HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Thanks to Bill Svelmoe on...

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 06:56 PM

Thanks to Bill Svelmoe on facebook who wrote this on Sept. 27 about nominee Amy Comey Barrett

And to the Facebook Group "Progressive Veterans and Military Families"....

A few thoughts on Amy Coney Barrett, our new Supreme Court justice.

- As noted above, she's a done deal. So Democrats should not waste time trying to besmirch her character, focusing on her religion, trying to box her into a corner on how she will vote on hypothetical cases.

The People of Praise is not a cult. I've had half a dozen of their kids in my classes, including some men who heard about me from their female friends. Almost without fail, these have been among the best students I've ever had. Extremely bright. Careful critical thinkers. Wonderful writers. I loved having them in class. So don't go after the People of Praise.

By all accounts Barrett walks on water. I've had that in a roundabout way from people I know at Notre Dame, including from folks as liberal as me, who actually look forward to seeing her on the court. I have no first hand knowledge of her, but take the above for what you will.

So Democrats should not take a typical approach with her.

- Stay focused on the election. If the election were tomorrow, Biden wins comfortably, and the Democrats likely take the Senate as well. The latest polls were taken after RBG's death. No gain for Trump. In fact the majority of Americans think the Supreme Court seat should not be filled until after the election. Watching Republicans ram Barrett through helps Democrats. So don't mess with her. Let Republicans do what they're going to do. As a great man once said, It is what it is.

If the Democrats take the presidency and the Senate, none of this matters much. A Democratic administration will not let a conservative court mess with Democratic priorities. Lots of avenues, including adding justices, passing a law that no act of Congress can be overturned by the Court except by a seven vote majority, etc. So keep the focus where it matters. On November 3.

So how should Democrats approach these hearings? I've seen one good suggestion today. Turn all their time over to Kamala Harris. I like that one.

Here's a few more suggestions.

- Don't show up for the hearings. There is no reason to dignify this raw exercise in political hypocrisy. Don't legitimize the theft of a Supreme Court seat with your presence. This also shows Barrett that the nation knows she is letting herself become a pawn in Trump's game. That in itself says something about character.

- Schedule high interest alternate programming directly opposite the hearings. Bring together all 26 of the women who have accused Trump of sexual assault. Let them tell their stories on air. Or interview liberal justices that Biden will add to the court next year. Hearings with only Republicans extolling Barrett's virtues will get low ratings. It shouldn't be hard to come up with something people would rather watch. Hell, replay the Kavanaugh hearings! Bring in Matt Damon to reprise his role on SNL! I'd watch that! How about a show "Beers with Squee"?!

- If Democrats do attend the hearings, they should not focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll just dodge those questions anyway. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion.

Instead Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there.

Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause?

Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause?

Then turn to the Hatch Act.

Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [List them. Then after Barrett's response, and just fyi, the Office of the Special Council already convicted her, ask Barrett this.] When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president's top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office?

Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention. Get Barrett's opinion on those.

Then turn to Congressional Oversight.

Judge Barrett, would you please explain to the American people the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch. [She does so.] Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time and again [list them] to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice?

Then turn to Trump's impeachment.

Read the transcript of Trump's phone call. Judge Barrett, would you describe this as a "perfect phone call"? Is there anything about this call that troubles you, as a judge, or as an American?

Judge Barrett, would you please define for the American people the technical definition of collusion. [She does.] Then go through all of the contacts between the Trump administration and Russians during the election and get her opinion on whether these amount to collusion. Doesn't matter how she answers. It gets Trump's perfidy back in front of Americans right before the election.

Such questions could go on for days. Get her opinion on the evidence for election fraud. Go through all the Trump "laws" that have been thrown out by the courts. Ask her about the separation of children from their parents at the border. And on and on and on through the worst and most corrupt administration in our history. Don't forget to ask her opinion on the evidence presented by the 26 Trump accusers. Judge Barrett, do you think this is enough evidence of sexual assault to bring the perpetrator before a court of law? Do you think a sitting president should be able to postpone such cases until after his term? Judge Barrett, let's listen again, shall we, to Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape. I don't have a question. I just want to hear it again. Or maybe, as a woman, how do you feel listening to this recording? Let's listen to it again, shall we. Take your time.

Taking this approach does a number of things.

1. Even if Barrett bobs and weaves and dodges all of this, it reminds Americans right before the election of just how awful this administration has been.

2. None of these questions are hypothetical. They are all real documented incidents. The vast majority are pretty obvious examples of breaking one law or the other. If Barrett refuses to answer honestly, she demonstrates that she is willing to simply be another Trump toady. Any claims to high moral Christian character are shown to be as empty as the claims made by the 80% of white evangelicals who continue to support Trump.

