Recommended Posts

From RBG to Amy Coney Barrett

Today, President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to join the Supreme Court due to the vacancy created by Ruth Bader Ginsberg's passing.

This is a knife wound in the gut to the left since they believe RBG should be replaced by a liberal. And that totally misrepresents what the Supreme Court is all about.

Also, the left never would have applied that standard when RBG entered the vacancy created by Justice Byron White's retirement. Justice White was a dissenting voice in Roe versus Wade, for example. Nobody ever talks about that. I wonder why, I wonder?... And he was all about football, of all things. :) 

Rather than look at the nomination of Barrett through political agendas, or the lens of the left-dominate fake news mainstream press, or the right dominated shows like Rush Limbaugh and some of Fox News, or even the alt media, I decided to hear from Judge Amy Coney Barrett herself. I mean, that's the most rational way, right?

I invite you to do so, also.


Judge Amy Coney Barrett in 2016

I chose a lecture she gave in 2016 at the Public Policy Institute at Jacksonville University a few days before the Presidential election when the issue of who would fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia was still in the air.

I wanted to see what she thought when it looked to most people following the news, and maybe even her (but not me back then :) ) that Hillary Clinton would win the presidency.

(btw - She simply didn't know what to think of Trump with any certainty, so she said things could go either way with him, although she thought he would lean toward Justice Scalia's textualism. She liked his list but was unsure if he would keep to it if elected.)

Rather than just learn about her views, though, I learned some things I was never clear on with respect to the Supreme Court. Things like the difference between Justice Scalia's textualism versus the strict constructionist view and the living document view. And she speaks in clear easy to understand language. What an unexpected pleasure.

The people who fear her religiosity are listening to pundits and thinking in caricatures. And I expect the formal Objectivist leaders to bash Judge Barrett over her Catholicism by default in a stimulus-response manner.

But her love of the Supreme Court and law are pure and separate and reality-centered. She certainly convinced me. Listening to her speak was like stepping into a bright sunlit room in a beautiful mansion after a long period in a dark damp moldy basement.

And you? See for yourself.


Back to now

Senate confirmation hearings are set for October 12 and should last 4 days. After that, they will wait a week, then it will be up to Mitch McConnell to set the date for the Senate confirmation vote. As of now, that date is expected to be October 26 or a day or two after that.


The upcoming disgrace

I expect the left to go nuts during all this time, especially during the hearings and the week off. This thread is a good place to discuss the abominations that will unfold in addition to the pushback.

The poor and gross behavior of the Democrats during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings was so icky, with so many smear fictions presented as fact, and with the press piling on in such a disgusting manner, I believe, as many do, that this resulted in helping the Republicans gain a few seats in the Senate during the midterm elections.

They didn't fool anybody. They turned people off.

If that is true, what the Democrats are about to unleash on Amy Coney Barrett will help President Trump's 2020 election considerably, not so much his own reelection, but in electing and reelecting Republicans down ballot in both the House and Senate.

Do the Dems know that? I think they do, so I think they are promising themselves to be disciplined. But if the recent past is any indication, once they cut loose, a tipping point will soon hit and they won't be able to help themselves. And straight into the gutter will go they.

Some people are saying what the Dems are about to do will make the Kavanaugh hearings look like a fellowship meeting at a church. I agree and that's what I predict.

But let's hope not...


Link to post
Share on other sites

It already started.

Two of Judge Barrett's children are black and were adopted from Haiti.

To some leftie loons, this is now proof she is a racist.

Anticapitalist Sponsored By Twitter CEO Accuses Amy Coney Barrett Of ‘Colonialism’ For Adopting From Haiti


Ibram X. Kendi, a top proponent of racist critical race theory and author of the bestselling book “How to Be an Antiracist,” attacked President Donald Trump’s likely Supreme Court nominee, federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett, as a white supremacist on Saturday for adopting two children from Haiti.

“Some White colonizers ‘adopted’ Black children,” Kendi wrote on Twitter. “They ‘civilized’ these ‘savage’ children in the ‘superior’ ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.”

That asshole Kendi teaches at Boston University, where I went to college.


