are all things that we've allowed government to take away from citizens.

Speech is a NATURAL RIGHT. I can say whatever the fig I want and if it runs afoul of some law, THEN I'm punished. But speech is NOT restricted in any way whatsoever. No one is preventing the words from passing from my lips.

Think this through and come to a conclusion which better comports with our Constitution.

 

[Bird Dog]

What ex-felon doesn't own a gun. Please someone point one out for me................

 

[SamSpade]

Speech is a NATURAL RIGHT. I can say whatever the fig I want and if it runs afoul of some law, THEN I'm punished.

Sorry but - that makes NO SENSE.

And yes, speech IS restricted, in exactly the ways referenced.

It makes no sense to say that speech is not restricted UNTIL it is uttered. That is precisely the way it is restricted elsewhere - you're punished AFTER you say things the government doesn't like. I don't find a practical reason for restriction of a right after it is practiced or before it is practiced, since the punishment ALWAYS follows its use.

 

[pontificator]

Sorry but - that makes NO SENSE.

And yes, speech IS restricted, in exactly the ways referenced.

It makes no sense to say that speech is not restricted UNTIL it is uttered. That is precisely the way it is restricted elsewhere - you're punished AFTER you say things the government doesn't like. I don't find a practical reason for restriction of a right after it is practiced or before it is practiced, since the punishment ALWAYS follows its use.

You are completely wrong. What I stated and what Ken King stated is precisely how it works. Precisely.

Good lord man, this is middle school civics material!

 

[SamSpade]

Actually, there are no restrictions on speech, there are consequences for using some forms of speech. You can say anything you want at any time, but your words might cause you trouble.

We must have some different idea of what "restrictions" mean. I kind of got the idea that laws EXIST to punish those who exceed their freedoms.

I can go where I wish, but if it happens to be your house when you're not home, it's called breaking and entering and it's against the law.
You can say what you want, but if it happens to be slander, you can be sued. If "restriction" ONLY means the ability to do something regardless of whether or not it is permitted, it doesn't really mean anything.

As I understand it, to restrict is to regulate or otherwise put a constraint on something. If my kids are on restriction - "grounded" - they may not leave the house. Oh they can DO it - they'll just get punished for it.

It's what makes sense to me. If it does not to you, we'll argue this forever.