tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post2889481965302692808..comments2024-03-28T06:07:03.667-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: A DARK OBSERVATION ON A SUNNY DAYRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-59183104925474710832020-10-19T17:20:55.749-04:002020-10-19T17:20:55.749-04:00MS....thanks for the sentimentMS....thanks for the sentimentJerry Fresiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566575038825699112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-43020332646229769792020-10-19T09:06:22.204-04:002020-10-19T09:06:22.204-04:00Thank you for the link, Jerry. It will feel good ...Thank you for the link, Jerry. It will feel good to be able to feel a bit more proud of our country after November 3.<br /><br />Last night, as I drove to visit my daughter who lives just outside of Ann Arbor, I played over and over Billy Bragg’s CD “Internationale” as inspiration for the upcoming election. And while all of the songs on the CD are poignant and moving, there is one song that I wait for with particular anticipation, his tribute to Phil Ochs titled “I Dreamed I Saw Phil Ochs Last Night,” sung to the tune of the labor anthem dedicated to Joe Hill:<br /><br />I dreamed I saw Phil Ochs last night<br />Alive as you and me<br />Says I to Phil “You’re [44] years dead”<br />“I never died” says he<br />“I never died” says he<br /><br />The music business killed you Phil<br />They ignored the things you said<br />and cast you out when fashions changed<br />Says Phil” But I ain’t dead”<br />Says Phil “But I ain’t dead”<br /><br />The FBI harassed you Phil<br />They smeared you with their lies<br />Says he “But they could never kill<br />What they could not compromise<br />I never compromised”<br /><br />“Though fashion’s changed and critics sneered<br />The songs that I have sung<br />Are just as true tonight as then<br />The struggle carries on<br />The struggle carries on”<br /><br />When the song of freedom rings out loud <br />From valleys and from hills<br />Where people stand up for their rights <br />Phil Ochs is with us still<br />Phil Ochs inspires us still.<br /><br />I suspect I am not alone in experiencing the phenomenon of increased, inexplicable sentimentality as I age. I teared up several times as I repeatedly listened to this song. And I reflected on the different paths that his and Bob Dylan’s lives had taken on the two roads that diverged in that wood they once shared. Dylan succeeded in transitioning from writing and singing protest songs to writing and singing folk rock ballads, versus Phil Ochs who could not, or would not, make the transition as protest songs lost their allure for the listening public. While Dylan went on to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, Phil Ochs died by his own hand in 1976. But his spirit and his songs do, indeed, inspire us still. And on November 4, I look forward to blasting from my stereo Ochs’ “I Ain’t Marching Anymore,” and Dylan’s “The Chimes of Freedom.”<br />MSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-54868096934486482472020-10-19T08:42:19.405-04:002020-10-19T08:42:19.405-04:00Even as an Eeyore, I found this to be terribly mov...Even as an Eeyore, I found this to be terribly moving.....<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiydluD0PyM&feature=youtu.beJerry Fresiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566575038825699112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-21305755559883771382020-10-18T15:05:06.517-04:002020-10-18T15:05:06.517-04:00LFC,
Wow, I did not expect that answer. At least...LFC,<br /><br />Wow, I did not expect that answer. At least you are not a hypocrite, and that says a lot.<br /><br />Just to be clear, if I were a senator, I would vote against confirming Judge Barrett, not because of her judicial philosophy, but because I do not believe when push comes to shove, that she will be able to separate her personal religious beliefs from her obligation as a Justice no to allow her religious beliefs to influence her decision making.<br /><br />And if Hillary had won the election, and I were a senator, I would have voted to confirm both of her liberal judicial nominees and would have rejoiced in having a 6-3 liberal Supreme Court. But, unfortunately, that will never happen in the remainder of my life, and perhaps not in my daughter’s life either.<br />MSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-40233812932843915432020-10-18T14:47:12.172-04:002020-10-18T14:47:12.172-04:00Anonymous,