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's the distinction I was talking about. Today's "anti-racists" are indeed the new racists - or "racialists". Looking for and stirring up race supremacist motivations under every bed.

A highly unpopular question to ask here: Where would you successful blacks be today in Africa if not for the "colonizers" you say you loathe?

One or two youngsters who won't have to barely survive in another shit hole country get this guy's virtuous wrath. He could have picked on Hollywood starlets first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That asshole Kendi teaches at Boston University, where I went to college.

Those tweets, and the lady who accuses Trump and ACB of "using her black children and child with down syndrome to score political points" is so appalling. It affirms that they believe black children are another species who cannot be raised by whites, because either whites are inferior parents or because blacks have special needs. The idea that being "civilized" is "acting white" is so abusive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

It affirms that they believe black children are another species who cannot be raised by whites, because either whites are inferior parents or because blacks have special needs. The idea that being "civilized" is "acting white" is so abusive.

Yeah.  People who think that the difference between black and white is skin color and that being "civilized" is valuable for everyone just aren't "woke."  Do the "woke" view rioting and looting and burning as black virtues?


  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure where to plant these old ideas. I found these old letters in a mishmash of topics and Frank Forman was mentioned. May he rest in peace. Can “The Law” be objective? There are always precedents and prior rulings and Supreme Court rulings. And ancient laws in each region of the globe may refer to as their “common law,” by a different name. And there was Wolf DeVoon’s The Freeman's Constitution Final draft, August 19, 2001  "Justice is the armed defense of innocent liberty."

We could start from scratch like our founding Fathers were presumed to do though they drew heavily on prior law, including that of the British. What if we had to start over again? Here are the few letters. Peter

From: Neil Goodell To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Re: Rights that Should Not Be Legally Enforced Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:33:01 -0600 I think the issue of "rights" in this thread has failed to make a critical distinction.

On June 12, 2001, Frank Forman wrote: >What we have here is a kind of implicit social contract, which might say that it is virtuous to go along with the law, which has the merit of being known (for a fee to the lawyers!). The social contract can include for a  > provision to let the legislature enact statutes to clarify and unify this “public policy." My impression is that Anglo-Saxon law has not been horrifically altruistic.

A couple of points here. First, political "rights" must be distinguished from rights derived from social policy/convention/practice/culture. Political rights follow immediately from ethics and serve to establish (1) the limitations imposed upon government's power to interfere with the actions of an individual, and (2) the restrictions against one individual forcibly interjecting themselves into the life/actions of another person.

Within the parameters delimited by political rights, rights arising from public policy are largely arbitrary -- by which I mean there is no apriori basis for having a right that states "this" rather than "that." Law per se, is an example of rights arising from public policy. For example: The UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) is the governing language for most contract law. And the UCC was written with the specific intent to keep business moving and to promote economic efficiency. To this end clarity, finality, and the near-elimination of torts was/is paramount. Contract law did not have to be this way, and in many countries it isn't, but this fact alone does not make another system "moral" or "immoral," right or wrong.

What I am referring to as public policy rights, the government should have little say in whether they are enforced or not -- this is a matter for the individuals involved to decide for themselves. I also think this is largely a specialized area and philosophy has little to say on the subject.

Political rights are the proper sphere of philosophy's interest. Matters concerning the use of physical force are fairly easy to characterize. And fraud, a derivative of force, is relatively easy to define, at least in broad strokes.

Let me give an example to clarify the difference between the two categories of rights I am talking about: I am building a swimming pool. (I'm not, but let's pretend, it'll help me tolerate +100F temperatures we're having. :) The pool is wholly on my property.  The law states that a pool is an "attractive nuisance" and therefore I, as the pool owner, must take steps to prevent other people from harming themselves if they should trespass on my property. So the building code requires that I build a fence around my pool to keep neighbors' children from drowning.

As a matter of philosophy, is it wrong to force me to spend additional money to protect other people from harming themselves, who can harm themselves only if they themselves violate the law in the first place?

At first blush the answer might appear to be yes, this is wrong. Yet the law was originally aimed at protecting children, who because of their age and concomitant lack of cognitive development, do not know any better.

