The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Will Any Senator Dare Ask Amy Coney Barrett if Taking Care of Her 7 Children Will Interfere with Her Supreme Court Duties?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

 
Hide 205 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Polynices says:

    You left out a possible answer: “I’m just that good.”

    • Agree: John Achterhof
    • LOL: Ben tillman
    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
  2. “If Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s zombie corpse can handle the duties of a justice, so can I.”

  3. Mr. Anon says:

    If asked how, as a mother of 7 children under 20, she can possibly find the time to also fulfill her Supreme Court duties, Amy Coney Barrett will reply:

    My children will visit me in the old-folks home. You will be devoured by your cats.

  4. Anonymous[369] • Disclaimer says:

    This could help ACB is some confidential White House source secretly leaked this to CNN that Trump asked this to ACB during his interview of her.

  5. If she is in indeed the nominee, the Republicans will have threaded the needle. The Democrats can’t ask or imply that Barrett isn’t up to the job because she is the mother of 7. After all, women can have it all and do it all according to liberal thinking.

    The objection will be to her Catholicism and some of her nuttier statements she has made defending her faith. Kennedy-style families are passe on team blue; any family with 4 children is seen as odd-ball, never mind 7.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @3g4me
    , @Anon
  6. I wonder if some flaky dude will come out of the woodwork, claiming Judge Barrett held him down on a bed upstairs at a drunken sorority mixer, forcing sloppy kisses on him.

    Looking at her, I’d volunteer for that treatment (but I wouldn’t complain later).

  7. “How hard is it to apply a document that spanned 4 pages of parchment to a particular case? Unless you’re trying to find something there that’s not.”

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  8. That second response to your second question should read, “I’M not dying of cancer.”

    In fact, the workload of a federal appellate judge (Coney Barrett presently sits on the Seventh Circuit) is probably at least as heavy as that of a Supreme Court Justice, if not more so. First, SCOTUS accepts fewer than 100 cases for full briefing and argument in a term. The overwhelming majority of litigants seeking review of their cases, usually from the federal circuits or state supreme courts, are turned away. By contrast, virtually anyone looking to appeal an adverse decision from a federal district court is entitled to a hearing before a circuit court of appeals, as long as the disgruntled litigant files a timely notice of appeal.

    Second, as you pointedly note, at the Supreme Court, the law clerks do a lot of the work. They’re the best of the best: highly intelligent, industrious, detail-oriented, driven to excel. My sense is that the justices have too much professional pride in their own individual handiwork to delegate the actual writing of opinions to the law clerks. The justices may, however, ask the clerks for “bench memos” on the current state of the law on one discrete issue or another; these memos, lightly edited, may find their way into the justices’ opinions. Hey, law firm partners don’t do much legal research, either: that’s what associates are for.

    Clerks also do the bulk of the “cert pool” work, reviewing the thousands of petitions for certiorari — many of them little more than handwritten scribbling, but according to Court tradition, entitled to the same review and inspection as a formal certiorari petition submitted by regular Supreme Court practitioners. The clerks then advise the justices which cases appear to have some meritorious ground entitling them to Court review.

    Coney Barrett knows all of this, but won’t mention a word of it. She’s not going to tell the Senate that the real reason she would relish being on the Supreme Court is that she would finally get home before 9:00 p.m. (And no one will ask her how she intends to serve on the Court with seven children. She’d just smile, sweetly, and say, “With the help of G-d, and my wonderful husband. That’s how.”)

    • Agree: JosephB
    • Thanks: Buffalo Joe
    • LOL: mark green
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  9. Dear Dems:

    Don’t forget, before you start your campaign of hate on Barrett that: Women Never Forget; they remember every nasty thing you did to them.

  10. Leaving out the fact that all the work is done by clerks and that senility is no obstacle to being an effective supreme court justice, so it’s questionable how much of a problem an active social and family life is, what is it that a hard working justice could do that a not hard working one couldn’t? What is it that we’re supposed to expect from these people? Or is this just about getting in a dig against working mothers for the sake of other fields where work ethic actually matters.

    It seems to me, that insofar as justices are filling in laws then being a competent hard worker who comes up with compelling legal standards (that can always just be overturned by legislatures) is a good thing. But when they’re coming up with elaborate justifications for why they want the constitution to say this or that and we’re effectively stuck with what they say forever, the stupider and lazier judge the better because it just makes it that much more obvious how ridiculous the whole system is. And ultimately the supreme court is much more about the latter than anything else.

  11. Can’t she just ask one of the men how she should vote?

    • Replies: @Forbes
  12. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    I doubt she’ll be asked how can she can juggle raising 7 kids and have a law career since
    even cuckservatives would say that’s a sexist thing to ask. After all it’s the Dems who are the real sexists!

    As far as how she’d vote, will she toe the party line like Alito and Thomas or will she be another wild card like Roberts? Adopting children from Haiti seems to indicate to me she lacks an awareness of human biodiversity and could be prone to Sandra Day O’Connor wishful thinking- like say 25 more years of AA will be enough to close the achievement gap (that’s what O’Connor actually said in 2003 upholding AA). I think the woman from NC would have been a better bet and to paraphrase Ann Coulter, Dem nominees always deliver (for the Dems) while GOP nominees only sometimes do. It’s a roll of the dice no matter who the Repubs pick but why not at least hedge your bets.

    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
  13. Anonymous[106] • Disclaimer says:

    Robert Barnes is one the country’s great legal minds. He’s really going after Barrett on his twitter today and makes good points.

    But it sucks how he is pushing Lagoa as the best other choice. WTF.

    Lagao can only be considered top tier candidate if 1/ you remove all the men and 2/ obsess about how the nominee will impact the election in Florida and 3/ obsess about how many Democrats voted for her to the circuit court when zero dem votes are required to get her seated on scotus.

    WE MIGHT HAVE TO LIVE WITH ANY OF THESE LADIES SITTING ON SCOTUS FOR 50 F*CKING YEARS

    Regular Folks: “How about sticking to the legal issues?”

    Clown Car: “Boring!”

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Barnes_Law

    • Replies: @Forbes
  14. Anonymous[301] • Disclaimer says:
    @ScarletNumber

    Why has “high” conservatism (Ann Coulter, Scalia, Alito, Kavanaugh, Roberts, C. Thomas) become so heavily Catholic dominated and is this a good thing? It seems that all of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court are Catholics with way above the median number of children- Scalia had 9. They are highly unrepresentative of America in the same way that Jews who dominate other elite institutions are. Is this a good thing from a HBD perspective – Barrett’s adoption of Haitian children is highly problematic for me.

  15. One hears about rich husbands, of two- (and even one-) child moms, who pay for the mom’s household staff (consisting of chauffeur/nanny and a house cleaner — both full-timers, private tutors, etc.)

    Outside of when this lady had three kids in diapers, I’d be surprised if she ever had so much as a part-time helper.

    Not that I care whether this big government lawyer gets chosen and/or confirmed, but I’m certain that she’ll have no trouble handling the simultaneous workloads of motherhood and justice. Indeed, she’s probably capable of taking on one or two more, full-time jobs.

  16. unit472 says:

    Correct answer- Two of my children are adopted Haitians. “Their path in life is predestined by their genes not any ‘mothering’ I can provide. Vivian our 13 year old Haitian adoptee is into track. She runs fast but her mind is much slower. My other Haitian adopted child is a 10 year old ‘special needs’ boy. I suspect he could appear before the Scotus at some point in the next 10 or 20 years in a criminal case. I will recuse myself if that happens”.

  17. Rosie says:

    Here’s what I’d say:

    WTF? My youngest is 8, and I get the whole damned summer off. I’ll be fine.

  18. Anonymous[127] • Disclaimer says:

    Steve, this sort of snark reeks of Beta Male Rage towards a woman just because she’s more successful than you.

    • Replies: @Matt Buckalew
  19. Anonymous[106] • Disclaimer says:

    Breaking: Holy crap he’s actually gonna send up the next Sandra Day O’Connor.

    I bet 15 quintillion trumpbucks that she teams up with John Roberts on a consistent basis within a year.

    Who knows she and John Roberts might vote against Trump in January to give the election to Biden.

    TRUMP IS THE WORST HIRING MANAGER WE’VE EVER HAD AS POTUS

    The record already shows and will continue to show that we never did get a justice “… in the mold of Scalia…” and that was the plan all along.

    • Agree: Getaclue
  20. Oh wow she really is one of those huh. Roe v Wade is toast indeed.

    Good luck with the massive increase in low IQ blacks the US will experience in the next 50 years. Perhaps all those “I’m moving to Canada if Trump wins” people will actually stick to their word. Or at least their kids will.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @James O'Meara
    , @epebble
  21. The chances of a Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee asking that question are zero.

    The ten Dems on the Judiciary Committee have 17 children. It would be a poignant cultural contrast to have one of them ask that question, the infertility of a materialist progressive versus that of a Catholic conservative.

    It would be particularly sweet to have Booker ask it.

  22. newrouter says:

    >Will any Senator dare ask Amy Coney Barrett if a mother with 7 children between ages 8 and 19 really has enough time to be a Supreme Court Justice?<

    In olden tymes if the parents were away from home, the oldest children took care of the youngest children.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  23. @Anonymous

    Maybe Protestants tend to sort themselves on IQ more than Catholics?

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @Kronos
  24. AndrewR says:
    @Anonymous

    She has five of her own kids. How many do you have?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  25. J.Ross says:

    Because no “successful” person has anything to do with their kids. Working class and lower middle class people raise their kids. Elites have hostile foreigners who don’t even speak English or know our road safety laws for that sort of thing.

    • Agree: West reanimator
  26. J.Ross says:
    @Steve Sailer

    The white subgroups who test smarter than Jews are elite protestants, but I doubt that Baptists or Lutherans outscore Catholics.

  27. J.Ross says:
    @Anonymous

    Short answer: Catholic school.

  28. Rosie says:
    @DextersLabRat

    Oh wow she really is one of those huh. Roe v Wade is toast indeed.

    I fear you are correct, but we’ll still have abortion. That won’t change, because the public supports it, like it or not. On the other hand, those aspects of substantive due process that are particularly helpful to Whites (the deplorable kind), like the right to homeschool, will be called into question.

    • Replies: @Ancient Briton
  29. Rosie says:
    @newrouter

    In olden tymes if the parents were away from home, the oldest children took care of the youngest children.

    It’s still that way. People with 2.3 kids don’t understand how large families work. I’m pretty sure whatever extra responsibilities the older children have to take on will be more than compensated for by the perks of having one of the most powerful people in the country for a parent.

    Besides, it’s not like a Supreme Court gig doesn’t pay enough for the family to afford a maid. I doubt they’ll have much in the way of chores to do.

  30. @Anonymous

    There’s a theory that the Supreme Court has become dominated by Jews and Catholics because they’re seen to be the most reliably pro and anti abortion groups.

    There’s also a theory that conservatism is dominated by a bunch of prestigiously educated beltway connected catholic integralists as part of some sort of deep state conspiracy to control elite republican opinion.

