SCOTUS Watch

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Defiant »

malchior
Posts: 24795
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

The dissent by Alito is ... something there. He essentially yells State's Rights, pokes at social media companies in a uh...Newsmax way, and then tramples all over a PA State Court ordering PA to stop counting votes ala Bush v. Gore.

malchior
Posts: 24795
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Just because it is particularly absurd but what isn't here. Was Barrett a member of a Christian cult?
The founder of the People of Praise, a secretive charismatic Christian group that counts the supreme court justice Amy Coney Barrett as a member, was described in a sworn affidavit filed in the 1990s as exerting almost total control over one of the group’s female members, including making all decisions about her finances and dating relationships.

The court documents also described alleged instances of a sexualized atmosphere in the home of the founder, Kevin Ranaghan, and his wife, Dorothy Ranaghan.


The description of the Ranaghans and accusations involving their intimate behavior were contained in a 1993 proceeding in which a woman, Cynthia Carnick, said that she did not want her five minor children to have visitations with their father, John Roger Carnick, who was then a member of the People of Praise, in the Ranaghan household or in their presence, because she believed it was not in her children’s “best interest”. Cynthia Carnick also described inappropriate incidents involving the couple and the Ranaghan children. The matter was eventually settled between the parties.

Barrett, 50, lived with Dorothy and Kevin Ranaghan in their nine-bedroom South Bend, Indiana, home while she attended law school, according to public records. The justice – who was then known as Amy Coney – graduated from Notre Dame Law School in 1997 and two years later married her husband, Jesse Barrett, who also appears to have lived in the Ranaghan household. There is no indication that Amy Coney Barrett lived in the house at the time when the Carnick children were visiting or witnessed any of the alleged behavior described in the court documents.

...

In an affidavit that supported Cynthia Carnick’s written statement, a woman named Colette Humphrey said she had lived with Kevin and Dorothy Ranaghan from 1973 to 1978, when she was a member of the People of Praise, and confirmed she had witnessed incidents of inappropriate sexual expression.


Humphrey also wrote in her statement: “When I was part of the People of Praise I was in full life submission to Kevin Ranaghan, under full obedience to him and he exercised this authority over most areas of my life. For example, we were ‘in common’ financially, which meant that I had to hand over my paycheck to Kevin Ranaghan and he would decide on how that paycheck would be used. Kevin Ranaghan controlled my dating relationships, deciding who and when I should date.”

Humphrey – who now uses a different surname – did not respond to a request for comment left at her residence.

A third woman, Susan Reynolds, said in a sworn statement that she lived in the Ranaghan household, and that she had at one point been “shocked” to hear that Kevin Ranaghan sometimes showered with two of his daughters, who were 10 or 11 at the time. She said in her statement she was later told by Dorothy Ranaghan that Kevin had “decided to quit showering with them” after Reynolds had questioned Dorothy about the practice.
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 28346
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Unagi »

Define Christian Cult
:ninja:
malchior
Posts: 24795
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Unagi wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 8:11 am Define Christian Cult
:ninja:
For me, taking the female "guest's" paychecks and decided what they can spend or who they date is a pretty common cult behavior. But then you get into dry humping of your children and showering with your tween daughters. Sounds pretty Koresh-y to me but call me crazy.
Last edited by malchior on Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 28346
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Unagi »

Sorry, I was taking a pop-shot at standard Christianity there.

You are not wrong.
malchior
Posts: 24795
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Unagi wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:22 am Sorry, I was taking a pop-shot at standard Christianity there.

You are not wrong.
Right. I mean I know plenty of Christians who probably would be like - that is a cult - and be revolted by the whole thing. But that a Supreme Court member lived with these people. WTF is going on in this country? How the heck did this go completely under the radar? Luckily for us a ... UK paper ... found this for us. :doh:
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 28540
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Zaxxon »

malchior wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:24 am
Unagi wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:22 am Sorry, I was taking a pop-shot at standard Christianity there.