Trump is more than a twitter bully and ...Anonymous,<br />Trump is more than a twitter bully and loudmouth.There is a compelling case that can be made that Trump’s inaction re the pandemic has lead to tens of thousands of deaths that couple otherwise have been avoided. Between that and the use of separating children from their parents at the border to deter immigrations, Trump is qualified to be included in the group of mass murders. Let’s not o gloss over Trump's barbarism. Christopher J. Mulvaney, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15817420454023465228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-14843796505630256772020-10-18T14:35:55.352-04:002020-10-18T14:35:55.352-04:00MS - Thank you for your response. My knowledge of...MS - Thank you for your response. My knowledge of the law is limited to the Social Security Act, specifically the Titles establishing social welfare programs and their regulations, e.g., Title IV - welfare assistance and child welfare, Title V - Maternal and Child Health, Title XIX - Medicaid, etc. Repairing the damage will take years, and certainly not all damage can be repaired. At least we can be assured that state charges can and will be brought against Trump enterprises. Stay healthy! Christopher J. Mulvaney, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15817420454023465228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-5253848543589832532020-10-18T14:17:27.156-04:002020-10-18T14:17:27.156-04:00MS
Yes, I think my position is that voting to pre...MS<br /><br />Yes, I think my position is that voting to prevent a 6-3 "liberal" majority is valid, just as voting to prevent a 6-3 "conservative" majority is valid. (Of course as a matter of historical fact SCOTUS has more often leaned conservative; the Warren Court was an exception.)LFChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-67512668215272382962020-10-18T13:20:21.490-04:002020-10-18T13:20:21.490-04:00How dare you compare assholes to Trump .I've n...How dare you compare assholes to Trump .I've never been so offended. We assholes have our pride. Trump is much more of an ass-wipe---an unclean rag fit to be flushed.jeffrey g kessennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-68072969091659358912020-10-18T12:20:30.417-04:002020-10-18T12:20:30.417-04:00LFC,
Let me turn the tables a bit and ask you the...LFC,<br /><br />Let me turn the tables a bit and ask you the following: Had Hillary Clinton won the election and re-nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, or, if the still Republican Senate refused to confirm him, and Pres. Clinton just kept re-nominating other moderate to liberal nominees, resulting, eventually in a 5-4 liberal S. Ct.; and then, assuming J. Kennedy retired (something he may have not done given the predictable consequences) and President Clinton nominated a liberal candidate for the S. Ct. – former President Obama, for example – which would shift the Court to a 6-3 liberal majority, would you still contend that maintaining a balance on the Court would be a valid reason for voting not to confirm the liberal nominee, despite his or her sterling qualifications from an academic/experience point of view? I think not.<br /><br />Two separate notes. Watching Face the Nation this morning I learned that at Trump’s rally in Grand Rapids last week he joined the crowd in chanting “Lock Her Up!” referring to Michigan Gov. Whittmer who was recently the target of a domestic terrorism plot to kidnap her, put her on trial for treason related to her Executive Order mandating wearing face masks in public, and then executing her. So, the President of the United States was publicly advocating domestic terrorism against a duly elected government official – which, it seems to me, constitutes treason under Article II’s impeachment clause, and a federal crime. If I have not said this before – and if I have, it bears repeating – the President of the United States is an asshole. While it is too close to the election to start impeachment hearings against Il Douche, this is an example of the kind of crime committed while in office – in response to Christopher Mulvaney’s question - that, were I the Attorney General after he lost the election, I would indict him for after he left the White House.<br /><br />Finally, the pundits at the end of the Face the Nation program indicated that it is still possible for Il Duce to win the election under certain scenarios – and a key state in that outcome they indicated is – sorry, Prof. Wolff – North Carolina, which although is a tight race, they predicted is going to go for Trump. And they are using Judge Barrett’s expected confirmation to rally the Republicans to vote in person. So, it is still nail-biting time.<br />MSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-57985288339964663682020-10-18T10:43:58.923-04:002020-10-18T10:43:58.923-04:00Samuel, Welcome to the blog! I will check them o...Samuel, Welcome to the blog! I will check them out.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-23692134468712639352020-10-18T08:48:17.600-04:002020-10-18T08:48:17.600-04:00Correction: shd read "though I'm sure&quo...Correction: shd read "though I'm sure"LFChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-57196798961882475012020-10-18T08:46:41.248-04:002020-10-18T08:46:41.248-04:00MS
We'll agree to disagree on this point.