    Barrett’s adoption of Haitian children is highly problematic for me.
    Adopting american born black children is bad, but maneuvering to have more black people allowed into the country is especially bad. She either doesn’t care about the United States or has a very skewed idea of where its interests lay.

  31. @Anonymous

    It’s more unresolved issues about being abandoned by his birth mother. Also Steve would never say this if she was Harvard Law. Steve is an extremely equivocal populist ironically because for a UCLA grad any hint of not valuing credentialism makes you look like a sour grapes type

    • Agree: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  32. 3g4me says:
    @ScarletNumber

    @5 Scarlet Number: Oh bull shite. Consistency is hardy a staple of liberal thinking. This is typical cuckservative hopium, assuming that the left’s behavior will change lest they be accused of being hypocrites.

  33. @Rosie

    An issue that should (and was before R v. W) decided by the States.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  34. “Con[e]y” is another word for rabbit. That’s where Coney Island got its name.

    Just s(p)ayin’…

    • LOL: Daniel Williams
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
  35. Art Deco says:
    @Anonymous

    Brett Kavanaugh: 2 children
    Samuel Alito: 2 children
    John Roberts: 2 children (both adopted)
    Clarence Thomas: 1 child (none by his current wife)

    Scalia is the only appointee to the court in the last 60-odd years to have had more than 4 children and one of only three to have had more than 3 children. The other two were both Protestants.

  36. @Charles St. Charles

    Beat me to it.

    But you know they’ll pull out every tool in Batman’s belt to try to stop her appointment.

  37. Trump has found a woman who has realized the Prog Femnazi dream of having it all – a career and a family.

    The Progs have told us this is their wet dream for women for the past 60 years.

    The Dems trying to tear down such a woman in the confirmation hearing because she happens to be Catholic, conservative, and white is going to be a horrible look for them.

    Who knows what Barrett will do when she is confirmed, but short-term this is masterful trolling on Trump’s part.

    • Replies: @3g4me
    , @Kronos
  38. @Anonymous

    You know how Jews have incomes like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans?

    Well, Protestant “conservatives” have sex like liberals: no children, please!

    So don’t complain when only Jews and Catholics are left.

  39. @DextersLabRat

    That’s the refrain, but is it true?

    No on Roe simply means the issue (as it were) goes back to the states. Now, aren’t the bleks concentrated in liberal states, as in BLM riots? They’ll fall all over themselves to be the first to legalize it, mon.

    As for the Deep South, this could be the impetus for another blek migration North and Northwest.

  40. @Guy De Champlagne

    I think it’s more that Jews and Catholics are more likely to be lawyers. Smart Protestants go into business, finance, medicine, or engineering/tech. Also most smart Protestants are openly atheistic, which is a hindrance to nomination.

    Her adoption is weird, as is the fact that they use a Down syndrome kid (not sure if it’s one of the adopted ones or biological ones) as a selling point about her. I would understand her adoption more if she didn’t already have 5 kids of her own. Seems like she just did it to virtue-signal. Frankly there’s no way she’s actually raising these kids if 2 are adopted and 1 is special needs. Probably has a very overworked nanny. Having a nanny is fine, by the way, but she doesn’t seem to be the type open to admitting to relying upon one.

    I think Trump should go with Lagoa. ACB and her crazy eyes put me off the more I read about her. This isn’t the time to make the election a referendum about abortion and RBG’s legacy, which is what ACB’s nomination will do. It needs to be a referendum on BLM-Antifa and their summer of piracy and iconoclasm. Lagoa is also Catholic and has 3 kids and isn’t a “chosen one” like ACB. She looks and acts a lot more normal. Many of her rulings seem more conservative, actually, particularly when it comes to law and order. Are the evangelical “base” really going to vote for Biden-Harris just because they don’t get the slim possibility of a new Roe v. Wade ruling dangling over their heads?

    • Replies: @hhsiii
  41. @AndrewR

    She is obviously a better and more accomplished person than most commenters here. But she is totally clueless about HBD, as evidenced by the adoption of the two Haitian children. In fact, it appears that she is more clueless about race than most.

    • Agree: Rosie, mark green
    • Replies: @JosephB
    , @Prof. Woland
  42. @Charles St. Charles

    I wonder if some flaky dude will come out of the woodwork, claiming Judge Barrett held him down on a bed upstairs at a drunken sorority mixer, forcing sloppy kisses on him.

    Looking at her, I’d volunteer for that treatment (but I wouldn’t complain later).

    Five kids, though. It would be like tossing a hot dog down a hallway.

    But seriously, they’re gonna claim that Barrett didn’t adopt her kids from Haiti correctly. They’ll say she went through some kind of gray-market agency.

    They might even produce a Haitian who’ll claim Barrett stole or bought the children, either from her or away from her!

    Look on Twitter, they’re already floating it.

  43. Anonymous[374] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    The old Northeastern WASP establishment which held a monopoly on elite positions declined demographically and was replaced by upwardly mobile Jews and Catholics. People tend to focus on Jews here but forget that Jews were part of a broader New Deal coalition which included Catholics and Southerners against conservative WASPs. The old WASP establishment was in retreat by the middle of the last century when the New Deal coalition dominated much of national politics. Catholics tend to be more socially conservative than Jews, so they ended up in the more conservative positions/roles.

  44. Rosie says:
    @Ancient Briton

    An issue that should (and was before R v. W) decided by the States.

    I don’t want my rights as a parent “decided by the States.”

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    , @AnotherDad
  45. Anonymous[256] • Disclaimer says:
    @Matt Buckalew

    I don’t think Steve particularly cares about credentialism. This just strikes me as a classic case of BMR rather than credentialism or mommy issues.

  46. 3g4me says:
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    @37 The Wild Geese Howard: Trolling the left is easy, and a waste of time. I’d much rather have a politician (anyone, of either party) legitimately look out for my interests instead of trying to score points off the other side. Women should not be judges. A mother of numerous children should not be working outside the home. A woman who adopted two Haitians has no concept of human biodiversity. A mother who adopted infants at the time her own children were infants prioritized the care of strangers over her own biological children. Barrett is a disaster for anyone who believes in biological reality and traditional social hierarchy. Typical Trump appointment – lots of noise and nothing of substance for his purported base.

    • Agree: Liza
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  47. She will be, if she is not already, rich enough to afford nannies.

  48. @Anonymous

    [Catholics] are highly unrepresentative of America in the same way that Jews who dominate other elite institutions are.

    I grew up in Northern New Jersey. I was surrounded by Catholics and Jews. So much so that I didn’t learn that you could be Christian without being Catholic until high school.

  49. Anonymous[193] • Disclaimer says:

    Barrett is from New Orleans, which has a long history of voodoo and syncretism between voodoo and Catholicism.

    https://www.neworleans.com/things-to-do/multicultural/traditions/voodoo/

    History of Voodoo in New Orleans

    Synonymous with New Orleans, voodoo first came to Louisiana with enslaved West Africans, who merged their religious rituals and practices with those of the local Catholic population. New Orleans Voodoo is also known as Voodoo-Catholicism. It is a religion connected to nature, spirits and ancestors. Voodoo was bolstered when followers fleeing Haiti after the 1791 slave revolt moved to New Orleans and grew as many freed people of color made its practice an important part of their culture. Voodoo queens and kings were spiritual and political figures of power in 1800s New Orleans.

    Barrett is said to be very religious and a fervent Catholic. Her adoption of 2 Haitian kids may suggest that there’s more to her spirituality and possible experience with the Voodoo-Catholicism of her native New Orleans. Voodoo involves black magic rituals that are performed to gain worldly power, and can involve animal and human or child sacrifice. The Haitian kids may be a kind of living magic talisman or part of some sacrificial ritual. Barrett has achieved great worldly power by being elevated to the Supreme Court.

  50. JimB says:

    None of Barrett’s children are infants. Maybe they are just really well behaved and self-organized at home. In fact, in most devout Catholic families I know, the kids do homework and housework willingly. They can actually keep order in the house without the constant presence of a parent. And when both parents are out of the house, Jesus babysits.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Rosie
  51. JimB says:
    @Guy De Champlagne

    There are a lot of Catholic orphanages and missions in Haiti. I’m sure Barrett got the pick of the litter with helpful recommendations from clergy.

  52. @ScarletNumber

    I didn’t learn that you could be Christian without being Catholic until high school.

    You can’t.

    Protestants are not Christians. They are, in the best case, people who have heard rumors about the Incarnate Deity and are invincibly ignorant about the Church that He founded. In the ordinary case, they are confused cultists with a veneer of biblicism.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
  53. @ScarletNumber

    You learned correctly the first time around.

    Come on, you just floated that one right over the plate, you were asking for it 🙂

  54. Jesse says:

    She’d be a terrible nominee. Catholic isn’t the problem (the American White elites split roughly 50-50 Catholic and Jewish); it’s that she’s the kind of Catholic that annoys her fellow Catholics. Think how mainstream Jews feel about the Chasidim. Plus, a lot of her specific nutbaggery seems very related to the wing that borrow heavily from the Evangelical wing in order to stem the exodus to real Proddyism. Like it or not, most Americans’ approach to religion is closer to Biden than to the media Super Trads (who all seem to have two or three kids at most, BTW), regardless of wider politics.

    Trump’s election proved that the GOP grassroots are indifferent or hostile to her brand of religiosity. Whining about anti Catholic bias will be even more obviously garbage than usual when the Dem nominee, Dem party leader and half the SC are RC. There is no evidence she will even go the right way on any important issues – immigration, corporations etc. And yes, her adoption is super creepy – leaving aside the fact that adoption is theft, they’re going to try to portray it as a deep love of the Blacks when everyone knows it’s because they’re not allowed to steal White children anymore.

    If she’s the nominee, the GOP will lose and it will be brilliant.

    • Agree: SC Rebel
  55. @Daniel Williams

    “Five kids, though. It would be like tossing a hot dog down a hallway.” Not if she is a devout Catholic who doesn’t have any need for birth control. She doesn’t have a meter above her bed like Stormy Daniels. Vajayjays come in all sorts of sizes and styles, regardless of use. You should know that.

  56. @Anonymous

    “may suggest… Voodoo-Catholicism” or sane people don’t suggest that. Maybe she is secretly a Jew who adopts Christian children in order to eat them???

  57. Jtgw says:
    @Anonymous

    Mainline Protestants and Jews are too liberal now while conservative Evangelicals are too anti intellectual to produce the kind of bright minds that can take conservatism to upper echelons of the law. So it’s left to Catholics.

    • Agree: Kronos
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    , @Anonymous
    , @Anon
  58. MBlanc46 says:
    @Rosie

    The entire question is, What are your rights?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  59. Jtgw says:

    Certain elements of traditional Catholic teaching make them natural fits for a contemporary deracinated conservatism, namely opposition to eugenics and by extension recognition of HBD (and among the ultra traditionalists you can still find actual creationists). Another crucial element is the abandonment of anti Semitism in aftermath of WWII. Notably this shift predated Vatican II so even traditionalist Catholics like Scalia can reconcile philo Semitism and Zionism with their beliefs. “Canticle for Leibovitz” is a fine example of that worldview. Both these elements make conservative Catholics good neoconservatives.