So a neighbor's two-year-old child slips out of the house, into my yard, falls in the pool, and drowns (because I do not have a fence). Who ought to be held responsible, or legally liable, if anyone should?

As a matter of philosophy, I could make an argument either way in this instance: (a) that forcing me to build a fence violates my property rights and is therefore wrong, or (b) that my actions have created a situation  whereby people are likely to be harmed, and also attracted to it, and I therefore have a duty to protect others that might come to harm as a consequence of my actions, even if they must violate my rights first (i.e., trespass).

Philosophically, both positions are tenable, so which alternative we choose is arbitrary. Our society has opted for (b), with the proviso that my protective actions are limited by the "reasonable person" standard. (I am highly simplifying a very complex idea here so I don't want to have any debates on minutia.)

Frank also wrote: I don't think that ethics can be reduced to virtue and that there are three irreducible aspects of ethics: 1. Do the right thing (deontology, and with it lots of rules)  2. Do good (utilitarianism) 3. Be a good man (virtue ethics)

The problems with these formulations are that they omit who the beneficiary of the actions is, and what the standard for deciding "good" or "right" is. When Rand discussed her core virtues, I believe she also asked the question whether a person would need that virtue if they were alone on a deserted island. If the answer was No, she rejected it as a primary virtue.

As Frank has described them here, these aspects seem to intimate the existence of a society within which the ethics exist. If that is the case, I would reject all three.

And Frank also wrote: I can't give a good concrete example, still less decide where the line should be drawn, but the foundation of Objectivist ethics and politics, as I have argued many times, rests on virtue. In other words, you have an *enforcable* right when my violation of it harms my character (stealing undermines my sense of self-efficacy) *and* when *your* calling the cops does not harm *your* character. (Even so, disproportionate punishment must be ruled out, since it harms the punishers. Ever notice the tough-guy stance of the Peikoffer bullies?)

An unstated assumption in this argument (an argument also used by Peikoff) is that Objectivism is taken as the standard by which another person's character is to be judged, whether they are Objectivist or not. For your own personal use, this is fine, but it is not adequate when it comes to legal matters. A professional robber will not have his or her own sense of self-efficacy undermined according to his or her own standards. At least so long as they continue without being caught. It is only when they are captured that their self-efficacy might be affected.

Of course from an Objectivist's point of view the robber only hurts him/herself by stealing. But this makes life-according-to-Objectivism the gold standard for how other people ought to live their lives, and I'm not sure whether I am arrogant enough to make that presumption.

To sum up: The subject line "Rights that should not be legally enforced" is a misnomer. First decide whether the right is what I have termed political, or arises from public policy. If it is political in nature, and only one alternative is reasonable in the particular circumstances, then it ought to be enforced. If on the other hand the right is cultural/public policy based, then the individuals involved should decide.

There is a parallel in the distinction between criminal and civil law. In criminal law, the government is the prosecutor because the wrong committed is deemed to be against society. Civil matters are conducted between the parties as the harm is seen to be against an individual -- the government does not usually take an active role on one side or the other. (Regulatory agencies and the like mess this up a bit, but they are another matter entirely....) Neil Goodell

From Steve Reed To atlantis Subject: ATL: Superb legal self-help Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:52:02 -0500 Kyle Varner got excellent responses about insurance matters and moral propriety. I'd like to suggest a reference, to everyone, that has been immensely helpful.

 > (And, where can I find a website on small-claims court laws?) ... it's the best "real-world" legal information site on the Net, bar none. And especially for any matter that you intend to take up yourself, with making a case in small-claims court being one of them. (It's required of you, in fact.)

Nolo's viewpoint, though, is that a host of other actions involving the law can be handled without a lawyer. They've published scores of books, most being frequently updated, on everything from landlord/tenant relations to using credit to shopping for an attorney to bankruptcy to almost anything you can imagine.