You are not wrong.
Right. I mean I know plenty of Christians who probably would be like - that is a cult - and be revolted by the whole thing. But that a Supreme Court member lived with these people. WTF is going on in this country? How the heck did this go completely under the radar? Luckily for us a ... UK paper ... found this for us. :doh:
Did it go under the radar? I remember hearing similar things during confirmation. Not in quite this much detail, but I am 0% surprised based on prior reporting, and I can't be alone.
malchior
Posts: 24795
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Zaxxon wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:47 am
malchior wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:24 am
Unagi wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:22 am Sorry, I was taking a pop-shot at standard Christianity there.

You are not wrong.
Right. I mean I know plenty of Christians who probably would be like - that is a cult - and be revolted by the whole thing. But that a Supreme Court member lived with these people. WTF is going on in this country? How the heck did this go completely under the radar? Luckily for us a ... UK paper ... found this for us. :doh:
Did it go under the radar? I remember hearing similar things during confirmation. Not in quite this much detail, but I am 0% surprised based on prior reporting, and I can't be alone.
Yeah I too remember that she belonged to the group. However the recent reporting uncovered stories that maybe we should have been known at the time. The details are what changes this from quirky very conservative Christian organization to ... maybe a cult.

Edit: I just went back and looked at the WaPo piece about this. It's pretty clear they never dug in deep. The difference was the Guardian did searches and found court documents from the 90s that brought these allegations to light. So we should and could have known this but unfortunately it's too late. To be a little fair, it easily could be ascribed to the crazy pace of the hearings which didn't give time to do a thorough vetting.
Last edited by malchior on Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 56364
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Smoove_B »

Despite what Lindsey Graham was saying during Justice Brown's confirmation hearing, the Democrats did not "weaponize" religion or press Justice Barrett about her beliefs and/or background.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
malchior
Posts: 24795
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Smoove_B wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:57 am Despite what Lindsey Graham was saying during Justice Brown's confirmation hearing, the Democrats did not "weaponize" religion or press Justice Barrett about her beliefs and/or background.
That could easily be part of the strategy to hide how radical she might be. They attack the 'attack'. The GOP are masters at defusing issues this way.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 42136
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

malchior wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:52 am
Zaxxon wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:47 am
malchior wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:24 am
Unagi wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:22 am Sorry, I was taking a pop-shot at standard Christianity there.

You are not wrong.
Right. I mean I know plenty of Christians who probably would be like - that is a cult - and be revolted by the whole thing. But that a Supreme Court member lived with these people. WTF is going on in this country? How the heck did this go completely under the radar? Luckily for us a ... UK paper ... found this for us. :doh:
Did it go under the radar? I remember hearing similar things during confirmation. Not in quite this much detail, but I am 0% surprised based on prior reporting, and I can't be alone.
Yeah I too remember that she belonged to the group. However the recent reporting uncovered stories that maybe we should have been known at the time. The details are what changes this from quirky very conservative Christian organization to ... maybe a cult.

Edit: I just went back and looked at the WaPo piece about this. It's pretty clear they never dug in deep. The difference was the Guardian did searches and found court documents from the 90s that brought these allegations to light. So we should and could have known this but unfortunately it's too late. To be a little fair, it easily could be ascribed to the crazy pace of the hearings which didn't give time to do a thorough vetting.
So I definitely knew during the hearings that Barrett was part of the People of Praise, and that they were a little cult-y and controlling wrt to women. These specific allegations are new, though.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 56364
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Smoove_B »

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 10:16 am So I definitely knew during the hearings that Barrett was part of the People of Praise, and that they were a little cult-y and controlling wrt to women. These specific allegations are new, though.
It came up in a few articles (her association), but there wasn't a deep dive by the media and it wasn't pressed during the confirmation hearings (which, to be fair, I'm not sure how they could have done it). Here, the media likely failed -but- her nomination and confirmation happened at breakneck speed so you can understand how she slipped through. It's almost like it happened that way by design. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

Either way, her religious background/associations (as I recall) were presented as a 3rd rail topic. In contrast to what the GOP was saying about Justice Brown - claiming she was supportive of child abusers (by way of lenient sentencing) or that she was an affirmative action nomination.