    • Replies: @Bill
  60. Anon[165] • Disclaimer says:
    @ScarletNumber

    She gets brownie liberal points, she adopted 2 Haitians after the earthquake or some such disaster. Plus, she’s already circuit court judge. If she can handle that, she can be Supreme Court justice.

  61. Hibernian says:
    @ScarletNumber

    So much so that I didn’t learn that you could be Christian without being Catholic until high school.

    In my Dad’s neighborhood on the South Side of Chicago, when he was growing up there, almost everybody was Catholic and almost all of the Catholics were Irish. Still there was a Pentecostal church nearby. Please explain a little more about the neighborhood you grew up in.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
  62. Jesse says:
    @Anonymous

    (1) It provides a united Gentile front against the Jewish contingent of the White elites. (They don’t like to talk about it.)

    (2) On a class level, it gives them an in with the Religious Right without having to deal with icky Evangelicals or Pentecostals. (When Podesta had his email account hacked, GOP strategists had a hissy fit at Dem cradle Catholics making this point. The Dems were entirely correct.)

    (3) On a race level, they can be the elites at church, without having to deal with icky mid level Whites. There’s them, the elites, and there’s the Latin Americans, sub Saharan Africans and Asians/Orientals. All suitably servile and grateful recipients of their largesse, with a smattering of colored elites they can mingle with to show they’re not racist. (They’ve lost the American middle classes. They’re okay with that. Note how much of their charity work deals with who.)

    (4) This is something you see with the DSA/mild socialist type leftists. The NYT had an article on lefty types going to Mass. Many on Twitter are viciously hostile to Protestantism, and equally defensive about Catholicism. (That’s why complaints about Jewish touchiness fall on deaf ears; elite Catholics on both sides of the aisle are equally vicious.)

    (5) The fastest growing religions in the world are Evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity. The elites are horrified at this, and flocking to extreme high church Catholicism, with an explicitly Latin American social model. That can’t last.

    • Thanks: bomag
  63. Hibernian says:
    @Jtgw

    Ken Starr, call your office.

  64. Kronos says:
    @Charles St. Charles

    It has happened before…

    (Warning, very nasty verbal content.)

  65. Anonymous[301] • Disclaimer says:
    @JimB

    Maybe
    I thought I also remember reading about a study that indicated that large families were more likely to foster sibling sexual abuse – especially if there were sons who were much older than the girls. Unusually large families serve no purpose in an information economy where parental investment in children’s social and intellectual development is extremely important. Lack of parental supervision is a huge red flag in a large modern family, especially one with a developmentally disabled child.

    • Agree: Jesse
    • LOL: Bill
  66. hhsiii says:
    @S. Anonyia

    I imagine she adopted kids despite having her own out of a christian sense of alms and “to whom much is given much is expected.” I mean, there are some women, Angelina Jolie, Mia Farrow, who just have that weird maternal desire to mother multitudes, and there’s likely some of that. But she is smart, attractive and succesful, so I don’t see an issue with her spreading the wealth. It may be virtue signaling, but absent some eveil mom skeleton in the closet, it seems virtuous enough to me, so not exactly false advertising.

  67. Kronos says:
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    What about Sandra Day O’Connor? I know she was a conservative flop but she met that criteria as well.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
  68. Anonymous[834] • Disclaimer says:

    Right. Yeah. If you’re unimpressed and/or unhappy with this scotus pick it’s because you yourself are _____________.

    It can’t have anything to do with the nominee and potus.

    Barrett’s love of lockdowns and forced vaccinations…

    Trump’s lame track record of scotus picks…

  69. @Anonymous

    As Steve said, Protestants sort more on IQ than do Catholics, but he doesn’t say why. I say it’s because of Protestant culture’s deep anti-intellectualism. It’s not that Protestant religious ideology is any more irrational than the Catholic. But the Catholic church gives a lot of respect to nerds who read books, so the irrationality of the basic message can be swept under the rug.* In contrast, Protestant low-church religion, with its emphasis on emotionality is more inherently disgusting to the nerdish mind. The result is that higher-IQ kids in Protestant households are more likely to reject religion. And you need religion to really care about the abortion issue. If you’re a secular social conservative, you might be disgusted with the procedure but will realize that if prohibited it would just result in a baby boom among the rabble.

    tl;dr many of the people who complain about there being no Protestants on the court are themselves to blame due to their anti-abortion crusade. They may end up learning a painful lesson if Barrett listens too much to her Pope.

    *This shouldn’t be taken as a euphoric atheist rant. You can’t argue with results, and the religious fundamentalists are in many ways healthier than secular America.

  70. @Anonymous

    I thought I also remember reading about a study that indicated that large families were more likely to foster sibling sexual abuse – especially if there were sons who were much older than the girls

    And I’m sure if you looked at families that sent their kids to daycare you’d find a higher rate of abuse by daycare workers.

    Unusually large families serve no purpose in an information economy where parental investment in children’s social and intellectual development is extremely important.

    Read the Nurture Assumption.

  71. Jesse says:
    @Anonymous

    Agreed on the vast amount of sexual abuse in huge families. What can you expect? Most of them are too poor to properly segregate the sexes.

    To settle a bet with myself regarding internet pronatalists: how many White, biological kids do the commenters here actually have?

    • Replies: @Daniel Williams
  72. Senator:

    Judge Barrett, as a mother of 7 children under 20, how will you possibly find the time to also fulfill your Supreme Court duties?

    Judge Barrett:

    Oh, that’s easy. All of them are on social media, and the boys are gamers when they’re not surfing porn on the internet.

    My kids spend all their time on their phones and computers. Now even for school, so I don’t have to worry anymore about getting them ready to go in the morning.

    They have the latest phones, even the eight year old. And there’s a computer in each of the kids’ bedrooms.

    That’s how the little Haitian ones learned English!

    We put a TV in every room too, Senator, but you know only old people like you and I watch TV.

    But you know kids, they get hungry, so we keep the pantry stocked with Cheetos and things like that, so they can just go grab something.

    When they need personal attention from an adult, though, we have a nice Mexican lady at the house. She’s a Dreamer who used to clean rooms at Mar-a-Lago.

  73. @Daniel Williams

    But seriously, they’re gonna claim that Barrett didn’t adopt her kids from Haiti correctly.

    Well, tbh, all third world and most second world adoptions are grey market, at best.

    So, yeah, if they wanna go that route, it shouldn’t be too hard.

    And if the Dems do do that, it will be because of jealousy. Dems see it as their job to adopt the entire third world, especially the handicapped. This Barrett chick is stealing their prerogatives!

  74. @Hibernian

    Please explain a little more about the neighborhood you grew up in.

    I’m not saying there were no Protestants. Rather, they were so few and far between that they literally didn’t show up on my radar. Looking back at it the black kids must’ve gone to the Methodist church in town, but it’s not something I thought about as a kid. That church was indistinguishable from the houses on either side of it, while the Catholic churches in town were very impressive physical structures with k-8 schools attached to them.

  75. @Anonymous

    Okay, you’ve heard the other theories. Now hear this one.

    First, note that Coulter is not a Catholic, though her dad was. (She’s also the only one in your list without kids.)

    Middle to upper class white Protestants of the age to be on the Supreme Court tend to have come from a milieu where they were in the ethno-religious majority, so if they had “conservative” principles, it is because that is what people around them had and they automatically adopted that. When they are dropped into the hyper-liberal acid bath of DC though, they often question for the first time the assumptions they grew up with, and start exploring new “values” which, coincidentally, also help them fit into this new milieu.

    Catholics, Jews and blacks, by contrast, if they have “conservative” principles, it is because they adopted them against the grain of their early milieu, so they are already operating with evident spiritual independence and are much more likely to retain their convictions in the face of the overwhelmingly liberal social milieu of DC. So, yes, conservative Catholics, Jews and blacks are better bets than white Protestants for the Supreme Court.

    That may change in the future as the white Protestant supermajority becomes a minority and even Protestants have to hold their convictions out of conviction rather than just inertia.

    A related Catholic vs. Protestant factor is that Catholicism has 2000 years of theology including the work of some of the greatest thinkers in history (Augustine, Aquinas), whereas Protestantism has at most only a quarter of that, depending on sect, and usually any Protestant sect has only one theologian of any note, who is still inferior to the great Catholic thinkers. So among the high-IQ types who become constitutional law scholars and who take their religion seriously, Catholic theology offers much more substance for the inquiring mind to feed on. A high-IQ Protestant who seriously investigates his own theology is more likely to conclude that it doesn’t hold up to serious scrutiny and will just become an agnostic or maybe even convert to Catholicism.

    And no, I’m not Catholic, so I’m not saying this out of sectarian chauvinism. But when guys like Intelligent Dasein say this kind of Catholic-supremacist stuff, they actually do have a point.

    • Agree: Gary in Gramercy
    • Thanks: AnotherDad
  76. @Almost Missouri

    What was the religious makeup of the men who wrote the Constitution?

  77. anon[316] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Lots of Vietnamese run nail shops. They dominate the nail shop business. Word of mouth and imitation in a close knit community.
    Catholics become Supreme Court Justices.
    Same thing.

  78. Which Democrat will ask the David Duke question?

    Teenage Amy Coney Barrett lived in Matairie, Louisiana, graduating from high school in 1990.

    David Duke was the state representative for Matairie from February 1989 to January 1992.

    “When did your family stop supporting David Duke?”

  79. Thomas says:

    I’m just amazed, amazed, that for the first time since 1993, we may have a Supreme Court justice appointed who didn’t go to law school at either Yale or Harvard. And for the first time since 1981, we may have one appointed who went to law school west of the Hudson.

    Notre Dame… Scalia protégé and former clerk. From the Seventh Circuit. This will be interesting.

  80. @Polynices

    Or: “Now that you mention it, being on the Supreme Court is the perfect excuse I need to get away from those insufferable brats. Can we please wrap this confirmation business up as quickly as possible so I can get on with it. Thanks.”

  81. @Intelligent Dasein

    Found the worshiper of The Whore Of Rome. (Sniff)

    • Replies: @SC Rebel
  82. @Rosie

    As usual, when anything vaguely tingles Rosie’s “woman” button, then the Constitution and republican government are out the window.

    BTW, i know some guys who could come up with stuff that they think are “my rights as a parent”, like say joint 50-50 custody of their children after divorce, rather than “child support”. (The marriage is over, the ex-wife’s hand should not be in her ex-husband’s pocket.) However–like abortion–divorce law is–wisely–not in the Constitution but rather a matter (like criminal law!) for normal republican government to figure out.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  83. Here’s what i’d like to ask Mrs. Barrett:

    If one’s virtue signaling imposes net costs upon your fellow citizens and their children, grandchildren, posterity …

    is it actually virtuous?

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  84. JosephB says:
    @reiner Tor

    But she is totally clueless about HBD, as evidenced by the adoption of the two Haitian children.

    Do you have knowledge of the two children she adopted, or are you speaking in general? If the latter, that’s dangerous when applied to specific circumstances. Perhaps they’re awesome kids, with great genes to contribute to the US.