I d...MS<br />We'll agree to disagree on this point.<br /><br />I do think a nominee's philosophy, coupled with the way in which he/she might predictably shift the Court's ideological or jurisprudential balance, is an appropriate ground on which to vote no. <br /><br />Barrett herself has said in writing, and repeated during the hearing, that there "is room for" competing jurisprudential approaches in the make-up of the Court. It's not a big leap from that position to the view that there should be a rough balance between approaches as represented by the Justices' inclinations. But I realize this is debatable.<br /><br />Btw, M. Tushnet's _Red White and Blue_ (1988) contains a good critique of originalism, though there I'm sure there are many more recent ones available.LFChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-39806435331722163552020-10-18T08:01:56.442-04:002020-10-18T08:01:56.442-04:00Here is an excellent analysis of the legal jeopard...Here is an excellent analysis of the legal jeopardy Il Duce will face, both criminally and civilly, if he loses the election:<br /><br />https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/17/politics/trump-election-legal-reckoning/index.html<br /><br />Il Duce will likely retire to Florida if (when?) he loses the election, and will fight extradition to New York, a fight he will likely lose. As Joe Louis said, “You can run, but you can’t hide.” Won’t it be fantastic seeing Il Duce being arraigned in a New York court wearing an orange jumpsuit to match his hair!!<br />MSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-31139118460678766732020-10-18T05:40:23.175-04:002020-10-18T05:40:23.175-04:00LFC,
I am not sure that I agree with you that opp...LFC,<br /><br />I am not sure that I agree with you that opposition to a nominee’s jurisprudential philosophy is a “a valid and appropriate” basis to oppose the nominee’s confirmation. It is certainly a political basis to oppose a nominee, but “a valid and appropriate” basis, I am not so sure. Judge Barrett has made clear that she is a textualist and an originalist, jurisprudential philosophies with which I disagree. But I do not believe, were I a senator, that her jurisprudential philosophy in that regard would be a valid basis to oppose her confirmation, given her otherwise sterling academic qualifications. When Justice Ginsburg was being considered for confirmation, all the senators, both Democratic and Republican, knew that she was not a textualist/originalist and that she would vote to preserve Roe v. Wade, yet she was confirmed with almost unanimous support. Her academic and judicial qualifications were also sterling, and that was the only basis upon which they judged her right to be confirmed. I believe that this is part of what is meant by the Constitution’s directive that Supreme Court justices are to be confirmed with the “advice and consent” of the Senate, i.e., the President who has been elected by the electoral college has thereby earned the prerogative of nominating an individual for the Supreme Court. As long as the nominee demonstrates a knowledge of the law and a judicial temperament, the nominee deserves to be confirmed, regardless the nominee’s overall judicial philosophy. This is not the same as rejecting a nominee who is a textualist/originalist who also admits during the confirmation hearing that s/he believes that a particular Supreme Court decisions was wrongly decided and s/he would vote to overturn it., something Judge Barrett scrupulously refused to state, since it demonstrate she had violated the Judicial Canons of Ethics by prejudging a case.<br />MSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-89410566052212979552020-10-17T23:59:10.481-04:002020-10-17T23:59:10.481-04:00Mr. Wolff: I suggest this site in addition to your...Mr. Wolff: I suggest this site in addition to your usual one if you want to find out the forecasts in the closing days of the election season; https://www.270towin.com and https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/ if you haven't seen them already.<br /><br />Sam WolffAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-42659415195052874122020-10-17T23:36:54.722-04:002020-10-17T23:36:54.722-04:00@ S. Wallerstein