Book excerpts, well-planned Webbed guides about these topics, and links to purchase their books and guides are available on their site. The biggest Nolo time-and-money-saver is their phenomenal WillMaker software, which generates valid wills for 49 states (Louisiana is too arcane), along with health-care powers of attorney and "living wills." It's saved me several hundred dollars, and a probate attorney praised what it generated for me. --* *

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." -- George Bernard Shaw

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: Blacks and women and Jimbo Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 22:26:46 -0500

Russell Madden wrote: "As for treating "'freedom' in past eras of massive tyranny" "lightly," what a joke of an accusation. I've written often about such issues (e.g., Lincoln). I don't want a return to the "good ol' days." I'm for returning to the kind of freedom we had in areas where we were freer in the past and for correcting abuses where we were not free in the past. What's so hard -- or "unproductive" -- about acknowledging both the good and bad of the past, wanting to return to the former and repudiating the latter? Another straw man of what I stated and what I believe. Jimbo seems to want to claim that _in no areas_ was the 19th century freer than today. Such blindness to the facts is hardly helpful."

This controversy raises the interesting question of what standard we should use when "measuring" the amount of freedom in a country during a given period.

One obvious method, namely, to examine the amount and nature of legislation and administrative regulations, can be historically misleading, since the fact that a given law or regulation was on the books does not necessarily mean that it was widely enforced. We may be looking at a "dead-letter law," i.e., one that popular opinion, enlightened leadership, or the effects of time had rendered obsolete. We find this sort of thing with statutes against blasphemy, which though technically in force in England of the late 18th century, were rarely enforced, largely thanks to the influence of Enlightenment ideas.

A classic example of unenforced laws occurred in the American colonies for many decades until the 1760s, during a period that Edmund Burke dubbed the era of "salutary neglect." Robert Walpole, who was prime minister (in effect) during the 1720s, favored free trade, but he also understood the political impossibility of repealing the many mercantilist regulations that had been on the books for many years, some of them since Elizabethan times. Walpole therefore instituted his preferred policy ("Let sleeping dogs lie") of appointing relatives and political favorites as custom officials in America, where they routinely accepted bribes from smugglers which amounted to a fraction of the legally required duties. This policy of salutary neglect assured that trade was essentially free in fact, if not in theory.

Hence the amount of freedom actually enjoyed by Americans was considerably greater during the period of salutary neglect than would be indicated if we merely examined the laws that were officially on the books. We sometimes see a similar phenomenon even under early despotic regimes, such as that of the "Sun King," Louis XIV in 17th century France. The problem here, from the ruler's perspective, is that effective enforcement requires an efficient bureaucracy and police force, and these institutional mechanisms tended to be highly inadequate until well into the 19th century. In some respects (though by no means all) the average Frenchman during the 17th century enjoyed more de facto freedom than the average America of today. (This is especially true in regard to the rate of taxation.)

Although Thoreau protested a small poll tax, he noted that the average American citizen would rarely encounter a government official in his entire life, and then it was usually a mail carrier. When Lysander

Spooner decided to become a lawyer, he did not require a diploma from a certified law school, nor did he have to pass a government-sanctioned exam. He merely became an assistant to an established attorney, studied law on his own in this environment, and then set out on his own when he felt qualified to practice and when clients were willing to enlist his services. This ability to practice a trade without jumping through the hoops of certification, licensing, and other government regulations that inhibit market entry is one significant example of greater freedom in 19th century America.

I am not suggesting that we should downplay discriminatory legislation in 19th century America against blacks, women, etc., but we should not rely entirely on enacted legislation when assessing the severity of enforcement, which typically varied from one locale to another. (For example, the citizens and officials of Boston often made it difficult to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.) One thing you don't find in 19th century America is millions of Americans imprisoned for victimless crimes, and this speaks volumes. True, such injustices did occur, but not nearly on the scale we see today. The "spirit of the law" (to use Montesquieu's term) was far more individualistic than it is now, even if this spirit did not always manifest itself in practice. (Of course, this depends on which part of the 19th century we are discussing. The ideology of Jeffersonian individualism suffered a steady decline after the Civil War.)