    • Disagree: YetAnotherAnon
    • LOL: 3g4me
    • Troll: West reanimator
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  85. AnonAnon says:

    I’m more interested in the thought process that led them to having seven kids in this day and age. Careers in law are time consuming and having seven kids in an eleven year span seems rather callus with respect to the needs of the children. Moreover, you don’t really have the time to enjoy them as individuals. The Catholic Church allows natural family planning, which is a fairly effective way to avoid conception. Plus, after having two or three kids and full time jobs you really have to work at it to get pregnant. Seven children with an at home parent is on the nuttier side imo but shows a commitment to their outcome. Seven kids with two full time working parents tells me they’re selfish. As for the older kids taking up the slack, they’re not the same as mom or dad and they often resent the work and restrictions and take it out on the siblings.

    • Agree: 3g4me, S. Anonyia
  86. Rosie says:
    @AnotherDad

    As usual, when anything vaguely tingles Rosie’s “woman” button, then the Constitution and republican government are out the window.

    No, I just happen to agree with Justice O’Connor that not every right is spelled out in so many words. Indeed, the framers of the Bill of Rights themselves agreed with her, not you. That’s why we have the Ninth Amendment.

    BTW, i know some guys who could come up with stuff that they think are “my rights as a parent”, like say joint 50-50 custody of their children after divorce, rather than “child support”.

    That’s not practical in most cases. Kids have lives. How would you like to have to live I one house one part of the week and another house the other part?

    In any event, it is precisely substantive due process that makes it almost impossible to deny fathers the right to visitation. How about a conclusive presumption that an divorced adulterer is unfit for visitation with his children? Would that suit you? After all, there is nothing explicitly in the Constitution to prevent it.

    (The marriage is over, the ex-wife’s hand should not be in her ex-husband’s pocket.)

    Yes, I know you think a man she able to trade in his wife for a younger model whenever he wants, and sadly, you are likely to get your way, as that is certainly the trend. Of course, the result will be more career-oriented women, as they will be on notice that they are on their own.

  87. @JosephB

    First, even the best Haitians (as measured in adulthood) will likely revert to a lower mean in the next generation than whites with the same abilities. Second, she adopted them in an age when such measurements are either impossible or highly unreliable. Third, it’s highly unlikely she even cared, given her special needs biological child.

    The best case would be if her Haitian kids were noticeably dull, and she would draw the appropriate conclusions based on this sample of N=2. I don’t think she’d draw such conclusions, but theoretically at least it’s possible.

  88. @Almost Missouri

    Another quality comment Almost.

    It was interesting that George W. Bush–a sincere believing Protestant–couldn’t come up with even one decent Protestant candidate and put up two Catholics. (Edith Jones apparently wasn’t his cup of tea.)

    But it should be noted that the record of Protestants in recent decades–with the notable exception of Rehnquist–has been quite unimpressive from the conservative/federalist/Constitutionalist perspective. And a few–John Paul Stevens and the laughable Harry Blackmun–real disasters.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @ScarletNumber
    , @Bill
  89. Rosie says:
    @MBlanc46

    The entire question is, What are your rights?

    Right, and they’re not limited to what is spelled out explicitly in the Bill of Rights.

  90. Anonymous[165] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Yes, I know you think a man she able to trade in his wife for a younger model whenever he wants, and sadly, you are likely to get your way, as that is certainly the trend. Of course, the result will be more career-oriented women, as they will be on notice that they are on their own.

    “A 2015 study by the American Sociological Association found that women initiate two-thirds of all divorces, a staggering 69% to be exact. College-educated women initiate divorce at an even higher rate: 90%.”

    https://www.divorcemag.com/blog/why-do-women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men

    • Replies: @Rosie
  91. Anonymous[214] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jtgw

    This is the answer right here. A deep understanding of why this is the answer, and how it came to be so, would require a dense book. But it would probably be a good book.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
  92. Anonymous[214] • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Obviously, most were officially Protestants.
    But their actual religious views seem to map very poorly onto any currently significant Protestant sects, inasmuch as they generally seemed to view both manly vigour and intellectual freedom as essential in a religous sense.

  93. Rosie says:
    @JimB

    None of Barrett’s children are infants. Maybe they are just really well behaved and self-organized at home. In fact, in most devout Catholic families I know, the kids do homework and housework willingly. They can actually keep order in the house without the constant presence of a parent. And when both parents are out of the house, Jesus babysits.

    It’s hard to keep up around here. One minute, men do all the important work. (To be fair, Steve doesn’t say this.) The next, women’s work in the home is so important that women can’t possibly have a demanding career, even when their children are older and they can afford to outsource the housework. It depends on the exigencies of the particular point under discussion.

  94. Jesse says:
    @Rosie

    “All women should be housewives!”

    “I should be able to walk away from my marriage to a housewife with no obligation to support her! It’ll make her less likely to leave!”

    “WHY are there so many career gals?!”

    • Thanks: Rosie
  95. @Rosie

    How about a conclusive presumption that an divorced adulterer is unfit for visitation with his children?

    I think that’d be a bad idea, but I’d accept it if custody would go to the parent who didn’t commit adultery, and the other parent had to pay child support, and also was denied visitation rights (i.e. would only have it if the parent with custody rights supported it). In my personal experience, adultery is as common among women as among men, but they still receive custody rights (and child support etc.) even if this is the case.

    Another issue is if the father is not a biological father: in such a case, the woman should be seriously punished. I’m certain I’d feel my whole life turned upside down, if such a discovery was made. My beloved kids suddenly becoming mementos of my wife’s adultery… and having to pay child support after them (such things have happened) would be like being sentenced to forced labor innocently, and then taking away my money to pay for the expenses of keeping me incarcerated…

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  96. @Almost Missouri

    Excellent points. I would add only that for concrete examples, you need look no further than Clarence Thomas (raised Catholic) and Samuel Alito on the current Supreme Court. (The jury is still out on Neil Gorsuch, who was raised Catholic but now attends an Episcopal church in Washington, and whose commitment to conservative jurisprudence has recently been…called into question.)

    Harder to think of a comparable Jewish conservative jurist: Alex Kozinski was more of a libertarian, and in any case, kind of a wild card. Tremendous intellect, superb writer, but someone whose positions on particular cases were unpredictable.

    If she were a decade younger, Amy Wax would be a great judicial nominee — preferably to the D.C. Circuit — and someone (in your words) “more likely to retain [her] convictions in the face of the overwhelmingly liberal social milieu of DC.” I can’t think of anyone less susceptible to the Georgetown social whirl than Amy Wax.

    Again, your point about how two millennia of Catholic theology (including high-wattage thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas) have provided the intellectual framework for Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, their law clerks and other Catholic lawyers inspired by their examples is well-taken. Myself, I’m waiting for Leo Strauss to come back as Judge Dredd.

  97. Anon[393] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    If you think Dubya was a “sincere” Protestant, you’re a gullible rube. You shouldn’t be voting.

  98. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Unusually large families serve no purpose in an information economy where parental investment in children’s social and intellectual development is extremely important.

    We pick up the slack for the “child-free” and the one-hit wonders. You’re welcome.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Thanks: The Alarmist
  99. @Anonymous

    Jews and Catholics still value education, or at least enough of them still do. Protestants, not so much, not real education, just credentials.

  100. @Charles St. Charles

    When RBG passed, was her last word “Penumbra” ?

  101. Sam says:

    To be slightly Machiavellian. Wouldn’t the smart move be to have a single congressman raise this issue at a convenient time(when the press is in the midst of their character defamation) so that the controversy instead becomes focused on support for working mothers.
    Sprinkle in some “rumored” rumblings about Trump having second thoughts and you now have a new narrative that’s more conducive to allowing female democrats to vote for her to spite the republican patriarchy or something.

  102. SC Rebel says:
    @Anonymous

    The adoption thing is a problem for me too. She’s virtue signaling like the detestable David French.

    Also the SC has far too much power. It used to be that so called conservatives would point this fact out. That it is no better to legislate from the bench on behalf of conservative causes than it is for liberal causes.

    But MAGA or should I say MIGA are celebrating this power of the SC like it’s a good thing.

    • Replies: @Kronos
  103. @Buzz Mohawk

    Lol yeah, the 1780s, back when Protestantism really worked.

    • Replies: @Kronos
  104. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    “A 2015 study by the American Sociological Association found that women initiate two-thirds of all divorces, a staggering 69% to be exact. College-educated women initiate divorce at an even higher rate: 90%.”

    Right, they have to file for divorce so the husband can’t spend all their money on his new mistress.

    As I have said elsewhere, most of the divorces I have seen have indeed been filled by the wife, and they have been long overdue, after they have put up with more crap than they should have: staying out all night, gambling, serial adultery, you name it.

    But more importantly, it doesn’t really matter who is at fault for most divorces. Even if women were at fault for 90% of divorces, the 10% who were innocent would be entitled to support. To deny this is really to attack the idea of marriage as such, reducing it to an at-will arrangement like cohabitation.

    • Replies: @SC Rebel
    , @Art Deco
    , @Realist
  105. SC Rebel says:
    @Rosie

    I know of quite a few cases myself where it was the opposite. The wife was a whore who cheated on the husband and ended up getting alimony from the husband so she could spend it on her revolving door boyfriends.

    Anyone can provide anecdotal evidence. It proves nothing.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  106. Art Deco says:
    @Rosie

    Right, they have to file for divorce so the husband can’t spend all their money on his new mistress.

    They don’t. Divorces motivated by adultery are atypical. About two-thirds of filers do not have grounds. Sociological research on respondents’ motivations for filing divorce petitions goes back decades. There have been some changes over time. Trouble with in-laws was a common motivator 70 years ago, not any more. The distribution of filers between husbands and wives is fairly persistent from one era to the next and over the life-cycle as well.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anonymous
    , @Rosie
  107. Art Deco says:
    @Rosie

    No, I just happen to agree with Justice O’Connor that not every right is spelled out in so many words. Indeed, the framers of the Bill of Rights themselves agreed with her, not you. That’s why we have the Ninth Amendment.

    You’re not going to find the right to an abortion in colonial charters or common law.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Buzz Mohawk
  108. Anonymous[322] • Disclaimer says:
    @3g4me

    A mother of numerous children should not be working outside the home.

    The result of this will be that the most accomplished women don’t have children. Anyone who believes in biological reality does not want that. We need to encourage more smart women to have more children.

    • Agree: Jesse
    • Replies: @Jesse
    , @AnotherDad
  109. Anonymous[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    That’s not practical in most cases. Kids have lives. How would you like to have to live I one house one part of the week and another house the other part?

    It’s not ideal, but it’s hardly the end of the world. If the children are gonna be traumatized by something, it’ll be the divorce itself, not moving between houses. Like many women, your perception of what will end up traumatizing the children has a high correlation with the woman’s interests. Funny how that works.