"What I witnessed in Chile ...@ S. Wallerstein<br /><br />"What I witnessed in Chile post Pinochet is that the desire among elites to maintain peace trumps (if I may use that word in the sense we used to use it) the demands of justice."<br /><br />I can't say that I am really familiar with the cases of Brazil, Argentina or Uruguay, all of which endured brutal rightwing dictatorships--much less in the cases of other Latin American countries. Still, my general impression is that much the same can be said of them.<br /><br />As a matter of fact, in post-Franco Spain criminals were never really held to account.<br /><br />In some cases reconciliation commissions were set, along the model of the Rwandan example, but nobody that I am aware had to stand trial.<br /><br />Although I can't recall precisely, I even seem to remember that former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, while attending a social function, apparently met one of the guys who tortured her.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-10288614762351338432020-10-17T23:02:17.342-04:002020-10-17T23:02:17.342-04:00This may already have been said somewhere in the t...This may already have been said somewhere in the thread, but I would just like to say that opposition to a Sup Ct nominee's judicial philosophy -- not to views on any single issue but to the nominee's jurisprudential (and ideological) perspective on, say, the nature of the Constitution and how it should be interpreted -- is a valid and appropriate ground on which to vote against a nominee's confirmation. If I'm not mistaken, Barrett herself pretty much said this in one of her answers, albeit one that doesn't seem to have gotten a lot of attention.LFChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-42189560789470013282020-10-17T22:04:47.266-04:002020-10-17T22:04:47.266-04:00Aside from an actual murder, what if the President...Aside from an actual murder, what if the President were accused of a financial crime other than bribery (which Article II specifically designates as an impeachable crime), let’s say the present were accused of insider trading like Martha was, I believe that if the Senate failed to convict, that that would be the end of the matter. It would not be permissible to proceed to a criminal prosecution either during the presidency or thereafter, because the Senate’s trial would constitute the criminal trial and the President could claim that any trial thereafter would violate the double jeopardy clause. (So, have I contradicted myself – why would it be different if the President was accused of murder and not found guilty by the Senate? As I said, if the evidence was incontrovertible that the President committed a violent crime, e.g., a video tape with witnesses of the President shooting an unarmed man without any provocation, I think it would be difficult for the courts to say s/he could not be criminally prosecuted because he had been acquitted by the Senate and a prosecution would constitute double jeopardy, one reason being that double jeopardy strictly speaking applies to a re-prosecution after a defendant has been acquitted by a jury, and the Senate does not constitute a jury under the law. But it would certainly present an interesting case.)<br /><br />Regarding conduct which was not criminal, but rose to the level of an intentional tort (sexual harassment) or gross negligence (drunk driving resulting in severe injury to a pedestrian – assuming the President was not being driven by the Secret Service) I suspect that consistency with Jones v. Clinton would require that the President could be sued civilly while still in office. But one of the elements the plaintiff would have to prove is causation, both factual and foreseeable. It would be virtually impossible to sue Trump civilly for his mishandling of the pandemic, because he could point to so many other causes which contributed to its consequences – the Chinese covered it up, he made reasonable efforts to provide the protective gear that the medical personnel needed, compelling a lock down would have violated the people’s liberty interests under the Constitution, etc., etc.<br /><br />The rest of the examples you raise constituted arguably abuses of power, and the only remedy for those would be impeachment and trial by the Senate. If the Senate does not convict, then there would be no basis to sue the President or prosecute him/her after s/he left office. Senate’s refusal to convict would be the end of the matter.<br /><br />Finally, as to your first point, could Congress enact legislation which prohibited some of the things that Trump engaged in while in office which violate the protocols of the office – e.g., using the White House staff to facilitate a photo op in front of church. I do not see why Congress could not do that. However, the statute would have to be very specifically worded in order to avoid the defense that it was too vague to give the President adequate notice that the actions s/he committed came within the scope of what the statute identified as illegal. But then the specificity would be counter-productive, because a President as devious and Machiavellian as Trump would find a way to do something that s/he would argue was not covered by the statute.<br /><br />Well, that’s my take on you on your questions. Perhaps David Palmeter has a different take.<br />MSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-21021135853921211562020-10-17T22:02:33.786-04:002020-10-17T22:02:33.786-04:00Christopher,
