A burning question in at least one circle:
WORN A BRA LATELY? Both anecdotal evidence and sagging sales figures suggest that, in the era of WFH and its corollary, a repudiation of any hint of containment, many women are answering “no” to that question. Which is why this column will focus not on a garment that’s being worn but one that’s been cast aside.
Hadn’t thought of it myself.
A good argument for getting a 9th justice now:
One good argument for a vote before Nov. 3 is having a full Court of nine Justices in the event of a contested election (see nearby). The country would not be well served by 4-4 votes that allow disputes to be settled by a cacophony of lower courts. The Court itself will suffer if it looks dysfunctional on the crucial legal questions surrounding the legitimacy of an election. If Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has the votes to confirm, the case for doing so before Nov. 3 is compelling.
Of course, there’s no good argument at all, per Dems.
Now you see it, now you don’t, from your friendly if not well organized, CDC:
The Centers for Disease Control updated a document Friday without fanfare that updates the agency’s position on how the virus spreads, then removed the new guidance Monday saying it was posted in error.
The document said person-to-person and coughing/sneezing/breathing [are] the primary ways the virus is transmitted through droplets, but the agency then said there is growing evidence that airborne droplets after a sneeze or cough — droplets that linger in the air
It seems only fair. The over-wrought Democratic rhetoric demands that President Donald Trump not nominate anyone until “the people” have had a chance to make whom they want to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
That would be by electing someone who would appoint a high court nominee who best reflects voter’s views. In line with that, we know from Trump’s list of potential candidates who Trump might nominate.
So, isn’t it fair that Biden should unveil his list of potential nominees? Doesn’t fairness dictate that voters should know in advance if Biden’s choices would reflect the voters’ views?
Of course, Democrats won’t do that because it’s their strategy to keep voters in the dark as much as possible about what a Harris-Biden, err, Biden-Harris, administration would do. In other words: lights out.
Truth is, while voters might not know who in particular might be nominated, they well know what sort of person will be nominated. Trump would appoint someone who interprets the Constitution as it was written. Biden (or whomever has his/hers hands on the throttle) would appoint someone who thinks words have no meaning when it comes to the Constitution.
The further truth is that all the lip service both parties variously give/gave to the idea that voters should have a say in who gets nominated, neither party truly believes it. Not Republicans when they refused to bring President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland up for Senate confirmation at the end of that president’s term. Not Democrats now that Trump will bring his up for confirmation before the election or the seating of the new president.
For both parties, it’s a power play. And why not? Many Trump supporters voted for him because they believed that the courts had become a sponge of soft judicial interpretation of the Constitution. Especially when it came to abortion.
Same for the Democrats. In voting for Obama and now for Biden, they believe that the candidate should reflect their liberal views, especially when it comes to abortion
Trump is right: Delaying the nomination to open the door for a liberal/progressive/radical nominee would be a betrayal of his supporters. Just as not trying to push through Garland’s nomination by the lame duck Obama would have betrayed his supporters.
In essence, Trump is following the same path that Obama took in not waiting for an election to dictate whom the nominee would be. So, let the hypocrisy cease.
By the way. If Ginsburg was so determined to ensure a liberal would be appointed to the court in her place, she would have retired when Obama was president so that he could have made the appointment. Instead she stayed on the court, presumably because she could not imagine Hilary Clinton losing to Trump. She gambled and she lost and so did her supporters. That she didn’t retire so that Obama could have nominated her successor says something about…well, I’m not sure. Either her judgment or her character.
Nicely argued.
No mass? Read Bible.
Dominus Vobiscum: Notes from a massgoer's underground
Making silk purse out of sow’s ear:
As we move beyond COVID-19-induced cancellations of public Mass and their replacement by more regular domestic prayers, it is worth a look back to see what good has come of it all. While the participation in the Eucharistic Prayer and the reception of the Blessed Sacrament were not options for most families, the reading and praying with the Sunday scriptures became a regular means to engage, albeit imperfectly, with the Word heard behind closed parish doors.
Bible Christians.
Senate Republicans set course to quickly fill a new Supreme Court vacancy, with most lining up behind President Trump and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) and rejecting Democrats’ calls to let the winner of the presidential election make the pick. President Trump said he would nominate a Supreme Court pick on Friday or Saturday and that he has five women under consideration to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Friday of metastatic pancreatic cancer at the age of 87. Mr. Trump maintained that the replacement of Justice Ginsburg should happen swiftly. “We won the election and elections have consequences,” he said Monday morning on Fox News. “We have plenty of time.”
Trump to Make Supreme Court Nomination Friday or Saturday – WSJ
In the vein of “Are you or having you been ever” a CATHOLIC?
The Constitution is clear that religious faith may not be used to prevent an American from holding office. But there is another faith now, a strident faith, that of the left and anyone who stands in its way is to be marked.
Durbin is a Catholic Democrat from blue Illinois, and he seeks votes in Chicago. That he would ask whether someone was an “orthodox Catholic” is stunning.
Durbin. Yuck.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Although the COVID-19 crisis is, in the first
instance, a physical health crisis, it has the
seeds of a major mental health crisis as well,
if action is not taken. Good mental health is
critical to the functioning of society at the best
of times. It must be front and centre of every
country’s response to and recovery from the
COVID-19 pandemic. The mental health and
wellbeing of whole societies have been severely
impacted by this crisis and are a priority to be
addressed urgently.
“That’s their job,” she said in July 2016. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”
“Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees,” Ginsburg said on the issue a few months later during an event at the Smithsonian Museum of American History in Washington.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was with her, agreed. “I think we hope there will be nine as quickly as possible.”
“What we do is we automatically affirm the decision of the court below. No opinion is written, no reasons are given, and the affirmance has no precedential value,” Ginsburg explained. “It’s just as though we denied review.”
In a sense, setting a sort of precedent for the coming nomination and senate vote.
Devastated by the passing of RBG. She represented the finest among lawyers in our country. A giant in her advocacy for women’s rights, civil rights and respect for the rule of law. We must honor her legacy and all her contributions to American jurisprudence. Rest in power, RBG.
The mayor is not devastated — unless she is reduced to chaos, disorder, or helplessness.
As for resting in power, what the hell is she talking about? RBG has gone to the next life, where the power hierarchies are beyond anything she and the rest of us can even remotely imagine.
Words can’t describe . . .
Blithe Spirit 