    It’s better to let this be decided by prenuptial agreement instead of having a one-size fits all system. If some men want to behave as your straw men do, with marriage reduced to cohabitation, it’ll be their right so long as they can find a willing woman. Others would prefer a system whereby an arbitration provider of their choice will decide who is at fault if the marriage falls apart, and the person at fault, regardless of their sex, will lose custody and have to pay up. Different people would have different grounds for what constitutes fault in divorce. And I’m sure there will be some cucks who would sign up for an arbitration provider which operates according to the maxim “better nine innocent men be forced to pay than one innocent woman go without pay.”

  110. Anon[165] • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco

    Sociological research on respondents’ motivations for filing divorce petitions goes back decades.

    Do you have a link?

    My two cents and an anecdote:
    1) Could people who answer these studies be, by this very fact, a skewed population?
    2) Do people who made a “serious” marriage (say, economically stable w family in mind) really tell others about their private lives?

    I remember a brunch with a woman who was divorcing her husband of ten years. A friend and I thought that maybe it was a mistake, (she’s not bright) and so questioned her reasons. There was plenty of frustration to be sure, but it seemed overblown.
    We still see the ex-husband socially. We now believe he had a drinking problem, and behaved aggressively with her. Not necessarily blows, mind you. She lied by omission, perhaps to protect his career and the children. He has asked us, new girlfriend in tow, to not “forget about her”.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  111. Liza says:

    Any woman who thinks she can be a supreme court judge while having 7 children, including 2 adopted from Haiti, is a liberal. A virtue-signalling Catholic liberal – the worst kind.

    • Disagree: Hibernian
  112. @Jesse

    How many White, biological kids do the commenters here actually have?

    I adopted a whole shitload of black kids.

    I call them “The Posse” and they’re my backup dancers.

    Got ‘em directly from Africa for way less than what you’d have to pay over here.

    • Replies: @Daniel Williams
    , @Kronos
  113. anon[108] • Disclaimer says:

    I was afraid Amy Coney Barrett would be all about abortion and liberal on everything else like immigration, but her record on immigration so far has been good. She sided with Trump on the no greencard for welfare recipients case, and sided with the US consulate when they denied spousal visa to an African immigrant who claimed US violated his “constitutional rights”, and also denied him the right to appeal. She also sided with Autozone in a civil rights suit where Autozone assigned black employees to black dominant neighborhoods and was sued for racial discrimination.

    Plus it’s about time we break the Harvard-Yale stranglehold on the SCOTUS bench. ACB went to Notre Dame Law School and she’s young, only 48.

    LGBTQtards are claiming she’s against gays but she has never said or ruled in any gay related cases. Totally made up crap.

    I hope she gets the nod.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
  114. anon[108] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    I don’t care what religion they are, as long as they are hard line on immigration they’re my candidate. Gorsuch was a major disappointment in that regard. He ruled against the DOJ on deportation of criminal aliens making it much harder to deport illegals who commit crimes.

  115. @Anonymous

    Yes, this is quite interesting, although all the lawyers I know are conservative Protestants. They make money in their careers, but none of them really want to pursue judgeships. That means politics and compromises and asking people for money.

    what is it that makes Catholics want to get into law politics? My first guess is family connections or influences from particular law schools. Also, Scalia was a big-time Papist, with a priest son, so he likely has a gigantic influence over young Catholic conservative types. I see he also has lawyer sons, with one serving in the Trump Administration. Don’t discount this.

  116. I’d be glad to give her a couple of more. Even do some baby sitting along with the baby making

  117. @Reg Cæsar

    Also a common alternative name for the Pika, a small lagomorph found in rockslides that grace the high reaches of the Northern Rockies.

  118. Anonymous[284] • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco

    Divorces motivated by adultery are atypical. About two-thirds of filers do not have grounds.

    I generally like your posts Art Deco but I don’t believe that statement. As Steve often says it conflicts with what “my own lying eyes” have shown me. I’ve known several divorced couples in my lifetime and almost every case involved adultery. In fairness to you, the guilty parties might claim that the adultery was driven by other factors (lack of affection, marital absence, sexual incompatibility,etc) but still…Adultery, especially of a serial nature, was the final stake. In fact in my far from the Upper East Side/Hollywood neck of the woods, I’ve never heard of a male initiated divorce that was for any reason besides adultery.
    Where can I find this study (ies)?

  119. Realist says:
    @Rosie

    You are a bitter old hag. BTW what are women’s rights…why do women have special rights? LOL

    • Troll: Rosie
  120. Forbes says:
    @Colin Wright

    So long as it’s not Breyer…

  121. Spangel says:

    Have some hope. Laura Ingraham has an adopted guatemalen daughter and she’s a solid conservative, a lot moreso than Roberts.

    • LOL: 3g4me
    • Replies: @OFWHAP
  122. Forbes says:
    @Anonymous

    Robert Barnes is one the country’s great dismal legal minds.

    Barnes is a self-promoting lefty.

  123. Rosie says:
    @Art Deco

    They don’t. Divorces motivated by adultery are atypical. About two-thirds of filers do not have grounds.

    You keep saying that. I keep asking you for proof. You keep failing to give it to me.

    Moreover, it’s not even relevant to the question at hand. If you assume two-thirds of filers don’t have grounds, that means about one-third does have grounds, and are entitled to support.

  124. Rosie says:
    @Art Deco

    You’re not going to find the right to an abortion in colonial charters or common law.

    You know, what is the deal with people mouthing off about things they know nothing of?
    Abortion was first outlawed by statute in Connecticut in the early 1800s. The statute criminalized abortion only after “quickening,” or first fetal movement.

    But nevermind that. I reject your originalist premise in any event.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  125. @Art Deco

    You’re not going to find the right to an abortion in colonial charters or common law.

    I am convinced that the creators of those charters and legal traditions to which you refer never even thought about abortion when they were laying those foundations, and that the writers of the US Constitution did not consider it either.

    I am someone who holds the opinion that abortion should be legal until approximately the end of the first trimester, and illegal afterward when the human parts of the brain first begin to appear and develop. You see, I am willing to draw a line somewhere, which legal experts here have stated is the essence of law.

    The answer to this and many other issues is either legislation by individual states — for which the power is reserved in the Bill of Rights — or constitutional amendment, for which the procedures are described in Article V of the Constitution itself.

    Either 1) amend the Constitution to make abortion legal or illegal in all the land, or 2) let the states write their own laws about it, or 3) butt out and let people live their lives.

    This abortion issue is a big nothingburger created by people who are unwilling to do the heavy lifting necessary to carry out either one #1 or #2 above, or are unwilling to allow #3. Roe v. Wade is in fact an unconstitutional judgement and should be replaced by either constitutional amendment or legislation by individual states.

    And again, I say this as a man who believes abortion is a woman’s choice and is morally okay up until the embyo begins to become human, around the end of the first trimester. That gives any woman enough time to make up her mind. But I live in a world of absolutists, dogmatists, and political hacks and opportunists who insist on using personal issues like this one to advance whatever suits them regardless of the very real life consequences other people suffer as a result.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  126. @Daniel Williams

    I adopted a whole shitload of black kids. I call them “The Posse” and they’re my backup dancers.

    I buy the black kids from a Chinaman who normally sells to restaurants in the rural Guizhow province.

    The guy seemed really shocked when I told him what I wanted ‘em for, but then I showed him old footage of the Jackson Five and I guess even he’d heard of Michael over there. Crazy world, but I guess that’s globalism for ya!

    I can pass along the relevant Bitcoin wallet and Wayfair listings if anyone’s interested.

  127. Rosie says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I am convinced that the creators of those charters and legal traditions to which you refer never even thought about abortion when they were laying those foundations, and that the writers of the US Constitution did not consider it either.

    The problem with originalism is much deeper than that. It suggests that rights only exist by virtue of having been written down on a piece of paper, or worse, depend on the subjective intentions of the people who wrote the words down on a piece of paper.

    The fetus either has a right to life, or not.

    A woman either has a right to choose abortion, or not.

    I generally agree with your view about when abortion should be allowed or not. Let’s suppose that further research tells us that embryonic development is faster than we thought, and the old quickening rule actually subjects human fetuses to pain or distress. In that case, should common law or the intent of the Framers determine the matter? Or are we entitled to make our own judgment about objective moral truth based on the state of the science now?

    . Roe v. Wade is in fact an unconstitutional judgement and should be replaced by either constitutional amendment or legislation by individual states.

    But unless I have misunderstood you, I must disagree with this. I actually think Roe v. Wade and the whole line of substantive due process cases that preceded it were well-reasoned and correct. The judiciary should interpret the Bill of Rights broadly, and let us vote overwhelmingly to amend the Constitution and restrict our own rights if we so desire.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  128. Rosie says:

    We still see the ex-husband socially. We now believe he had a drinking problem, and behaved aggressively with her. Not necessarily blows, mind you. She lied by omission, perhaps to protect his career and the children. He has asked us, new girlfriend in tow, to not “forget about her”.

    Indeed, this is the problem. A wife who is financially dependent on her husband is likely to keep certain things hush hush. My understanding is that in the immediate aftermath of no-fault divorce, fewer women turned up dead. None of us knows what is going on behind closed doors. That’s not to say I support NFD. I suspect it’s done more harm than good. I’m just saying we have to be careful about drawing conclusions about divorce from what is, or isn’t, written in the court order.

  129. @Rosie

    Well, Rosie, you are highly intelligent and you write good comments, and you are a woman, so I respect what you have to say about this subject. It certainly is an interesting one, isn’t it?

    You say:

    1)

    The fetus either has a right to life, or not.

    and 2)

    A woman either has a right to choose abortion, or not.

    Now, can’t you see how dogmatic and absolutist your #1 is? Can’t you even entertain the possibility that we, as human beings with the reasoning ability God or nature gave us, can determine when that “fetus” (really an embryo in the early stages, indistinguishable from chickens and other, lower forms) has the human right to life?

    As for your #2, indeed a woman has the exclusive right to choose an abortion. The question is, when do we reasoning humans know that it is an abortion versus murder of a human fetus? What I am proposing is a legal line that can define exactly that, so that a woman can exercise her human, reasoning right to choose — before that choice would be defined as murder of a human.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  130. Rosie says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Now, can’t you see how dogmatic and absolutist your #1 is?

    Oh dear, I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood me. I didn’t mean to say that timing has no bearing on whether a fetus has a right to life, and I agree with you about the need to draw a line on the basis of biology. What I meant to say is that a fetus (at a particular moment in time) either has a right to life or not, irrespective of colonial public opinion on jurisprudence on the matter. That doesn’t mean we can’t decide that a fetus doesn’t have a right to life at one point in its development, but then later does have that right.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  131. @Rosie

    Got it. Good. You are miles above some others here.

    But Colonial Americans and the Founding Fathers never thought about abortion in their laws or when writing the Constitution, and it cannot be magically, twistedly rationalized out of “the right to privacy.” But, the way out of this conundrum IS to either use the power to legislate in the states or to amend the Constitution on this matter.

    What is not specified in the Constitution is reserved for the states or for the People themselves. If there is no law about it, then it is up to individual People (women) to decide.

  132. Rosie says:
    @SC Rebel

    I know of quite a few cases myself where it was the opposite. The wife was a whore who cheated on the husband and ended up getting alimony from the husband so she could spend it on her revolving door boyfriends.