You raise some interesting questions...Christopher,<br /><br />You raise some interesting questions and as one of the lawyers I believe you are referring to, I will take a shot at answering them. The last question you raise, can a President be sued civilly or prosecuted criminally for actions committed while in office which constitute gross or criminal negligence reminds me of the joke which Michael Che made on SNL last Saturday, that Trump’s surviving his corona virus infection is like seeing the drunk driver who cause a 95 car wreck emerge as the only survivor (Che did not use the example of a 95-car wreck, I think it was more like a 5-car pileup, but a 95-car wreck is in homage to the debate that occurred on this blog earlier this week).<br /><br />There are a range of irresponsible acts and crimes which a President can commit while holding office that would have different outcomes. You will recall that in Jones v. Clinton, the Supreme Court held that President Clinton could be sued civilly while he was President for alleged actions he committed (sexual harassment) before he was President. That decision was widely criticized bymany legal scholars as being incorrect, but there it is. So, if a President could be sued while in office for acts committed before he was elected, it would stand to reason that a President could be criminally prosecuted for crimes actually committed while in office. If, for example, Trump actually shot someone on Fifth Ave. while he was President, it would make sense to conclude that he could be prosecuted for murder while holding office. And I would assume this would be the case. But some politicians (and perhaps legal scholars) might say, if that were the case, what is the purpose of having the clause “high crimes and misdemeanors” in Article II of the Constitution. They might espouse that before the President could be prosecuted for murder s/he would first have to be impeached, tried by the Senate convicted, removed from office, and then tried for murder. I would like to think that this would be the appropriate procedure, but hesitate, given how the Republican senators refused to convict him after he was impeached by the House. Is it possible they would not even have convicted him if he did, in fact, shoot someone on Fifth Ave. and claimed he acted in self-defense. I would not rule it out. Therefore, it would be my opinion (and only an opinion) that if that were to occur, and there was incontrovertible evidence that the President actually committed a crime of that caliber, s/he could be criminally prosecuted even if the Senate refused to convict. After all, if felons can be precluded from voting, surely a potential felon cannot be allowed to continue to rule the country. I am hopeful that no such case ever arises in our country, because if it were Trump, for example, I am not convinced that the Republican senators would in fact convict him.<br /><br />(Continued)<br />MSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-4335341752735245492020-10-17T21:17:10.424-04:002020-10-17T21:17:10.424-04:00I can't say whether how Trump has handled the ...I can't say whether how Trump has handled the pandemic leaves him open to criminal or civil charges, after leaving office, but his mis-handling of it certainly is <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-the-fall-of-the-cdc" rel="nofollow">horrific</a>.TheDudeDiogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613928663752680375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-91263387044252537722020-10-17T20:55:45.534-04:002020-10-17T20:55:45.534-04:00If I may, I would like to pose a question or two t...If I may, I would like to pose a question or two to our two resident lawyers. My difficulty with Trump’s breaking of norms is that a norm, once broken, is largely ineffective. As a result, many norms may need to be put into law to prevent further abuse. For example, using the White House in political advertisements, as Trump did, and which I understand is already against the law. If that assumption is true, would he not be prosecutable for those offenses after he loses (i.e., and offense committed while in office)? <br /><br />In the above, I ignored the reality that it is only a DoJ opinion that the president can’t be prosecuted while in office. If that opinion is reversed by the incoming AG, and laws passed to codify the norms broken and constrain a president, I suspect such constraints will be useful in the future. If it were possible to prosecute a president while in office, it would provide a powerful constraint against abuse. Is such an approach to legally feasible in your respective opinions? Given the view on the right, clearly held by Barr, of the “unitary executive” I doubt the Supreme Court as currently constituted would agree to such constraints. (As an aside, the unitary executive theory appears to me to be an attempt to recast presidential powers as rivaling those held by a monarch. One aspect of this b.s. idea is that the powers of the president inhere in the person of the president, i.e., l’etat, c’est moi!,” or ‘’the king is dead, long live the king.’ I suspect that Barr’s willingness to direct the DoJ to be involved in cases like the suit against Trump in NY brought by a women who asserts she was raped by him lies in his belief in the unitary executive theory). <br /><br />When I think of Trump’s handling of the pandemic the phrase ‘criminally negligent homicide’ comes immediately to mind. Would it be possible to prosecute Trump for his failure to use the powers given to him to in the Defense Production Act, for example, A failure to act to protect citizens during a national emergency is arguably a violation of the oath of office. Specifically, it is a failure to “execute the Office of the President.” Is impeachment the only remedy for crimes committed in office, or is there, at least the possibility or civil or criminal prosecution? Christopher J. Mulvaney, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15817420454023465228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-61126563629774905752020-10-17T20:19:39.175-04:002020-10-17T20:19:39.175-04:00Since several topics touched on in this and some p...Since several topics touched on in this and some preceding posts are engaged with in its most recent update, I'd like to draw attention to <br /><br />https://publicseminar.org/R McDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-61032510008292016712020-10-17T19:24:15.560-04:002020-10-17T19:24:15.560-04:00The DudeDiogenes,
Time will tell, but the past is...The DudeDiogenes,<br /><br />Time will tell, but the past is often prologue. As Senator Klobuchar pointed out, Judge Barrett’s prior judicial rulings, seminar statements, and endorsement of church pronouncements are like deer tracks that appear to lead to a doctrinaire perspective that suggests she will be willing to join the other 5 conservative justices and overturn important precedents, notwithstanding her recognition that there are certain factors which are taken into account in deciding to do so. Consideration of those factors, however, did not stop Alito from being willing to overturn the 40-year precedent of Abood, or prevent Anthony Kennedy and four other justices from overturning Supreme Court precedent when the Court decided Citizens United. Where there is a will, there often is a way.<br />MSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-89050432589574405372020-10-17T18:35:30.648-04:002020-10-17T18:35:30.648-04:00Benjamin Studebaker has a different perspective (t...Benjamin Studebaker has a different perspective (than most that I've seen), lest we fall into hero worship: <a href="https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2020/09/25/the-fear-surrounding-the-death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg-is-unhealthy/" rel="nofollow">The Fear Surrounding the Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is Unhealthy</a>.<br /><br />Here are the three theses:<br /><br />1. The impact of Ginsburg has been dramatically exaggerated<br /><br />2. The court is not likely to make the judgements people fear<br /><br />3. The Democrats have a political interest in misleading us about #1 and #2TheDudeDiogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613928663752680375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-64769085660873945772020-10-17T18:19:00.508-04:002020-10-17T18:19:00.508-04:00I don't like having to defend ACB, but here...I don't like having to defend ACB, but here's fuller context about what she said about her adopted daughter Vivian (this statement, at least, is hardly the racist insult that some/many are insinuating or outright stating that she made):<br /><a href="https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-lefts-unhealthy-interest-in-amy-coney-barretts-adopted-kids-11601418452" rel="nofollow">"Vivian is amazing.</a> She was 14 months old when she came home and she couldn’t make any sounds at that point. Nor could she pull herself up to a standing position, and she was wearing size zero- to 3-month clothing because she was so malnourished.”<br /><br />Judge Barrett said that she and her husband, Jesse, were told at the time that Vivian may never speak. “She’d been so sick [that] she hadn’t had a lot of practice making sounds and she hadn’t been spoken to a lot.” Today, all that has changed. “Vivian is incredibly athletic now, and trust me, the speech has not been a problem,” she joked. “I was looking at her the other day at the gym and just thinking what a miracle it is how strong she’s become.”TheDudeDiogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613928663752680375noreply@blogger.com