I know it shouldn't amaze me but the crazier the GOP gets, the more support they seem to find.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
malchior
Posts: 24795
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

It also doesn't help that the Democrats unilaterally disarm every time they are challenged.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 42136
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

Also the media environment is so much friendlier to the GOP. The most popular right leaning media outlets are part of the movement and so are disciplined in terms of staying on message and hammering on what's important to the GOP. Whereas the mainstream media, while populated heavily by journalists that are mostly left-leaning, is very much not part of any political movement (and is often overly concerned about seeming political). So they don't stay on message, are way more critical of democrats than conservative media is of Republicans. And the mainstream media is very focused on what's uncertain and on what's news, so McConnell can drain unfavorable stories of media attention by making clear the the outcome is already clear / decided.
Black Lives Matter.
malchior
Posts: 24795
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 11:52 amThe most popular right leaning media outlets are part of the movement and so are disciplined in terms of staying on message and hammering on what's important to the GOP.
They also help craft the media strategy on top. :grund:
malchior
Posts: 24795
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 45273
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Kraken »

What's the problem? Kavanaugh wants man to have gun.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 56112
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Officials said the man had called 911, and said during the call that he had homicidal thoughts, had traveled from California to attack the justice, and had a gun in his suitcase. He said the gun was unloaded and in a locked case.
Travels all the way from California, gets a block from the Judge's house, and then calls the cops on himself.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 8608
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Little Raven »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 12:51 pmTravels all the way from California, gets a block from the Judge's house, and then calls the cops on himself.
Thank god he came to his senses. Imagine Biden trying to replace a right-wing SC justice that had been murdered by a Californian. That's fantastically dangerous territory. :shock:
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
User avatar
Octavious
Posts: 20049
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:50 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Octavious »

Well Manchin already said he wouldn't vote on another judge before 2024. Because reasons.
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.

Shameless plug for my website: www.nettphoto.com
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 46256
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Blackhawk »

Octavious wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:31 pm Well Manchin already said he wouldn't vote on another judge before 2024. Because reasons.
I keep thinking up responses to this, and every one is so inappropriate that I'll just let people use their imaginations.
What doesn't kill me makes me stranger.
User avatar
Octavious
Posts: 20049
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:50 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Octavious »

Blackhawk wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:48 pm
Octavious wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:31 pm Well Manchin already said he wouldn't vote on another judge before 2024. Because reasons.
I keep thinking up responses to this, and every one is so inappropriate that I'll just let people use their imaginations.
It amazes me how shitty the majority of the politicians are. Was it always this bad and it wasn't as obvious? Manchin putting a mystery limit because he can. Graham a few years back with use my words against me about voting in an election year. I hate them all so much.
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.

Shameless plug for my website: www.nettphoto.com
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 24297
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Pyperkub »

Kraken wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 11:20 am What's the problem? Kavanaugh wants man to have gun.
Yup:


How about we just put Kavanaugh through active shooter drills and tell him to hide behind a door, like every 3rd grader in America?
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
malchior
Posts: 24795
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

How about someone ask McConnell to stop blocking the bill protecting regular judges as a trade? One of whom actually saw family murdered in their own home in the last few years.
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 28346
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Unagi »

I really hate to say this... I think I would maybe rather live in the alternate timeline where that man actually did manage to shoot someone in his family.

I stop short of saying that I wished it happened... But I will say that in all the infinite universes out there, I bet the one where that happened may address the issue faster than ours will.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 42136
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

Octavious wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:21 pm
Blackhawk wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:48 pm
Octavious wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:31 pm Well Manchin already said he wouldn't vote on another judge before 2024. Because reasons.
I keep thinking up responses to this, and every one is so inappropriate that I'll just let people use their imaginations.
It amazes me how shitty the majority of the politicians are. Was it always this bad and it wasn't as obvious? Manchin putting a mystery limit because he can. Graham a few years back with use my words against me about voting in an election year. I hate them all so much.
Are we talking about this? Manchin said that he wouldn't support a replacement confirmation *right* before the 2024 election, not that he wouldn't support any judges until 2024.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Octavious
Posts: 20049
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:50 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Octavious »

Maybe, it was a while ago so that might be it. I don't see that being any better considering what happened with the last judge the R's jammed in. If there's an open seat you freaking place someone.
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.