    I suspect that, if you looked closer, you’d find that the wife was already being mistreated before getting the boyfriends. What is my evidence for this? Simple: this story is suspicious on its face. Alimony is disfavored nowadays. Most women who get it are long past their “revolving boyfriend” days. On the other hand, maybe your buddy did something really f***** up that didn’t tell you about, as a result of which some (probably male) judge decided alimony was the right thing to do under the circumstances.

    That said, the system isn’t perfect. I’m sure miscarriages of justice happen from time to time.

    Anyone can provide anecdotal evidence. It proves nothing.

    Precisely.

    Nor does the fact that women are more likely to file for divorce prove that they are more like be at fault for a divorce or file frivolously.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  133. @Rosie

    BTW, i know some guys who could come up with stuff that they think are “my rights as a parent”, like say joint 50-50 custody of their children after divorce, rather than “child support”.

    That’s not practical in most cases. Kids have lives. How would you like to have to live I one house one part of the week and another house the other part?

    Utter nonsense. Of course it is practical. Joint custody isn’t some rocket science project to work out. Plenty of couples have in fact done it.

    Sure, joint custody is inferior to children living with both their parents. But that’s over when–the usual case–the wife chucks the hubby out. That’s what screws the kids’ lives up. Once that’s done, children are better off seeing both their parents. (The older they get the more important regular contact with their father is.)

    That you have to make up some ridiculous strawwoman argument about splitting weeks only makes the point. How about every other month? Or spring/fall. Or this school year, the kids are with you, we split the summer, then next school year they are with me. When people stay in the same area after divorce–which is actually the norm–these arrangements are not a problem.

    No you want to trash the simple decent fair option of joint custody, because you are a “feminist”.

    And a “feminist” is not someone who believes–as i do–that women have the right to live their lives as they see fit, taking responsibility for themselves, accepting the consequences of their actions. Rather, what’s become clear is that what a “feminist” believes is “men must give us stuff!!! … regardless of whether we’re giving anything to them”.

    • Agree: Alexander Turok, 3g4me
    • Replies: @Rosie
  134. @Rosie

    Rosie, you need to read this:

    [MORE]

    A quarter of a century ago (!) I was a handsome bachelor in a suit with a good job. Promoted and moved to a new state, I met a gorgeous “9” blonde who was working at a local store. It didn’t take more that a minute at the counter for the two of us to exchange phone numbers and make a date.

    She was hot. When I picked her up, she asked me to come inside while she got ready. At one point, she said she was having trouble putting on her black high heels on with the little buckle strap around her ankle, so “could you please help?” Uh, things were a lot of fun for a while…

    Well, eventually she revealed to me that she had two young children, aged 3 and 8 as I recall, and that she was in the middle of a divorce and custody battle. She lived in a very nice house with a big, wooded lot. I was renting an apartment down the road. Her husband and children were living in a McMansion nearby.

    The husband had filed for divorce, and a judge had granted him custody. He was a managing director at a major, famous investment firm in lower Manhattan. She had his BMW 7 Series, and I got to drive it, even into Manhattan on dates. Oh, and she was nasty and the sex was fun too. Her father was a retired, major, 3 letter executive from a famous defense contractor. We had access to a suite the company owned at the Waldorf Astoria. Her mother had personally decorated the home of a former secretary of state.

    I am slow and methodical, so it took me a long time to realize that I was dating a crazy person, a nut case. I resisted this, because she was so much fun, and I really did consider marrying her, for the fun and for the social advancement.

    I went with her to meetings with her divorce lawyer. I took her to my home state to meet my father. She kept pushing me to propose. At one point, she suggested I could buy a big, cubic zirconium, fake diamond that she could show off.

    It dawned on me that she needed me to make herself more presentable, so that she would have a chance of winning back her children.

    She was a drunk, and I found out she was on probation for something violent she had done to her husband and her family early in the divorce. Did I say she was a manipulative nut job? Eventually, she crashed, drunk, and ruined the beautiful BMW that she had acquired by court from her husband.

    Well, I got transferred to another state, fortunately. She came for one date, and she ended up openly flirting with a dentist at a disco, presumably to make me jealous, and I just walked out and went home. Later she left a message on my phone, apologizing. I never called her back.

    Rosie, there ARE women who are on the bad end of divorce — and this does not even include another one or two I dated previously, with small children, who had left apparently normal husbands over things like what kind of soap to buy and how much money he should spend on motorcycles. (Yes, that is a real life example. She did fine. I was the interim, sex guy, and she found a perfect husband and stepfather for her 3 year old. That was what she was looking for.)

    • Replies: @Rosie
  135. Jesse says:
    @Anonymous

    Exactly. Say what you want about the current system, we’ve gone from the smartest women being locked out of reproduction, to them being *more* likely to be married with kids by 45, with a slightly higher fertility rate.

  136. epebble says:
    @DextersLabRat

    I think Roe v Wade does not have as much salience now as in 1973. Contraception is universally available and the technology has advanced tremendously (Norplant, Depo-Provera … ) and so are Plan B, RU-486 available OTC or Over the Video. It is indeed a rare woman who will “suffer” any inconvenience if Roe is overturned. On the flipside, it will be political suicide for the Republican party/conservative caucus; so political survival instinct will keep it alive. Republicans have more to gain politically by promising to overturn rather than actually overturn. (Same with promising to overturn Obamacare rather than actually do it.).

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  137. @Rosie

    No, I just happen to agree with Justice O’Connor that not every right is spelled out in so many words. Indeed, the framers of the Bill of Rights themselves agreed with her, not you. That’s why we have the Ninth Amendment.

    The purpose of the Ninth Amendment is to keep federal meddlers from using the enumeration of specific rights as argument for the ability of the feds to meddle in everything else not so specified. It’s an explicit statement–as is the 10th amendment–that federal power ends with the specifically enumerated powers.

    The Ninth amendment applied to abortion would prohibit any federal abortion law–restricting or permitting. Regulating abortion is simply not part of enumerated powers of the federal government.

    ~~

    I’ll also note that while some women have tried to induce abortion by various means (ex. poisonous herbs) down through the ages, there simply wasn’t anything like modern surgical abortions available back in the day. No one thought it was a right, because it did not exist.

    An actual “right” i think the founders did believe in, but which they did not enumerate because they did not conceive of mad desire of modern busybodies to violate is “freedom of association”. The founders covered things–like quartering troops–that the British had actually done. But they simply did not conceive of a busybody government telling people whom to rent rooms to, whom to serve, whom to sell to, whom to hire and fire.

    This absolutely fundamental right has been trampled all over by the federal government in the name of “Civil Rights”–the Ninth amendment notwithstanding.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  138. OFWHAP says:
    @Spangel

    Ingraham and Coulter are Eskimo Sisters via Dinesh D’Souza.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
  139. Rosie says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Rosie, there ARE women who are on the bad end of divorce —

    I don’t doubt that, but note that your tale doesn’t support OP’s narrative. She didn’t have custody of the kids, did she?

    Was there a large age difference between Ms. Hottie and her ex by chance? That’s asking for trouble! It never ceases to amaze me how old geezers will marry young women thinking the latter are in it for romance, then they’re surprised when a high-class prostitute does what high-class prostitutes do. Hoes gonna hoe.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  140. Anon[254] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jtgw

    Protestantism with its focus on the Bible or the alleged words of Jesus as the one and only authority can exempt a person from the need to think (“The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it” is a bumper sticker that reflects the mentality). Catholicism and Judaism are less simplistic and require and expect better thinking skills.

  141. Art Deco says:
    @Anon

    Do you have a link?

    I have an offline bibliography somewhere. I’d have to rummage around to find it. A good deal of work was done by a scholar named Norval Glenn, who has since died. The late Judith Wallerstein also published in this area. Journal of Marriage and the Family is one place you’d find papers on this topic.

  142. Art Deco says:
    @epebble

    On the flipside, it will be political suicide for the Republican party/conservative caucus; so political survival instinct will keep it alive.

    You just keep telling yourself that.

    • Replies: @epebble
  143. Art Deco says:
    @Rosie

    You’re still not going to find the right to an abortion in common law or in colonial charters, no matter how many rude non sequiturs you utter. That a practice was not explicitly proscribed does not mean people have an enforceable entitlement to engage in it for all time, your wishes notwithstanding.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  144. Rosie says:
    @AnotherDad

    The purpose of the Ninth Amendment is to keep federal meddlers from using the enumeration of specific rights as argument for the ability of the feds to meddle in everything else not so specified.

    I don’t think this is correct. The Ninth Amendment pertains specifically to the Bill of Rights. It is designed to prevent the customary rule that lists are presumed to be exhaustive (expressio unius exclusio alterius).

    The Ninth amendment applied to abortion would prohibit any federal abortion law–restricting or permitting. Regulating abortion is simply not part of enumerated powers of the federal government.

    The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with the enumerated powers. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to draw strict lines on what the government may do in pursuit of any objective, whether it is part of the legitimate functions of the federal government or not.

    And of course, the Ninth Amendment doesn’t give anyone any rights. It is the other amendments that cast the shadows that Justice O’Connor was concerned with, namely, the First and Fourth Amendments. If the Ninth Amendment is to mean anything at all, it must mean that lawmakers should avoid trampling on constitutional interests recognized explicitly in the Bill of Rights, even if they are not violating those provisions outright.

    Nor does it matter that the Bill of Rights was only intended to limit the power of the federal government, because its provisions have long since been held to be applicable to the states by incorporation. Of course, one could argue that this in itself is the result of judicial overreach, but I don’t see any reason why there would be any appetite for an amendment reversing these rulings. If the states didn’t have to abide by the First Amendment, they’d all have hate speech laws, the voters be damned. The big donors, with the complicity of big media, would see to it. The political branches are no more answerable to the public than the judiciary. They are corrupt (and possibly moreso) in their own way.

  145. Rosie says:
    @Art Deco

    That a practice was not explicitly proscribed does not mean people have an enforceable entitlement to engage in it for all time, your wishes notwithstanding

    That is correct. The question of abortion rights is to be determined by reference to the Bill of Rights, broadly construed. The problem is that originalists claim that abortion was illegal, therefore the framers couldn’t possibly have thought abortion bans violated the constitution, because they were there from the beginning. The problem, of course, is that they weren’t there from the beginning.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    , @Art Deco
  146. epebble says:
    @Art Deco

    Well, let me put it this way: Republicans have to first climb the hill of Obergefell v. Hodges, politically, before attempting the mountain called Roe. Neither one looks promising.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  147. The mother a family of nine said it got a lot after about three or four bcs the older ones were able to help out.

    • Replies: @anon
  148. Hibernian says:
    @Anon

    I’d give the Protestant brethren more credit than that. There are many lengthy Protestant theological treatises in addition to the Bible. Ultra-fundamentalists don’t go in for this so much, it’s true.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  149. Rosie says:
    @AnotherDad

    That you have to make up some ridiculous strawwoman argument about splitting weeks only makes the point. How about every other month? Or spring/fall. Or this school year, the kids are with you, we split the summer, then next school year they are with me. When people stay in the same area after divorce–which is actually the norm–these arrangements are not a problem.

