The Senate hearing of Amy Coney Barrett is going along predictable lines, with Barrett claiming that she never discriminated against anyone on the basis of “sexual preference” and the use of the term itself is discriminatory — not to mention inaccurate and outmoded.
Saying that you have never discriminated against someone because of their “sexual preference” is a sure fire way for others to know you discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation.
— Guy Cecil (@guycecil) October 13, 2020
It’s surprising that someone in her position is using a term of art that went the way of the dinosaur some years back. The words sexual preference imply that homosexuality is a choice. It’s a holdover from the conversion therapy years and it’s more than a little shocking that somebody being vetted by the Senate for a lifelong appointment to the Supreme Court would use it. But on the other hand, with the goal of stacking the court with the most ultra-conservative legal talent available, it unfortunately makes a lot of sense. Blow back was swift.
Right: “Sexual preference” the kind of language used by Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that opposes equal rights for LGBTQ people (including basic non-discrimination protections) and supports the criminalization of homosexuality.
It’s frightening to hear Barrett use it. https://t.co/BhMlDm1EAs
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) October 13, 2020
"I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would never discriminate on the basis of sexual preference." This is actually false: Barrett sat on the board of a school that refused to accept the children of same-sex couples. https://t.co/cHP7E92eh9
— Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) October 13, 2020
Barrett is only 47 so for most of her adult life and professional care, it's been established that the use of "sexual preference" is wrong. She must live in a very enclosed – and homophobic – bubble to use the term. Only the hard core haters have to stuck with it
— Joe Sudbay (@JoeSudbay) October 13, 2020
The sham hearing goes on and I’m a little surprised that what is the seminal question has not yet been put to Barrett. If I was on the judiciary committee, all that I would want to know is Barrett’s explanation — legal, moral, whatever — of how vetting a Supreme Court candidate in March of an election year is verboten, but doing the same thing in October of that year is simply swell. I just want to hear what she has to say about that. Because if the Republicans were sticking to their own rule, we wouldn’t be talking about any of the rest of it. That’s why this is a sham hearing.
She wants to play by 1790 rules, and the majority of us live in 2020. Someone needs to ask her why she thinks “original intent” should apply in things that didn’t exist then, and that the framers would probably enthusiasticly support.
Well, if she does want to “play by 1790 rules,” then she needs to step aside and let a MAN be put on the Supreme Court. (That IS sarcasm, folks.)
Just heard a GOP Senilator say they’ve filled court positions as they arose. Wrong- hundreds of seats remained empty thanks to McConnell. They’re trying to say Dems would pack the courts – as if they didn’t! Sham indeed.
Donald:Dies Republicans:Lies
Maybe someone should’ve taken that on a follow-up and asked her, “Ms Barrett, when did YOU choose your ‘preference’ to have sex with men? What was the EXACT moment that you realized that you ‘preferred’ men rather than women for your sexual partner? If you cannot provide an adequate answer to the members of this committee, then you need to step aside and refuse this nomination as your language will prove that you are NOT open-minded enough to rule on LGBTQ issues that might come before you as a Supreme Court justice.”
If nothing else, watching her flounder and sputter for several minutes to determine why HER “preference” was NOT really a “preference” would have made for some genuine “must-see TV.”
The fascist believe the Constitution really means nothing, and thus anything they want. What it ultimately means is protection of the individual from abuses by the mob or the state. Fascist only protect the individual if they fall in line and hate the correct people.
All she’s doing is making the case for SCOTUS to get some long overdue updates when the Biden administration rolls up. And don’t worry if the Dems have yet to ask a particular question you want them to. They’re pacing themselves so that they consistently hammer EVERY day of these goddamn sham hearings.
The republicans use the law/rules/Truth like a prostitute. They can’t deal with the sacrifices/character it takes to have integrity, so they buy power, abuse truth & discard integrity to have their dark needs met. No commitment to anything that promotes the common good. They are as much a deadly virus as covid. That, ladies & gentlemen, can be proven with facts.
A bit of verse from the original comic version of V For Vendetta by Alan Moore: “I love you but why must you love the law?/Tis plain for all to see that she’s a whore/Whom virtuous persons have no need to woo/Whom villains screw and then studiously ignore.” THAT’S the GOP.
B e a UTIFUL!
Nicely put, Mayor Pete.
My *preference* is that the winner of this presidential election should choose the next justice.
— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) October 13, 2020
Can’t you see him say that with that smile he reserves for Fox News victims?
It doesn’t matter what she says during the hearing. When she held up the blank piece of paper with no notes on it, I thought that was a real slap in the face to the American people. She can sit there all smug knowing that she will be voted in no matter what because the Republicans know she will vote how they want her to.