The legal disparity between men and women, which was quite real, is not a sufficient indicator of the degree of overall freedom in 19th century America. A disparity of freedom is still better, even for women, than an equality of oppression. I doubt if many American women of that time would have been willing to change places with women in a communistic regime like the Soviet Union, where men and women had legal equality (at least in theory).  Equal rights don't mean much when you have virtually no rights to begin with. Ghs

 From: "John Enright" To: <objectivism Subject: OWL: ask ten Objectivists Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:30:03 -0500.  Jennifer Baker (9/21) suggested the results of asking ten people about moral law.  What if we quiz ten Objectivists about the basis and workings of moral law?

The ten Objectivists at least won't bring in divine commands. But when pressed further, disagreements will emerge. The survivalists will maintain that the moral law, at least as it enforces individual rights,  is suspended during emergencies, allowing the trampling of rights for the sake of staying alive, since staying alive is the primary ethical value.

The flourishers will maintain that following the moral law is a constituent ingredient of living well, and that emergencies are a bad excuse for violating rights, since living in a manner befitting to human beings is really the primary ethical value.

The strict teleologists will be unhappy that a code of morality, freely chosen by the self, should be metaphorically compared to law, which suggests commands from outside the self.  Morality is a guide to successful living, they will say, not a law which must be obeyed.

Others will maintain that moral law is no different than logical law, and that just as the laws of logic must be obeyed at all times, so must the laws of morality. Rationality demands consistency, and nothing less will do. John Enright 


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Peter said:

(Quoting George Smith:)

Equal rights don't mean much when you have virtually no rights to begin with


That quote by George is relevant to today's political climate and not just in the context of men and women.

The "no rights to begin with" is the state the current left wants for everyone as they constantly yammer about equality.

To them, once no one has rights, then they will reshape society and decide who gets what.

What could possibly go wrong with that?



Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Leonard recognizes the differences between men and women. Joke. Peter

In 2012, Leonard Peikoff said in Understanding Objectivism, pp. 59-60: The process of removing the blinders from your eyes and taking your concept back to its concretes, I call reduction.

I want to add one more thing to this point, a crucial tip, on how to keep the word (like ‘value’ or ‘life’) connected to things rather than to words. Of course, you can remind yourself, you can make it a policy, but there is a crucial mental process that, if you have it and allow it to operate, will do that for you to a significant extent. In the seminar, we were trying to figure out why it was that half the seminar—and it was the male half—felt quite at home with this process of deduction from definitions, and even if they disagreed with one particular argument, they could really grasp it. On the other hand, the women in the seminar looked simply aghast; they couldn’t figure out what was going on; they felt uncomfortable, they were bored, and they wondered, “What is this guy doing when he says, ‘life has got this attribute, and the statue has this attribute?’ ” [NOTE: The prior discussion examined the differences between “the basic alternative of existence vs. non-existence” confronting living organisms as opposed to inanimate objects like statues.-DH]

We were trying to elicit what it is that [women] do that prevents this from seeming natural. And my wife came up with this—she said she finds this floating definition method revolting, or she used some word like this; she said that what keeps her tied to the concretes when she uses the word “life” is emotion. She said as soon as you think “life,” the automatic connector, the thing that then comes to her is particular living things for which she feels strongly. And she gave us a list. For instance, a cat we had that we loved very much that died. Or a dog that she once had. Or I think she threw me in there as an example. Or she likes the plants (we have certain ones in the apartment). In other words, she was saying that what was automatically the context that stood in her mind was a series of concretes bound together by a positive emotion. And therefore, “life” to her was important because it invoked a certain feeling of the things she liked. Therefore, when she heard the word “life,” that constellation was present right away. And from that perspective, the idea that “life equals self-sustaining action” just simply baffled her. She thought, “This is from another dimension.”

I think that is very, very helpful, because it points out that emotion can function, and should function, as a crucial psycho-epistemological agent, as a crucial means of keeping you in contact with reality. And therefore, it is not an accident that people who are inclined to floating definitions are, in my experience, typically characterized by a pronounced psychology of repression. They are very much on the premise of shunting aside emotion—emotions are unreliable, they’re bad, they’re subjective. These people feel uncomfortable with emotions. They automatize a detachment from their emotional lives. And consequently, they have cut off the mechanism that the mind provides to keep us in that kind of immediate, automatic, psycho-epistemological contact with the concretes of reality. And they end up manipulating terms.

