6437

I suspect we’re going to be able to say she is very conservative, doesn’t interrupt the law in a way we think it should be interpreted and that she is threat to democracy all without ever having to touch her religious beliefs. Her case law, her career, he academic work… all that probably leads to the same conclusion, and I would expect that since she is being pushed by the GOP. I mean, we’re not going to like who they pick. They’re picking them, but the things that are objected to the most can probably be brought to light without ever touching her religious community.

The big wrong here is, they should not be bringing her in at all. The GOP are liars, con artist and, of course, hypocrites.

6438

And why should I think she is not the same?

6439

Well she’s in the courts so, you know, a lot of what she has done is public. And, you can absolutely think she is a liar. Go for it. But the Democrats should not touch her religion just to prove she is a liar.

All I’m saying is while they need to be careful around the religious bit, very careful, it should not be off the table if for some reason they wind up in that sphere.

Religion should not be so feared that it’s not allowed nor should it be so feared that anything around the blanket of it is off topic. It just needs to be approached carefully.

6440

Are there questions any Democrat could ask that won’t be characterized by the Right in the worst possible light? Who cares what the right says? What Dem Senators need to be worried about how what Democratic and near-Democratic constituencies will think. A fight over this confirmation might be energizing to Dem voters? Rolling over and playing dead might not?

6441

I agree completely as far as it goes in the outside world. I, on the other hand, have no such strictures.

6442

No.

I am saying that putting the Democratic questioning in the worst possible light ON THIS ISSUE is something that is likely to resonate. In fact, we’ve already seen evidence of that in polling over the weekend.

They will cast everything the Democrats say in the worst possible light, but most of it is unlikely to find much purchase. Attacking Dems for criticizing her religion seems, at least in early data, to be something that might be effective for Republicans.

How much more energized do you presume them to have room to be? Did the Kavanaugh hearing energize Democrats so much that they carried Senate seats that were tossups? Or did they lose senate seats in states where Democratic senate candidates underperformed Democratic house candidates? (I’ll spoil the answer: it’s the latter.)

Anyway, since you edited out the last part of your question already I’ll try this once again, since you may have missed it up-thread.

The Democrats not beating up Barrett on her religion is probably smart.

The Democrats completely beating up on Barrett for her past positions on the ACA is also probably smart. Which is (lemme set the caps lock) ABSOLUTELY NOT “LYING DOWN”.

It is understanding that no vector of attack is going to matter, but also understanding that religion is either not going to be effective–and may be a losing argument overall. Meanwhile, attacking her on the ACA and vigorously could be very effective in the larger fight.

6443

Fortunately, none of us here are actually Senators (I’m pretty sure).

6444

I am a Met. They may suck, but I am a true fan.

6445

I don’t really get the idea of, “if the Democrats don’t fight to the death on this issue they can’t possibly win, then their constituents won’t support them getting power so they can actually win fights.”

You can’t win this fight. Folks didn’t turn out to vote in 2016, and now you are fucked. Deal with it.

What you can do is vote now, so you don’t get fucked in the future.

6446

Who is saying this?

6447

OK, I actually agree with your point re: not attacking her religion. Maybe you’re right: this is a trap that’s not escapable. Democrats will lose this fight. That will suck. I don’t think there’s a way to frame it that isn’t demoralizing. Fighting will definitely bring out the bothsiderers and comity-in-politics folks who like to scold democrats for raising their voices. And maybe those are the folks we need to win–though I’m not sure what winning will do for us except set us up for more losing.

6448

TBH I don’t know why any Democrat would even attend the upcoming hearings. Just tell the world that this is a sham, the outcome is pre-decided, and that the future of your healthcare, women’s rights, and basically everything we’ve worked for for over 50 years is at risk.

Because there’s no question that anyone can ask that would get this woman to admit why she was nominated, which is to kill the ACA, overturn Roe v. Wade, and save Trump’s ass.

6449

Please show democrats doing this. Or is this blue sky shit?

6450

I grew up in NY a Met fan, but I guess they didn’t suck enough for me because next I moved to Cleveland and became a Browns fan, and speaking of Ohio…

6451

Shh. Teacher is teaching now.

6452

They lost Senate seats they were always going to lose. I don’t think you can draw a line from opposing Kavanaugh to a Democrat losing a Senate seat in Missouri. I’m sure some House candidates did better, but that’s probably because they aren’t statewide candidates, they’re candidates in blue constituencies within the state.

6453

It’s unsexy as hell, I know…but an underpinning of the current successes in opinion that the Democrats and their presidential candidate are having right now are tied to the Dems being the party of normalcy, to hearken back to a word that Warren Harding made up. People who are flipping back to Biden are doing so because they’re tired of the constant drama and lack of adherence to norms in the government right now.

I mean, it’d make headlines if the Democrats did that. I know I personally would get a charge out of it, too. But…it probably doesn’t fit their branding this cycle, and that branding has worked pretty well, at least so far.

6454

If you trace the polling of Bill Nelson and Joe Donnelly, or lost causes like McCaskill and Heitkamp…or even winners like Jon Tester…their trajectory headed downward after the Kavanaugh hearings, even as house candidates in RED districts in the same states moved up.

6455

I think something which could be useful would be to question ACB’s consistency in her beliefs, if not their source. For example, she is on the record as advocating that Catholic judges should recuse themselves when faced with cases where their religious beliefs supersede their constitutional judgement:

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1523&context=law_faculty_scholarship

That she did not then do this herself on cases involving abortion is a legitimate avenue of inquiry, I think.

6456

This battle was lost four years ago. Pin her on the ACA. Focus on winning the election; give money to Senate races and Biden, and get your friends and family to vote. That’s all liberals can really do.