5758

I didn’t have time to respond to this properly earlier, so I hope it’s not dredging up a dead thread to address it now.

If we’re talking about the nomination process, I would say senators should ask Barrett about her philosophy wherever it might conceivably intersect with her future jurisprudence. We might expect that philosophy to be informed by or to parallel one of the religious organizations she belongs to. That seems much more effective than than asking her what reputed beliefs of a thousand- or billion-member organization she adheres to.

If we’re talking about us, the concerned citizenry, then I think a religious subculture like People of Praise is worthy of our curiosity, including our skepticism. We can speculate about what its influence is on ACB, but since we’re not senators or personal friends of hers, we won’t be able to ask her about it ourselves, so our speculation will never amount to more than speculation. If we want to know the truth, then we should hope for a clear and enlightening nomination process.

All I’ve ever objected to is people proceeding with speculation about ACB’s beliefs or future jurisprudence–or just simply insulting her with labels like “she’s a nut”–without actually understanding critical facts about the religion they say is going to be such a huge influence on her public work.

Far superior to supposing you know what “wives be submissive to your husbands” means to a Christian or extrapolating from the anecdotal statements made by critics of People of Praise would be to actually investigate–just dip your toe in!–the two thousand year old tradition of reading those words of St. Paul. You could very easily discover, for instance, that immediately prior to that verse, St. Paul exhorts all the Ephesians to “Submit to one another out of reverence to Christ.” No spousal qualifiers. Everyone, serve each other. If you made a real honest effort to understand, you would eventually encounter the importance of marriage as a sacramental symbol of Christ and the Church, which is the real subject of that whole passage. The church as a bride, Christ as a groom. You can see in that context why it’s the bride submitting and the groom loving and not the other way around.

Not doing even a touch of due diligence about this or other topics like Catholic spiritual direction, yet still claiming those words or that practice make Amy Coney Barrett dangerous or make the organization her family belongs to a cult is maybe not as egregious an error as hearing “handmaiden” and picturing Margaret Atwood’s dystopia, but it is a similar one.

That’s awful, Rich. I’m sorry to hear you went through that, and I’m sorry for the pain it’s caused.

5759

We already discussed allegations of non-Christian views and practices, made by former members of People of Praise. You can take that as an answer to your question, as what is (allegedly) unchristian about the group.

5760

I could do that, but it would be irrelevant, because the allegations against People of Praise involve practices that you have already told me are not conventional Christian views or practices. That was the context of my comment to you, to which you are replying now.

5761

They are endorsed by the Pope! One of their members was made a bishop, they have their own group of associated clergy. I’ve seen the allegations and they are horrible and unchristian. But if we used that rubric, there would be no such thing as any true Christian anything. So we have to discuss what we mean when we say un-Christian. It’s clearly embraced by mainstream Catholicism and the practices of charismatic groups are widespread in both Catholicism and Protestantism.

5762

Not knowing Barrett’s adherence to the alleged tenets of this group, it’s surely not a good look if PoP feels they need to purge their website of any references to her. That doesn’t say “totally normal sub-community with acceptable, mainstream views” to me.

5763

Sure, there are plenty of red flags here. It seems like a weird group.

5764

New York Times profile of the People of Praise.

5765

vs Kagan, who he also thought lacked experience
5766

Thanks for posting this. It’s interesting, but I don’t know that I read it and come to this conclusion:

The People of Praise is not a cult, and it’s not a church.

Ruth Graham is kind of a cheerleader for Amy Coney Barrett, isn’t she?

5768

Useful thread for those who think that changing the size of the court for political reasons is a new idea or violates some norm or standard.

5769

As I pointed out, if you look at Kagan’s actual experience (since apparently, inexplicably, we are ignoring academic teaching as a qualification), up until that very last thing in her CV, where Obama made her solicitor general?

She had literally never presented a case in court, ever.

Kagan’s primary experience came from her work in Academia. And it turns out, that’s fine and she’s been a fine justice.

5770

Not sure why people are talking around the elephant in the room. People dislike her because we’re replacing a liberal judge with a conservative one, upsetting the balance of the Court, which could be hugely consequential for American public life. If she was replacing Alito, no one would bat an eye.

5771

This is certainly a big part, as she’s replacing the MOST liberal justice.

That combined with McConnell’s bullshit take no prisoners tactics creates an environment that lacks any sense of fairplay.

Although I suspect she’d probably get attacked by the left even if she was replacing someone like Alito.

If you go back like 20 years? Not then. But now? I feel like confirmation is gonna be a nightmare for anyone, as the process is incredibly partisan as a result of McConnell’s bullshit.

5772

What’s funny is, if McConnell had given Garland a vote, which he would have lost, then no one would have ground to accuse him of hypocrisy here. He could have reached an accommodation with Obama, possibly even with a Gorsuch-like nomination. And now, it would just be normal for a sitting President to nominate a replacement and have the Senate move to confirm.

Supreme Court nominations have been a gauntlet forever. In 1981 O’Conner got grilled about her views on abortion, which she was carefully non-committal on. The Kennedy nomination in 1986 was after a huge battle over Bork and another failed attempt with Douglas Ginsburg. Thomas’s nomination battle was also bitter, at least as much because he was replacing Brennan as because of Anita Hill.

5773

Ya know, I just thought of an idea that might be better than packing the court.

Packing the court for objectively partisan reasons seems like it could backfire at some point in the future. Although, to be clear, I’m not against it as I likely would have been in the past, given the GOP’s lack of any kind of fairness.

However, this could potentially be an opportunity to actually make a constitutional amendment, and change how the court operates.

For instance, you could do something to create a more fair sequence of replacing judges, as we’ve talked about here before, instill term limits, etc.

And in the current climate, the GOP might be convinced to take such a change, and support it, as it would allow them to have some short lived continuation of their control of the court, even though they’d lose it much sooner. This would be beneficial compared to losing everything due to the court getting stacked against them.

And this could potentially result in a more stable system moving forward.

5774

Oh, you mean like adopting GOP positions in the hope that they will support it?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm… that sounds familiar.

5775

It would definitely make sense to change how the Supreme Court works; I’ve read lots of good suggestions here over the years.

Not sure why you think the current climate might convince the GOP to agree to such changes, though. When you can hardly find a congressperson or senator willing to break with Trump (except the occasional token meaningless protest vote like Romney), it seems pretty obvious - to me at least - that no one is in the current GOP are even remotely interested in governing or the well-being of the USA.

5776

Me neither. In any event, you need the approval of 67 Senators and ratification from 34 states for a constitutional amendment and that is simply not going to happen. Any fix has to be something Congress can accomplish.

5777

The GOP of 30 years ago might, but not the GOP of today.

They will force the Democrats to pack the courts. Any attempt at cooperation will get them ostracized by their own media machine. GOP politicians do not run the party. FOX News, Limbaugh, and to a growing extent conspiracy theories do.

5778

Still sounds like a cult to me. And given their practices, it sounds like her husband will be on the court too.