The same thing could be done, in one way or another, whether it’s positive or negative emotions, with virtually any concept. For instance, with “value”—if you just think, “that which one acts to gain and/or keep”—then of course, you’re just lost in the clouds. But if you think your wife, money, your house, clothes, and so on—if those are the things you like, if that’s what you have emotion for, then the word “value” will immediately convey those concretes to you; if you have the feeling and let it function, you will have an invaluable tie to the details, to the concretes, that you otherwise won’t have.

This is only the beginning of a long discussion of the role of emotions in thought and life. But I hope I’ve shocked you by coming out in favor of emotions, rather than against them. I hope you also see that I am not saying that all cognition is driven by passion, that objectivity is impossible, although undoubtedly there are people who think that is about to come. Emotions are not the means of justifying your conclusion—that would be mysticism or subjectivism—but they are essential to automatize the process of concretization; in other words, to automatize the tie to reality of your concepts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox News: Harris rips Barrett confirmation process as 'illegitimate,' claims nominee will 'undo' Ginsburg's legacy. end quote

I thought nominee Barret was uncomfortable and a bit angry when Kamala Harris video conferenced her wicked views to the Senate.

Current Supreme Court makeup. Conservative: Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, John Roberts.

Liberal: Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayer.

What will change if Barret is voted in? Six Conservative votes to three Liberal.

I think what is worrying to many women is the over-throwing of Roe v. Wade. That hasn’t happened with a 5 to 4 Court, and it won’t happen with a 6 to 3 vote count either. However, many states already have restrictions on abortions and mandatory waits and counseling

From Guttmacher Institute: Physician and Hospital Requirements: 39 states require an abortion to be performed by a licensed physician. 19 states require an abortion to be performed in a hospital after a specified point in the pregnancy, and 17 states require the involvement of a second physician after a specified point.

Gestational Limits: 43 states prohibit abortions, generally except when necessary to protect the woman’s life or health, after a specified point in pregnancy.

“Partial-Birth” Abortion: 21 states have laws in effect that prohibit “partial-birth” abortion. 3 of these laws apply only to post-viability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rush Limbaugh says the danger is the last minute thing they pulled on Kavanaugh. He said the entire proceeding looked like normal complaints, but nothing threatening, then Feinstein came out with that letter from that Ford woman at the last minute saying she had been abused by Kavanaugh, she was scared, etc. etc. etc.

Also, another weird danger is that the Dems in committee are saying they will not provide a quorum for the vote to go to the Senate floor.


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Also, another weird danger is that the Dems in committee are saying they will not provide a quorum for the vote to go to the Senate floor.

If no Democrats show up the remaining Republican Senators can pull off a few shenanigans to get her passed. They play dirty . . . we play dirty. If it were 50 - 50 Mike Pence can step in. If it is 50 or more to ZERO for confirmation, won't it pass? Or if there are other lame rules the majority Republicans can pass a bunch for resolutions and votes to get her into her rightful seat on the Supreme Court. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peter said:

If it were 50 - 50 Mike Pence can step in.


That doesn't apply to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Just the full Senate.

Here's an article that explains it in language even I can understand. :) 

Schumer says Democrats won't give GOP quorum to advance Barrett nomination

There are 22 Senators on Senate Judiciary Committee: 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats. In order for the nomination report to leave the Senate Judiciary Committee and advance to the full Senate, the committee needs a quorum of 9 Republicans and 2 Democrats to vote. The Dems are threatening to keep 9 Dems or all 10 away from the committee at voting time.

There's a workaround. The Senate could vote on what's called a "discharge resolution," removing the condition to receive a report from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Then it could vote on Barrett's nomination directly.

The Senate Judiciary Committee could also change its rules, but that's always dangerous, as the Dems found out with Harry Reid's monkey-shines for the full Senate. (Three hundred Federal Judges and 2 Supreme Court Justices waltzing in without opposition that counts during voting time is not bad. Thanks, Harry. :) )

With some Senators being quarantined due to COVID-19, their absence becomes an issue for the Senate quorum. Chuck Schumer said he will keep all Dems away if there are not enough Republicans at the time to meed the 51 member quorum needed.