3. If she answers honestly, as I rather suspect she would, then Americans get to watch Trump and his lawless administration convicted by Trump's own chosen justice.

Any of these outcomes would go much further toward delegitimizing the entire Republican project than if Democrats go down the typical road of asking hypothetical questions or trying to undermine her character.

Use her supposed good character and keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it'll be great television ...

36 replies, 13521 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply Thanks to Bill Svelmoe on facebook who wrote this on Sept. 27 about nominee Amy Comey Barrett (Original post)
bluecollar2 Sep 2020 OP
Hekate Sep 2020 #1
Sedona Sep 2020 #2
dixiechiken1 Sep 2020 #3
cachukis Sep 2020 #4
blaze Sep 2020 #5
Whiskeytide Sep 2020 #6
Hstch05 Sep 2020 #16
regnaD kciN Sep 2020 #7
StClone Sep 2020 #14
cachukis Sep 2020 #23
elleng Sep 2020 #8
kacekwl Sep 2020 #9
Traildogbob Sep 2020 #10
ms liberty Sep 2020 #11
StClone Sep 2020 #12
Hstch05 Sep 2020 #17
StClone Sep 2020 #24
Ferrets are Cool Sep 2020 #13
pnwmom Sep 2020 #20
Ferrets are Cool Sep 2020 #26
SophieJean Sep 2020 #27
onlyadream Sep 2020 #15
bluecollar2 Sep 2020 #31
progressoid Sep 2020 #18
MRDAWG Sep 2020 #19
bluecollar2 Sep 2020 #30
niyad Sep 2020 #21
SophieJean Sep 2020 #28
zentrum Sep 2020 #22
Mr.Bill Sep 2020 #25
Duppers Sep 2020 #29
Ananda62 Oct 2020 #35
Duppers Oct 2020 #36
scrabblequeen40 Sep 2020 #32
bluecollar2 Sep 2020 #33
keithbvadu2 Sep 2020 #34

Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 07:13 PM

1. I'd watch that hearing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 07:13 PM

2. To the greatest page with thee



I'd record it and watch it over and over just to watch that bitch squirm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 07:16 PM

3. One of the best strategies I've read to date...

OUTSTANDING. Thx for sharing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 07:17 PM

4. Practical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 07:23 PM

5. That was pretty compelling.

Thanks bluecollar2.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 07:32 PM

6. Don't no show. That looks childish. I like the questioning strategy though. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whiskeytide (Reply #6)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 09:00 PM

16. I agree

If we no-show, we look like we've given up. It won't read as taking the high road or as a protest of the entire corrupt affair. We would look like we have no fight left in us. Trying to counter program against the hearings would be a mistake.
I think the questioning strategy is a darn good one. I agree about not going after her personally or in terms of her religious background. Hit her up with real world situations rather than hypotheticals. Also, probe into her limited experience on the bench.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 07:39 PM

7. Sorry, but I call B.S. on this particular point...

If the Democrats take the presidency and the Senate, none of this matters much. A Democratic administration will not let a conservative court mess with Democratic priorities. Lots of avenues, including adding justices, passing a law that no act of Congress can be overturned by the Court except by a seven vote majority, etc.


First of all, the second proposal is absurdly unconstitutional. If we were to try it, the SCOTUS would simply throw it out, and I wouldnít be surprised to see the vote on it be unanimous.

Second, yes, we could (and should) expand the Court Ė but letís be clear about the process. To be able to do so, we need to first eliminate the filibuster. This needs to be done at the very beginning of the congressional term, when rules are set. Itís not something that we can just decide to change once a particularly egregious decision is handed down. If we donít eliminate the filibuster first thing (and, at the moment, it seems there are enough Democratic senators opposed to it to make it unlikely) our next chance will be the January after the 2022 midterms. Not only can a packed SCOTUS do a hell of a lot of damage in that time, but itís not even certain weíll still have a majority in both chambers to expand the Court by then, considering that midterms almost always result in gains for the party out of power.

So, while some of the guyís recommendations might be solid, we should go into this with zero illusions: if we donít do everything we can to stop Barrett from getting on the Court, we have, at best, ONE shot to undo the damage, and even that is frankly a longshot. If we just defer on this one, odds are weíll be facing an ideologically-driven, hard-right SCOTUS running roughshod on us for the next quarter-century or more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 08:57 PM

14. I like your take-to save this country

We need a sensible SCOTUS not a bunch of hacks, for whoever they are, that want Barrett on the SCOTUS. When Obama picked Merrick Garland it was a practical choice as Garland was no Liberal, not at all.