    If you actually think these are practical solutions, you haven’t given this matter any serious thought. These suggestions might work if the parents live in the same school district, or if someone is going to drive the child to school. Otherwise, the child needs a primary residence during the school year. The usual arrangement is every other weekend with the noncustodial parent, because the custodial parent is not going to agree to only have the child during hectic weeks with no time for fun, nor should they as that would be manifestly unfair.

    Summers are another matter, but here again, even if the noncustodial parent has the child for the whole summer, that still isn’t joint custody. It’s regular visitation, and it doesn’t address your real concern, which is of course $$$. The mother is going to have to have enough room for the child regardless. The household still has to be supported. The fact that the father doesn’t live there anymore doesn’t make the mortgage any cheaper. The courts are not in the business of uprooting children. The simple fact is that most men can’t afford to support two households. That is not my problem. If a man is the innocent spouse, he should get the kids. If he’s not, tough shit. I don’t know what more I can say than that.

    No you want to trash the simple decent fair option of joint custody, because you are a “feminist”.

    Joint custody is rarely simple, and depending on the circumstances, may or may not be decent or fair.

    Rather, what’s become clear is that what a “feminist” believes is “men must give us stuff!!! … regardless of whether we’re giving anything to them”.

    Au contraire, it is you who are in sympathy with feminists. My position is antifeminist. The men’s rights movement and radical feminists are cur from the same individualist, anti-family, anti-marriage cloth.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/10/27/are-you-a-stay-at-home-mom-facing-divorce-dont-expect-alimony/#316289fd67a9

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  150. Rosie says:
    @Hibernian

    I’d give the Protestant brethren more credit than that. There are many lengthy Protestant theological treatises in addition to the Bible. Ultra-fundamentalists don’t go in for this so much, it’s true.

    There is a good deal of very excellent Lutheran theology, and Alvin Plantinga’s “reformed epistemology” has seriously undermined atheist domination of academic philosophy of religion. While I recognize the extraordinary power and merit of Plantinga’s “presuppositionalism,” I personally prefer Catholic Richard Swinburne’s apologetics, though I am firmly Protestant on the sola fide issue. And yes, I recognize the tension there, but I suppose I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that humans can reason our way to belief in God, but never be good enough to merit salvation by our own efforts.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  151. anon[181] • Disclaimer says:

    Being a Supreme Court justice actually is probably the best law job a mother could have. As we’ve seen from many elderly justices, you can have the clerks do almost all the work for you anyway. Even if you had to do your own work, the caseload is disgracefully light compared to any other kind of judge from family court up to US appellate. You set your own schedule mainly, and you can work from home perfectly well most of the time. You just have to be able to steel yourself to say No when your child wants to play, and while that is hard for professors, judges are used to being hardnosed realists and being called meanies.

  152. Hibernian says:
    @Rosie

    Sola gratia, yes; sola fides, no; sola scriptura, no. Salvation is by grace, wwe accept it through faith, and sola scriptura is not in Scripture. It’s true that poor teaching, and poor practice, by poorly educated Fathers and Sisters has left many Catholics with the impression that they could buy their way into Heaven through the Sacraments, financial contributios, saying certain prayers, etc. However, that is not the teaching of the Church.

  153. @Anonymous

    The result of this will be that the most accomplished women don’t have children. Anyone who believes in biological reality does not want that. We need to encourage more smart women to have more children.

    The most important thing that smart, conscientious, capable people do is … have children. That’s what keeps civilization on track.

    The exact whoop-de-do of their careers is really of very little importance in the long run. In my experience, even to their personal happiness–children, family is what lasts. I’m sure Amy Coney Barrett considers her kids #1 and the Supreme Court a “nice to have”.

    That’s the cultural message, that’s been “cancelled” and that we need to get back across, especially to impressionable young women.

    That said, smart men have innovated so much in the last century that it really does not have to be a full time job running a household once the kids are in school. And some smart women prefer the work socializing enviroment to the fellow moms social environment. And then, of course, there’s economic stability for the family which has been badly eroded by the immigration tsunami.

    The bottom line i draw from all that is that society should make an effort to accommodate “mommy track” careers. Women who are out of the labor force for 10 years to have children, nurse them and guide them through their pre-school years, but then would like to pick up their careers once the kids head off to school.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
  154. Wilkey says:
    @Anon

    There have been 114 Supreme Court justices. 91 have been Protestant, 13 Catholic, and 8 Jewish. Ergo, there is no shortage of qualified Protestant justices.

    When N is a very small number – in this case where N=9 – then N may not always be representative of the population as a whole, for entirely random reasons.

    Some Protestant denominations are rather anti-intellectual, to be sure. But most aren’t.

    And while some justices, like Scalia, are hard to replace, most or all of our current justices, Left or Right, could just as easily be replaced by a Protestant alternative without the Court missing a beat. The political considerations which bear on the decision to nominate them does not mean there aren’t plenty of Protestants available to take their places.

  155. @AnotherDad

    George W. Bush–a sincere believing Protestant–couldn’t come up with even one decent Protestant candidate and put up two Catholics

    I take it that you don’t consider the evangelical Christian Harriet Miers to be decent.

    • Replies: @Kronos
  156. @OFWHAP

    Eskimo Sisters

    This isn’t a thing.

  157. @Gary in Gramercy

    There is much accurate and useful info in your comment, GiG.

    But even with law clerks shouldering a heavy workload and a “wonderful husband”, it is hard to see how this corporate tool can do her job well and be fulfill her primary duty to care for her and actually BE WITH her own five children.

    If she is doing her job as Circuit Judge well, it has necessarily been at the expense of that duty and at the expense of even adequate time with those children, and that is how she will be a Supreme Court “justice” as well. And yes, I know quite a bit about raising such a number of children.

    Federal law clerks, definitely including Circuit clerks, typically do work quite hard. But if the judge is thoroughly doing what she needs to do, she cannot personally care well for and sufficiently be with a large number of her own children of a young age … a “wonderful husband” notwithstanding. (And what does the cuck husband do, exactly, that he is supposedly able to pick up the slack while Amy is off working her ass off (as she must to do her current job as an active US Circuit Judge well)).

    The woman already showed that her own children are not her first priority, and that she doesn’t care for the interests of her fellow Americans, by taking on two Africans while her own children were still growing up (in the process importing more of the most violent and most privileged race in the usa into this country, who will be favored over her own natural children and any white or asian Americans in college admissions and in corporate hiring and promption). Thanks, Amy, brilliant move.

    But at least she’s subservient to government and corporate power.

    The embarassingly irrational “speaking in tongues” that’s endorsed by her People of Faith group is just icing on the cake.

  158. Anonymous[391] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    The mother is going to have to have enough room for the child regardless. The household still has to be supported. The fact that the father doesn’t live there anymore doesn’t make the mortgage any cheaper. The courts are not in the business of uprooting children. The simple fact is that most men can’t afford to support two households.

    That’s why the woman gets off her ass and gets something called a job. I know that’s difficult for a lot of women to understand.

    The mother is going to have to have enough room for the child regardless. The household still has to be supported. The fact that the father doesn’t live there anymore doesn’t make the mortgage any cheaper.

    “Hello, bank, I’d like to stop paying my mortgage but still live in the house. What do you mean that’s not how it works? I still need a place to live and I have a vagina so that means the world’s men need to provide it even if I’m providing nothing at all in return!”

    If a man is the innocent spouse, he should get the kids. If he’s not, tough shit. I don’t know what more I can say than that.

    Well that’s not how it works, Rosie. It’s the classic Reddit argument:

    1. You say B is better than A, and want to move in that direction.
    2. But my proposal, C, is better than B, and so your proposal to move from A to B is baaad.

    As tiny as the MRM is, it actually exists. The movement for your proposal does not exists. Come back when it does.

    Au contraire, it is you who are in sympathy with feminists. My position is antifeminist. The men’s rights movement and radical feminists are cur from the same individualist, anti-family, anti-marriage cloth.

    No, the feminists are looking for a handout due to possessing vaginas. The MRM is demanding actual equality.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  159. @Anon

    It sure seems like there has been a concerted (& successful) effort to shut Protestants out of the Supreme Court bench in the past FOUR decades or more. Especially straight Protestant men.

    Before “Episcopalian” Gorsuch, who was raised Catholic anyway, I think the last white Protestant confirmed to the Supreme Court was David Souter, nominated by George Bush Senior thirty years ago.

    So, if we ask how long it’s been since another HETEROSEXUAL Protestant ascended to the Supreme Court, the answer is 39 years (Sandra Day O’Connor).

    To find the last straight Protestant MAN placed on the Court, we have to go back 45 years (John Paul Stevens in 1975).

    Given the huge number and proportion of Protestant men in the national population of lawyers during that time, it’s not particularly plausible to call this a coincidence.

    • Replies: @Jtgw
    , @Art Deco
  160. Art Deco says:
    @Rosie

    The question of abortion rights is to be determined by reference to the Bill of Rights, broadly construed.

    No it isn’t, because the Bill of Rights is silent on the question and discretion repairs to the state legislatures. This isn’t that difficult.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  161. Art Deco says:
    @Rosie

    The problem is that originalists claim that abortion was illegal, t

    No, they don’t. Whether it was or it wasn’t is irrelevant to the originalist argument.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  162. Art Deco says:
    @epebble

    No they don’t. Your weird OCD binds only you.

    There have been decades of public opinion surveys on public preferences in re the circumstances of abortion. 70% of the public will reliably state opposition to legal permissions for 95% of the abortions performed in this country. Liberal push pollers try to obfuscate that by asking people inane questions about particular judicial opinions.

    • Replies: @epebble
  163. Kronos says:
    @ScarletNumber

    I think the GOP establishment takes into account that “conservative” Justices gradually drift toward the left over time. (One side increases the power/influence of the office while the latter diminishes it.) Catholics generally last longer in the acid bath of liberal corrosion. It’s partially why Catholics made such superb anti-communists. Think of “Tail-Gunner Joe.” AKA Senator Joesph McCarthy

  164. Bill says:
    @Jtgw

    Traditionalist and conservative are not synonyms. They despise one another. “Philosemitic,” Zionist traditionalists are uncommon. Conservative Catholics are basically Evangelical Protestants in unconvincing drag. A shocking number of the leading professional Conservacath authors are crypto-Protestants. Like, most of them.

    Although opposition to eugenics is nearly universal in both camps currently, both camps tend to be fans of Pius XII (who is a transitional figure between tradition and modernism) who was pro-eugenics and who is also a key figure in “the abandonment if antisemitism.”

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    , @Jtgw
    , @Anon
  165. Kronos says:
    @Steve Sailer

    IQ went by “divine grace” back in the day especially in the Puritan area.

  166. Bill says:
    @AnotherDad

    Don’t forget David “on the down-low” Souter!

  167. Liza says:

    @Hibernian:

    Any woman who thinks she can be a supreme court judge while having 7 children, including 2 adopted from Haiti, is a liberal. A virtue-signalling Catholic liberal – the worst kind.

