That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
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.
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.
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.Unagi wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:22 am Sorry, I was taking a pop-shot at standard Christianity there.
You are not wrong.
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 wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:24 amRight. 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.Unagi wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:22 am Sorry, I was taking a pop-shot at standard Christianity there.
You are not wrong.
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.Zaxxon wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:47 amDid 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 wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:24 amRight. 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.Unagi wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:22 am Sorry, I was taking a pop-shot at standard Christianity there.
You are not wrong.
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.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.
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.malchior wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:52 amYeah 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.Zaxxon wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:47 amDid 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 wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:24 amRight. 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.Unagi wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:22 am Sorry, I was taking a pop-shot at standard Christianity there.
You are not wrong.
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.
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.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.
They also help craft the media strategy on top.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.
Travels all the way from California, gets a block from the Judge's house, and then calls the cops on himself.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.
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.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.
I keep thinking up responses to this, and every one is so inappropriate that I'll just let people use their imaginations.Octavious wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:31 pm Well Manchin already said he wouldn't vote on another judge before 2024. Because reasons.
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.
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?
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.Octavious wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:21 pmIt 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.
I agree, but his stated position is still a million times more reasonable than "I won't vote to confirm any judges until 2025".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.
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."El Guapo wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 5:01 pmI agree, but his stated position is still a million times more reasonable than "I won't vote to confirm any judges until 2025".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.
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.Holman wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 5:17 pmThough 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."El Guapo wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 5:01 pmI agree, but his stated position is still a million times more reasonable than "I won't vote to confirm any judges until 2025".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.
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.
Narrator: That day may come later this year.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.”