Fishwrap’s whining attack on Amy Coney Barrett

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the SCOTUS.

The National Schismatic Reporter (aka Fishwrap) – because everyone wants to know what their writers think – has an editorial against Judge Barrett.   I’m sure you are shocked.

With spectacular irony they accuse Judge Barret with moral relativism and the people running the process with hypocrisy.

For example, they cite various Notre Dame faculty members against Barrett.  They do not cite anyone in favor.

In the matter of moral relativism, they cite Benedict XVI’s comment about the dictatorship of relativism.   NOW they cite Benedict.  Hypocrites.

Read this:

Her willingness to become a collaborator, complete with the required adoring look at the president at the super-spreader event at which she was nominated, is not enough to justify a negative vote, but it set the table. ….  Denying climate change is not that far from QAnon conspiracy theories. If Barrett really has doubts on the subject, she is not intellectually qualified to serve on the bench, and we suspect she knows that.

They lament that Barrett would not answer questions about matter that could appear before the SCOTUS.   And they suggest that Barrett isn’t very smart if she doesn’t know much about climate change.   Frankly, I don’t know much about the myths of S. American native religions, either.

Fishwrapagere sequitur esse.

 

Please share this post!
Share

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Fishwrap’s whining attack on Amy Coney Barrett

  1. Ariseyedead says:

    If irony gave off light, the Fishwrap is a supernova.

  2. JustaSinner says:

    If the carp wrap didn’t have DOUBLE standards, they’d have NO standards are all!!!

  3. Semper Gumby says:

    Fr. Z wrote: “And [the Fishwrap] suggest that Barrett isn’t very smart if she doesn’t know much about climate change. Frankly, I don’t know much about the myths of S. American native religions, either.”

    Boom. Off the top rope with a folding chair.

  4. Gaetano says:

    I don’t expect a judge to have much substantive knowledge about climate change.

    I especially don’t expect that a judge’s personal knowledge about climate change to have >any< impact on a Supreme Court decision.

    A judge’s duty is to interpret the law in light of a particular set of facts in a case. Not make policy decisions.

  5. richdel says:

    These people obviously don’t know what kind of argument to make against her.

  6. AA Cunningham says:

    For example, they cite various Notre Dame faculty members against Barrett. They do not cite anyone in favor.

    That would be out of character for The Fishwrap.

    Over 50 Law Professors Pen Letter to Senate Judiciary in Support of Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation

    Professional Colleagues ‘Can Think Of No Better Person To Serve As An Associate Justice On The Supreme Court’ Than Judge Barrett

  7. ChesterFrank says:

    FrZ, please give Ariseyedead a star ! Why don’t we just skip the election and make Ordinary Joe Biden the Pope?

  8. LarryW2LJ says:

    Regarding the 88 Notre Dame faculty that are against ACB? It should be noted that NONE of them are from the School of Law. So much for the basket-weaving department.

  9. NOCatholic says:

    So a SCOTUS nominee is not supposed to show gratitude to the President who nominated her (the “adoring” look)? Really.

    I don’t think much of Trump as a President. But if he appointed me to some high office, I would be grateful to him. Gratitude — thankfulness is a virtue.

  10. JMody says:

    So, her personal beliefs and knowledge in re abortion are too decided, too strong for her to be a judge, because she wouldn’t interpret the laws fairly, but her knowledge of climate change is too weak for … her to interpret the laws fairly? Did I get that right? Do we expect her to be like Goldilocks, “just right”, on every conceivable subject?

  11. iamlucky13 says:

    The article is nonsense. They wouldn’t know moral relativism if it bit them in the face and rationalized the injury as ok as a matter of individual conscience.

    The authors bounce all over the place.

    Can you imagine what the response would be if anyone accused Kamala Harris of fawning an “adoring look” at the man who condescended to choose her for a political role, and of being afraid of a mean tweet from a man?

    Their criticism of originalism and allegations of moral relativism are so incoherent and misguided it’s hard to even organize their own thoughts for them well enough to respond.

    A few points are clear enough though: it is not appropriate for a judge to comment on a case that may be brought to a lower court, and thereby possibly bias the rulings of the lower court, such as the Minnesota voter intimidation concerns. It is absurd to insist that she have a firmly formed opinion about a technical matter outside her field of study like climate change, especially after hours and hours of senators badgering her to try to trick her into admitting a firmly held opinion about life and death that they could use to disqualify her (it is appropriate that last Sunday’s Gospel was about the trap posed by the question about Roman taxes). Ginsburg made a strong personal conviction about abortion known in her confirmation hearings, and is praised for it. We all know exactly how it would be viewed if Barrett did the same.