    • Disagree: Hibernian

    Thanks for just “disagreeing” and not calling me names.

    I am awfully curious as to just when she will be able to be a mother to those kids.

    Contrary to liberal propaganda, “quality time” ain’t the hot thing that they claim. Kids need to know their mother is nearby (when they’re not in school). Not making dates with them where she will try to compensate for being MIA most of the time. “At 5:30 on Saturday, March 23rd, we’re going for ice cream! And we’ll talk and talk.” Right.

    Papa, though essential, is not a substitute for a mother. There doesn’t have to be any concentrated interaction at all times (not doable anyway), they just have to know she’s around and dependable. Quantity time plus focused attention as the need arises are both required, they can’t really be separated. As it has been for aeons. “I love you” will not cut it; the subconscious knows. It is biological. It is too bad that so many women (supposedly) have to work outside the home.

    • Agree: 3g4me
  168. @Kronos

    What about Sandra Day O’Connor? I know she was a conservative flop but she met that criteria as well.

    Well, that really is the rub, isn’t it old chap?

    This is why right-minded people shouldn’t get too excited about ACB.

    She’s more than likely to go all squish on the SCOTUS.

    • Replies: @Kronos
  169. @AnotherDad

    That’s the cultural message, that’s been “cancelled” and that we need to get back across, especially to impressionable young women.

    Well, there seems to be hope for at least one impressionable young woman:

    Heritage America desperately needs more like her.

    • LOL: Kronos
    • Replies: @Jesse
  170. Kronos says:
    @Daniel Williams

    It’s a bit unnerving that this female from South Park looks strikingly like Barrett.

  171. Kronos says:
    @SC Rebel

    It’s eerie how much the female in the South Park clip looks like Barrett.

    I’d guess black kids are the Pitt Bulls of the (human) adoption world.

    • Replies: @SC Rebel
  172. JimB says:
    @Anonymous

    Unusually large families serve no purpose in an information economy

    Unusually large populations serve no purpose either in an information economy after it automates most things. And parental investment is overrated. Kids are mostly born winners or losers. On the other hand, if you have a large family you might end up with one kid who is actually smart enough to get a job in the information economy.

    The statement that larger families have more sexual abuse is bullshit. From Wikipedia,

    “Incest is extremely rare between people raised together in early childhood due to a reverse sexual imprinting known as the Westermarck effect, which desensitizes them to later close sexual attraction.”

    That’s at least part of the reason why you probably don’t think your sister is hot.

  173. MEH 0910 says:
    @anon

  174. anon[240] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Only Catholic Unionist

    The Italian Method of raising children.
    Doesn’t produce happy, loving families is my experience.

  175. Kronos says:
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    Rollo did a decent job on the inherent problems of having a female on the court. That you get this massive singular pressure on abortion and that it defines your very existence as a Judge. Ginsberg was really seen by the majority of female supporters (both hardcore feminists and the less-so) as a pro-abortion judge. There’s no interesting talk on the “Commerce Clause” in those circles unless it entails free government provided birth control.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
  176. @Charles St. Charles

    Somewhere, deep in the bowels of D.C., a completely deniable “arrangement” has been made with the lawyer for the superaccusers, Debra Katz.

    (Her work for the accusers of Placido Domingo and Brett Kavanaugh is only the tip of the iceberg.)

    No matter how absurd the allegations, Katz (or someone just like her) will find something to feed her paymasters with which to titillate the MSM.

    Remember, the goal will be NOT to oppose ACB’s nomination openly (too risky), but to delay the vote until after the election.

    Don’t underestimate Katz – she’s got the relentless fanaticism of a true believer.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debra_Katz

  177. Hibernian says:
    @Bill

    Conservative Catholics are basically Evangelical Protestants in unconvincing drag.

    Including Hutton and Mel Gibson?

    • Replies: @Jtgw
    , @Bill
  178. SC Rebel says:
    @Kronos

    LOL. Gotta love South Park.

    • Replies: @Kronos
  179. Jtgw says:
    @Hibernian

    I would consider them traditionalists more than conservatives

  180. Jtgw says:
    @Bill

    There’s some overlap. Didn’t know Pius XII liked eugenics and can’t find any source to back that up. Where did you get that idea?

    • Replies: @Bill
  181. Jtgw says:
    @RadicalCenter

    My thesis is this reflects changed among Protestants as much as antiProtestant conspiracy. Doctrinally conservative Protestants tend to convert to Catholicism. Morally conservative ones who still reject Catholic doctrines tend to become Evangelical. The ones who stay mainline are liberals.

  182. Anon[165] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill

    I hope you understand one is either Catholic or not. No such thing as “traditional catholic”. That’s a disinformation term used by the heretics who want to take over the real estate and the prestige of the true Church.

    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @Bill
  183. @Kronos

    Rollo did a decent job on the inherent problems of having a female on the court.

    Yeah, I like Rollo, but 3 hours? Bruh.

    There’s no interesting talk on the “Commerce Clause” in those circles unless it entails free government provided birth control.

    But the government and media told me gynocentric societies were going to be so much more sophisticated and intelligently led than patriarchal ones!

  184. Jesse says:
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    And once she ends up divorced or widowed, or her husband is unable/unwilling to be a cash cow, it’ll be different. That’s assuming she marries at all. The super pronatalist sects are finding it hard to get all the women married.

    Conservatives are incredibly stupid in this regard. They want men to be able to walk away from their families without having to support them. They are then SHOCKED and HORRIFIED when women make backup plans. What precisely do you think will happen? No intelligent woman will risk penury on the basis that her husband will always be able and willing to pay for her lifestyle, especially with all the whining about alimony. So she will work.

    • Disagree: The Wild Geese Howard
  185. @Charles St. Charles

    By spending all their ammunition on Kavanaugh, the Democrats have essentially shot their bolt. The only possible thing that could top that is if the launched a similar scurrilous attack from the other direction by accusing her of being racist. I guess they could accuse her of being a Russian spy.

    It will be a generation at least before something like the Kavanaugh false accusation can be used again. No, we don’t believe all women. Why would we?

  186. @Rosie

    They were the same age. They met when they were college students. But you’re right, she was a ho.

    She got a very nice house and $100,000 per year alimony, and she was trying to get the kids. The father’s parents moved in with him to help take care of them.

  187. @Anonymous

    My observation is that is it harder to be a “gender feminist” if you have male children. This is one more reason that big families trend conservative. You have to have at least some understanding or consideration of each sex and be less gynocentric. And if you have 7 kids, at least one of them will be a boy ( In fact many people keep trying until they finally have a boy or girl just so they have at least one of each). Of course, you have Justice Elena Kagan who epitomized the exact inverse of that with her biggest male concern being her cat.

  188. @reiner Tor

    I know a couple who has two adopted black children and one biological white one. They are far more aware of biological differences than the average white liberal. First of all, you can just see things with your own eyes. HBD tell us that all children are different even ones that are biological siblings. But the other tell is that adopted children almost by definition come from parents that have “issues”. If mom gives up a child, there are frequently drugs or promiscuity or both which indicates that might be a problem in the next generation. If these adoptive parents care for their adopted child, they have to be aware of this and be prepared as the child grows older otherwise they will be in for a very rude surprise.

    As a footnote, most adoptions in the US are open adoptions where the birth mother knows the people who will be adopting the child. Those parents can get a pretty good picture of who the mother is. It is not some deep dark secret like a generation ago where the kid was placed on the doorstep in a basket with a note pinned to his chest.

  189. @Charles St. Charles

    A more likely scenario is that a woman will come forward and claim Barrett either came onto her or they had a lesbian tryst. Or some such thing.

    Something like this happened years ago with Madonna. She claimed she was in a lesbian relationship with an old friend from her teenage days and the friend vehemently denied it. But Madonna’s claim is what I remember, which says something.

  190. HA says:
    @Anonymous

    “Her adoption of 2 Haitian kids may suggest that there’s more to her spirituality and possible experience with the Voodoo-Catholicism of her native New Orleans. Voodoo involves black magic rituals that are performed to gain worldly power…”

    Yes, Voodoo explains how Haitians have managed, for centuries now, to embed themselves into the highest echelons of our government and many others. Those black magic rituals are the primary reason Haitians are always so chock-full of wordly power. If Barret has come this far, it has to be all those Voodoo connections.

    For example, not many people know that the animal sacrifices of Democrat operative Donna Brazile (who is also from New Orleans and whose last name indicates another country where Voodoo is widely practiced) were the secret ingredient that enabled the underdog Hillary Clinton to defeat Donald Trump and become America’s first woman president.

  191. @Anon

    ‘…Catholicism and Judaism are less simplistic and require and expect better thinking skills.’

    Catholicism, definitely. It tries to combine Greek philosophy, the Bible, and practical reality into some kind of unified field theory. It’s not a complete success — but it has led us to some pretty impressive intellectual heights.

    Judaism, I’m less sure of. Perhaps it’s mere ignorance — but it all seems to be some rather sterile mumbo-jumbo. Has it ever gotten anywhere? Jews only began to shine when they left Judaism behind.

  192. Kronos says:
    @SC Rebel

    I love it so much I posted it twice. (Not that I forgot that the 3-postings per-hour-limit will eventually automatically post your fourth. That didn’t happen at all!)

  193. Art Deco says:
    @RadicalCenter

    It sure seems like there has been a concerted (& successful) effort to shut Protestants out of the Supreme Court bench in the past FOUR decades or more. Especially straight Protestant men.

    The nominal protestants on the court in recent decades have included David Souter, Sandra Day O’Connor, John Paul Stevens, Wm. Rehnquist, Lewis Powell, Warren Burger, and Thurgood Marshall. (The only one of them without a normal domestic life would be David Souter). Tough to say these people taken collectively were great shakes.

  194. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Well that’s not how it works, Rosie.

    So I keep hearing. I’m still waiting to see evidence that judges have it out for men and stick it to them even though they dindu nuffin.

    1. You say B is better than A, and want to move in that direction.
    2. But my proposal, C, is better than B, and so your proposal to move from A to B is baaad.

    As tiny as the MRM is, it actually exists. The movement for your proposal does not exists. Come back when it does.

    No, C is actually a really shitty proposal. It is an attempt to put the final nail in the coffin of the institution of marriage, a vicious hatred of which you share in common with radical feminists.

  195. Rosie says:
    @Art Deco

    No it isn’t, because the Bill of Rights is silent on the question and discretion repairs to the state legislatures. This isn’t that difficult.

    Therein precisely lies the dispute. The whole point of Roe v. Wade was that the Court held that the Bill of Rights is not silent on the issue. Go read the opinion.

  196. Rosie says:
    @Art Deco

    No, they don’t. Whether it was or it wasn’t is irrelevant to the originalist argument.

    Good grief. You have said so repeatedly throughout these threads. Why are you denying it now?

  197. Bill says:
    @Hibernian

    Not conservatives. Traditionalists.

  198. Bill says:
    @Jtgw

    His famous speech to midwives.

  199. Bill says:
    @Anon

    Does it hurt to be so stupid?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS