Don't Let The Wrapper Fool You Amy Coney Barrett Is Cold-Blooded Legalistic Evil

 

 

"Men like to substitute words for reality and then argue about the words,"

Edwin Armstrong, inventor of regenerative circuitry, superheterodyne circuitry and FM transmission*

In Amy Coney Barrett's near total non-responsiveness to Democrats, even to the extent that "textalist" fraud would not even note that the clear text of the Constitution does not give a Trump the power to delay the date of an election and that it specifies, exactly the minute that a Trump's term of office ends and if he refuses to go he is a criminal, she showed that she might be less full of macho bluster than her colleague Brett Kavanaugh but she's every bit as dangerous and dishonest as he is.

I have listened to a number of the exchanges with some of the Democratic Senators that show her cold-blooded method of looking for ways to do terrible things, something that her fellow Republican-fascist judges and "justices" do all the time, something that is all too common in the legal profession which has done so much to earn the disdain that so many of us feel for it. I get the feeling that a lot of those lawyers on the Democratic side of the Judiciary Committee must feel finally freed to blow the whistle on how truly evil so many members of their profession are, from sleazebag lawyers in service to oligarchy to the judges they argue in front of to the Supreme Court.

I think Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's dissertation on the flood of dark money that the "free speech" rulings by the court have released into the American political system will be a classic in exposure of corruption, corruption which the Supreme Court released even as it was told that this would be the effect of those floodgates being opened so there is no possible claim that Roberts et al didn't know exactly what they were doing. I will point out that for a good part of that the phony-liberal icon, the ACLU was thick as thieves with the dark money interests. I have not looked closely to see if anywhere there is a full study of the funding and associations of the ACLU to see if it has a significant relationship with the dark money machine but if they aren't getting paid to do what they have been able to see will result in this corruption - and they've been doing it for pretty much the entire existence of the ACLU - if they're not doing it for money they're a good example of the total cluelessness of the secular modernist "enlightenment" mindset. But, then, they're the ones who figure the Nazis and KKK should be free to get another bite at the apple despite who gets killed by them.  I cannot hide my disdain for the ACLU and the "civil liberties" industry that has given these fascist "justices" the language and the cultural idiocy that has been the tool of such corruption in the United States.  I'm sure to have more to say about that as they've got so many real liberals and "leftists" gulled so completely.

I have to say that even those Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who regularly drive me nuts like Chris Coons and Diane Feinstein did a great job this time, though they certainly know that nothing they revealed or said or forced Amy Coney Barrett to reveal by her refusal to answer even the most obvious questions will make the slightest difference to her being put on that putrid court and doing untold damage to untold numbers of people from it. Some of their clear strategy of laying a record wasn't immediately apparent until I listened a second time.

One of those who I think is not often enough noted as a skilled questioner and deep thinker is Senator Mazie Hirono. Her exchage of yesterday exposed the cold-blooded, indifference that Barrett clearly practices that can be shielded by judge talk and lawyer talk and leaglistic babble, the kind of thing that can make the most seemingly respectable, even lovely people self-righteously do terrible things mostly to those too powerless and poor to strike back.

In her exchange with Barrett, Senator Hirono cut through it by noting the discrepancies between Barrett's babble and what she had written in her appalling dissent supporting one of Trumps anti-POOR immigrant policies that even she noted the devastating and dangerous effects it would have, which Senator Hirono supplemented with actual, real life examples of the effects that Barrett wasn't bothered by using legal babble as to why she didn't figure it was any concern of hers. I think one of the reasons that the Federalist Fascist judge choosing mechanism for the Republican-fascist party chose Barrett is that they figure hiding evil behind the facade of a white-woman with seven children would make it an easier sell than another preppy rapist. But no one should fall for the packaging, Amy Coney Barrett is as evil and cold-blooded as Alito or Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, she might even be as pathologically cruel as her hero Scalia or his sidekick Thomas. But I think their timing will make her the masthead figure on the decision that takes away healthcare from tens of millions and probably many more, maybe even on another Supreme Court coup putting Trump back in the presidency. It might seem unfair to put all the blame on her but that's a matter of Republican-fascist choice and the choice of Barrett herself.

I think the last hope of the United States staying together is if there is a big enough turn out throwing out enough Republicans in the Senate that the Democrats will have the guts to expand the courts and force reforms such as those Sheldon Whitehouse exposed that that the corrupt Supreme Court has needed from the start. Clearly they can't be counted on to police themselves, they've been getting away with murder since the start. I was interested to note that one of the cases that Coney Barrett put beyond anyone's questioning was Marbury v Madison, the one in which the Supreme Court gave themselves a power that appears nowhere in the Constitution that Barrett is all "textualist" over. Well, that power is nowhere in the text, it was not put there by amendment, if privacy rights can go, if other rights can go on the basis of it not appearing in the text, why should that corruption ridden court be able to make an exception for that self-granted power which no legislature, federal or state has passed into the text of the Constitution?

 

* Edwin Armstrong is a person who got robbed by the court  system on behalf of rich men, some of who claimed his inventions as their property when they couldn't even understand a technical description of what he'd created.  I doubt the judges who helped rob him had any understanding of the physics and math behind them and didn't care, figuring in their lawyerly liarly way that "the law" was sufficent to make their judgements real.  Only it was the clumsy fiction of the law that gave them that power.  One of the things I've read about him noted that he was deeply skeptical about theoretical procedures and thought experimentation and reasoning were more likely to get you somewhere.  I think he knowingly made that statement based in his experience with crooked courts and judges who were the servants of the rich and so powerful.

 

Clearly the legalistic practice of an Amy Coney Barrett who can look at the terrible things her rulings create will find legalese to ease any vestiges of conscience she might experience, though I'm not terribly impressed with such problems from her cultic "handmaiden" catholicism.  I'll bet she hates Pope Francis.