    And I was incredulous that they could close the whole article with comments about religion. Effectively, they were saying, “We don’t think her nomination should be decided based on her religion, but we’re bringing it up so people don’t forget to think about it when deciding whether to support or oppose her confirmation.”

  12. mlmc says:

    As noted above, not only were none of the Notre Dame faculty members of the law school-but NO ND law school faculty have spoken out against Barrett. As noted by one her of law school colleagues (who once taught her & has been on the faculty with her, so has known her for decades) probably none of the undergraduate faculty that signed the letter opposing her have ever worked with her.

  13. Padre Pio Devotee says:

    “The only thing I fear is bad Catholics.”-St. Bernadette

    This statement is truer with each passing day

  14. Markus says:

    “The devil feeds upon the ignorance of man.”

    Read this the other day-cannot remember source. Quite fitting, I think.

  15. Senor Quixana says:

    That is an embarrassing piece. Forget whether you or disagree or not, the logic just does not follow and displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the function of the judiciary. It just shows off the rabidness of the hatred of conservatives.

    They have become an arm of the Democratic party much more than anything representative of Catholicism.

  16. Pingback: FRIDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  17. JonPatrick says:

    It seems as they are throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks which suggests desperation. If you don’t “believe in climate change” you must be stupid because SCIENCE! Of course science also says life begins at conception but like Cafeteria Catholicism we have Cafeteria Science. I see also they are throwing out the charge that she will somehow vote out Obamacare so you will lose your health care! and your Medicare! and maybe your Social Security! You know when they bring up Social Security they are desperate.

  18. robtbrown says:

    Before I buy in to the climate change hysteria, someone has to explain what happened to the New Ice Age of the 1980s.

  19. iamlucky13 says:

    JonPatrick, it’s less about cafeteria science than it is about “science” as effectively a marketing label.

    I’ve observed it is very common in conversation or debate to call one’s own views “scientific” as a way to claim credibility. If one is making their case based on reference to actual research findings, that’s fine, but often it is an individual’s own perception or desired interpretation of findings, without having ever actually taken the time to read the findings. Correcting misstatements or exaggerations in such cases is seldom responded to by presenting contrasting research to consider, but by simply dismissing the other person as anti-science. Same for having doubts, feeling you haven’t researched the topic enough to have an opinion, or simply trying to defer to others as Judge Barrett did.

  20. Semper Gumby says:

    The Fishwrap, as usual, is behind on the news. Global warming is not a problem:

    https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-solves-global-warming-by-running-white-house-ac-with-the-windows-open/

    Brilliant. That’s why he’s president and the Fishwrap ain’t. And the cause of global warming has been identified:

    https://babylonbee.com/news/global-warming-pinned-on-kid-who-keeps-leaving-the-front-door-wide-open-while-the-heater-is-on

  21. KateD says:

    Who does that?!?

    Who bags on Amy Comey Barret?!?

    One would be hard pressed to find a classier, smarter, more elegant, more lovely woman.

    Amazing!

  22. KateD says:

    And I’m sorry, but in my experience working on two separate “climate experiments” they had to fudge numbers to get the results that would make the federal funding continue to flow. And after making it clear I would not participate in fudging, I was placed in another lead’s lab working on my own project by side by side with his team, also working on climate studies. These were scientists with integrity and the results did not pan out. So that’s what they reported.

    The results just don’t come back the way climate change proponents think they should when experiments are run straight, in my experience, in order to support their theory.

    If a person NOT trained in science, can glean that there’s something fishy in climate science without having first hand experience, then I’m gonna wager that person is a pretty sharp cookie.

    I think at the end of the day, it likely has more to do with fidelity to Truth. That’s where law, science, theology, philosophy…..really anything worth knowing….converge.

    In my opinion, climate science was a diseased tidal wave unleased by know nothing Al Gore’s greed and ambition. It washed away true science, destroyed good scientists, and permeated what remained with it’s foulness. It is a blight to the pursuit of actual knowledge.

    We must deny the would be Green Robber Barons (Al Gore, etc al) of the wealth they seek to con the world out of and shine a bright light on their nefarious hoax for future generations to see and learn from. Let THAT be the shameful legacy that they are remembered for.

    Though Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear” is a work of fiction, the research listed in the back upon which the book was based is legit. It’s a good read.

Comments are closed.