Shameless plug for my website: www.nettphoto.com
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 42136
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

Octavious wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 4:50 pm Maybe, it was a while ago so that might be it. I don't see that being any better considering what happened with the last judge the R's jammed in. If there's an open seat you freaking place someone.
I agree, but his stated position is still a million times more reasonable than "I won't vote to confirm any judges until 2025".
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 46256
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Blackhawk »

There is a lot of wiggle room in 'right before.'
What doesn't kill me makes me stranger.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 30094
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Holman »

El Guapo wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 5:01 pm
Octavious wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 4:50 pm Maybe, it was a while ago so that might be it. I don't see that being any better considering what happened with the last judge the R's jammed in. If there's an open seat you freaking place someone.
I agree, but his stated position is still a million times more reasonable than "I won't vote to confirm any judges until 2025".
Though I strongly suspect that a sudden opening today would cause Manchin to declare a need to "wait until after the midterms, when the people have spoken."
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 46256
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Blackhawk »

And McConnell has already spoken.
What doesn't kill me makes me stranger.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 42136
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

Holman wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 5:17 pm
El Guapo wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 5:01 pm
Octavious wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 4:50 pm Maybe, it was a while ago so that might be it. I don't see that being any better considering what happened with the last judge the R's jammed in. If there's an open seat you freaking place someone.
I agree, but his stated position is still a million times more reasonable than "I won't vote to confirm any judges until 2025".
Though I strongly suspect that a sudden opening today would cause Manchin to declare a need to "wait until after the midterms, when the people have spoken."
Maybe. FWIW Manchin hasn't been a problem on judges for Biden to date, at least. I would definitely be nervous about him, but who knows.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Defiant »

Well, there goes another amendment. from the bill of rights.



But hey, we still have the 1st-3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, and 10th amendments, IIUC.

For now.
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 28346
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Unagi »

I don’t think Chicago really would count.
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 9360
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Alefroth »

It's interesting that some states are entirely within the zone.
malchior
Posts: 24795
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

That case was bad but the one yesterday Garland vs. Gonzalez? It flew under the radar and considered small ripple impact since it only discriminates against mostly brown non-citizens. Why complain about that!? Anyway, the court ruled that essentially even when it is clear the government is breaking the law on certain immigration matters the courts can't tell them to stop. In other words, the government was just given a free pass to abuse immigration law. The dissent does not pull punches.
The Court holds that lower federal courts are powerless to issue classwide injunctive relief against the Executive Branch’s violation of noncitizens’ rights under several provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). It reaches this conclusion in a purportedly textualist opinion that, in truth, elevates piecemeal dictionary definitions and policy concerns over plain meaning and context. I respectfully dissent from the Court’s blinkered analysis, which will leave many vulnerable noncitizens unable to protect their rights.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 45273
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Kraken »

Then there's Gorsuch suggesting that the US territories are unconstitutional.
May the United States rule foreign territories without granting their inhabitants constitutional rights? Yes, according to landmark Supreme Court decisions in the “Insular Cases” more than a century ago. Without those decisions, our overseas territorial empire could not have existed.

Suddenly that decision is under fierce attack from within the Court itself. The fate of America’s five populated colonies — Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands — may hang in the balance.

In April the Supreme Court decided what seemed to be an abstruse case about federal benefits owed to Puerto Ricans. But Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion began with a startling passage. He asserted that the United States has no business deciding anything for Puerto Rico because our ownership of that island — and by extension other US colonies — is unconstitutional.

“A century ago in the Insular Cases, this Court held that the federal government could rule Puerto Rico and other territories largely without regard to the Constitution,” Gorsuch wrote. “It is past time to acknowledge the gravity of this error and admit what we know to be true: the Insular Cases have no foundation in the Constitution and rest instead on racial stereotypes. They deserve no place in our law. . . . And I hope the day comes soon when the Court squarely overrules them.”
Narrator: That day may come later this year.
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 22076
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Grifman »

How have I missed this - the SC is likely to overturn Miranda:

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
malchior
Posts: 24795
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

I hadn't heard that. I have read previously that like Roe Miranda has been whittled away for years. Still it seems crazy that the police who are largely unaccountable would have basic guardrails/restrictions removed and allow even more abuse of power. But it seems right considering the dark path this nation is heading.

I also think this story fits nearly into the building case that we face radical transformation via SCOTUS though. They're willing to throw out decades of established law to suit their ideological beliefs. That's the middle to late stage of the end of many democracies.
Post Reply