That's where horse-trading will come in for some wobbly Dems or those about to retire. Such Dems will demand a high price just to show up and they will get it.

Thank God for legalized bribery. That's always the best workaround.



Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2020 at 1:12 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If that is true, what the Democrats are about to unleash on Amy Coney Barrett will help President Trump's 2020 election considerably, not so much his own reelection, but in electing and reelecting Republicans down ballot in both the House and Senate.

It is interesting that Rasmussen Polling thinks President Trump’s selection of a woman, Supreme Court nominee who may not be “pro-abortion rights” has lowered him in the polls. I mentioned before how states already have restrictions on abortions especially, late term abortions, but no one is suggesting overturning Roe v. Wade. And many hospitals and the obstetricians themselves have restrictions on abortions. So once again, I suggest that if a 5 to 4 conservative court did not hear any cases about overturning Roe v. Wade, a 6 to 3 court will not either. My own thinking on the matter is that some at point in gestation, around the 26th week, a PERSON is there.    

I do not think “a person” exists at conception. Of course, the embryo is always a human at that stage of development, but a *person* with rights exists when a person is actually there, which is when the embryo starts to think around the 24th to 28th week after conception. Also it is important to realize that even a child after birth is not granted the exercise of all its rights. A child needs to be taken care of. A child by its nature cannot be responsible enough to drive a car, or to do a myriad of things without adult supervision. That does not mean that it does not have all the rights of an adult, it simply means that a parent or guardian exercises its rights FOR the child.

I also think that the nature of an unthinking human embryo endows it with more importance than any other life form and if it is to be aborted at any time, I think the abortion should be given the utmost consideration. (Growing up in a military family we always referred to such an absolute as “due consideration,” and it is not a frivolous term.) From the instant after fertilization a human embryo should be given more consideration than inanimate matter and more consideration than all other creatures in the vast, animal kingdom. Peter

Notes. From Advancing New Standards In Reproductive Health or ANSIRH: Ob-Gyn teaching hospitals often restrict abortion beyond state law

Hospital-based abortions are often the only option for women, especially those with complex medical needs. Obstetrics and gynecology residency programs are required to provide access to abortion training, but graduates frequently report that hospital policies interfere with that training. When it comes to teaching hospitals, facility-level abortion restrictions can affect both patient care and clinician instruction.

In response to a national survey of 169 OB-GYN teaching hospitals, the majority (57%) of residency training program directors reported that their facility had some sort of written or unwritten policy that restricted abortion provision beyond what their state law allowed. Such policies were more common at hospitals in the South and the Midwest. It was more common for policies to restrict abortions sought for reasons other than maternal or fetal health, rape, or incest, also known as “non-medically indicated” or “elective” abortions. A quarter of all sites prohibited non-medically indicated abortions altogether, and many restricted care for such procedures to a gestational duration under state law requirements. A quarter of institutions restricted both medically indicated and non-medically indicated abortions beyond state law. 

Policies were created by those with institutional power, including hospital leadership and obstetrics and gynecology department chairs, and were perceived to be motivated by personal beliefs and a desire to avoid controversy. It is likely that patients presenting to U.S. teaching hospitals with policies that restrict abortion access beyond state law are unaware of those restrictions.

These findings are especially relevant during the COVID-19 crisis, when elected officials and hospitals have targeted abortion as a “nonessential” procedure. Abortion is essential in any circumstance, given that both health risks and difficulty accessing care increase with delay. Still, the restrictions imposed during the pandemic will only exacerbate the kinds of restrictions we found in place at hospital training facilities, further depriving people of their right to decide if and when to have a child.

This study, “Abortion Policies in U.S. Teaching Hospitals: Formal and Informal Parameters Beyond the Law,” is available in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is making heads explode among the Democrats.

They are asking for Feinstein to be removed from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Heh heh heh...


I wonder what's going on in the back rooms, I wonder, I wonder...

Not regarding these silly Dems, but between Graham and Feinstein. Something's cooking... 


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now