Playing the game that way has come to this, we NEED to expand the court. If not the next 20-40 years will pretty much be a wasteland of Judicial rulings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 09:19 PM

23. Good points. But, as I've studied her demeanor,

she has presented to my minds eye, a thoughtfulness. She didn't get to where she is without it. She will be seated without slip ups. Don't think the gauntlet is unnecessary, but this got to be played out a few moves. The OP is a great start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 07:55 PM

8. Thanks,

lots to think about here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 08:35 PM

9. Sounds GREAT n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 08:40 PM

10. Brilliant!

I really like all you said. Eye on the ball. Gotta take control first, then go to work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 08:43 PM

11. I like this. A lot. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 08:49 PM

12. I will not accept her no matter her "Credentials"

Her nomination and placement are an abomination of both process and legitimacy. Any Justice worth a damn would defer their life on the court if that seat were gotten through such questionable means. It's not about credentials! Barrett has POOR judgment!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StClone (Reply #12)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 09:03 PM

17. Obviously

Of course she has poor judgment. She belongs to two cults: the religious one, and the Federalist Society . This is about moving an agenda forward, and she is just a means to that end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hstch05 (Reply #17)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 09:21 PM

24. Agreed! Another point I agree with from the OP

Non-hypothetical questions to elicit Barrett responses which would legally condemn Trump, putting her at odds with him, and enlightening the public to his misdeeds by his "own" justice is something which I would see as a good gambit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 08:51 PM

13. By all accounts Barrett walks on water.

Once I reached that point, the rest was meaningless. In fact, it made me want to I will leave it at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ferrets are Cool (Reply #13)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 09:12 PM

20. He lost me then, too. This is a judge who questions the legitimacy of the 14th and 15th amendments,

including the Equal Protection Clause.

And she walks on water?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #20)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 09:35 PM

26. Yeah, there is a LOT of BS in that article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #20)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 09:43 PM

27. Same reaction,

 

and there are highly credible accounts from ex members that People of Praise is not a normal Catholic ideological group, as well as the fact her mother and father have always been members, so it is who she is. This person didn't bother to mention the obvious patriarchal issues, and no, that's not going away.
Barrett must be asked questions about her past decisions which really don't have much to do with her Catholicism, other than to dole out cruelty to regular human beings via her extremely narrow rulings.
Generally very disappointed in DU-where are the liberals? Not Here.

Elie Mystal gets it right.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/amy-coney-barrett-extremist/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 08:58 PM

15. This is actually BRILLIANT!!!

Is there any chance at all that those who can do this will hear it and agree to it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onlyadream (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 09:51 PM

31. Who knows...n/tt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 09:03 PM

18. People of Praise are "Careful critical thinkers?"

If they were careful critical thinkers, they wouldn't be in People of Praise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 09:08 PM

19. This is the best post I have seen here EVER!

thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MRDAWG (Reply #19)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 09:50 PM

30. I didn't write it...

Just shared it...please share as you can..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 09:15 PM

21. I could not get past "it's not a cult". No mention of the misogyny, the oaths of submission, the

head and handmaids bs. Makes one wonder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #21)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 09:44 PM

28. Yes, doesn't it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 09:19 PM

22. Love the idea of counter-programming

The 26 women he's assaulted is brilliant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 09:33 PM

25. Don't the republicans as the majority party get to

pretty much set the rules for the hearings? If so, they will keep them short and compact. There is no way they will let us question her for days and days. Even if every Democrat gives their time time to Senator Harris, that time may be rather short. They don't need any time at all. They know how they are going to vote.

I do agree in theory this is a good strategy, but I don't see the republicans just sitting there and letting it happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 09:49 PM

29. Brilliant!

Big K&R.


Someone please send this to Sen. Harris + other senators. Going out to mine now.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duppers (Reply #29)

Sun Oct 4, 2020, 07:02 PM

35. Excellent

I just emailed it to Sen Catherine Cortez Masto (D), with attribution to the author, Bill Svelmoe and the FB group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ananda62 (Reply #35)

Mon Oct 5, 2020, 12:10 PM

36. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 09:58 PM

32. Best idea: no-show

If no one shows up, the optics de-legitimizes the hearings. It's a power grab and the Democratic party should not play along. Send in one senator - Kamala Harris -- to do all the grilling. Fabulous idea!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 10:43 PM

33. Kick for exposure...n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2020, 11:14 PM

34. Yes, she is a woman but her qualifications are that she is a woman who is controllable / controlled.

Yes, she is a woman but her qualifications are that she is a woman who is controllable / controlled.

There are many other women who are independent persons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread