This site requires Javascript to function properly - please enable Javascript in your browser

'The Jewish-Palestinian Conflict' Is Not a Phrase You Want to Hear From a Supreme Court Justice

Buzz of the Orient » Groups » Confucius » Discussions » 'The Jewish-Palestinian Conflict' Is Not a Phrase You Want to Hear From a Supreme Court Justice

Via: Buzz of the Orient • 3 years ago • 22 comments

By: By Charles P. Pierce - Esquire

'The Jewish-Palestinian Conflict' Is Not a Phrase You Want to Hear From a Supreme Court Justice

Leave a comment to auto-join group Confucius

S E E D E D C O N T E N T

'The Jewish-Palestinian Conflict' Is Not a Phrase You Want to Hear From a Supreme Court Justice

800

POOL/GETTY IMAGES

I had to wait a day until the official transcript came out to be sure I’d actually heard what I thought I’d heard. I was listening on Wednesday to the oral arguments in Carson v. Makin , the case from Maine involving access to public money for students going to private religious schools. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was questioning Christopher Taub, one of the attorneys representing the state of Maine. Things were rocking right along with the justices tossing out one hypothetical after another. And then Barrett threw out this one.

Is there any kind—I mean, how would you even know if a—if a school taught all religions are bigoted and biased or, you know, Catholics are bigoted or, you know—or we take a position on the Jewish-Palestinian conflict because of our position on, you know, Jews, right?

Wait. Whoa. Take a position on what?

“…we take a position on the Jewish-Palestinian conflict…”

I’m fairly sure the justice was referring to the ongoing dispute between the state of Israel and the Palestinian people living in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, a secular conflict, albeit one with a religious subtext. But the only people I’ve ever heard refer to the situation as the “Jewish-Palestinian” conflict were conservative American Christians whose interest in Israel’s survival is based on anticipating the time in which, some Scripture says, all the Jews will return to Israel, one of the precipitating events leading to the return of Christ and the Final Judgment at the end of the world.

I am not saying this is what Justice Barrett believes, but, even if this were a slip of the tongue, it was a signifying one, and a startling one coming from the bench of the highest court in the land. Back during Barrett’s hastily engineered confirmation hearings, the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee birthed several bovines at what they termed expressions of disrespect for the nominee’s religion, even though few comments of any kind on the subject had come from their Democratic colleagues on the committee. From NPR :

(Senator Josh) Hawley invoked a past comment by a top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, about how " the dogma lives deeply " within Barrett — Hawley charged on Monday that Feinstein's use of the term "dogma" was a smear intended to discredit Barrett because of her beliefs. Hawley also alleged that Delaware Sen. Chris Coons' opening statement — which alluded to a 1965 Supreme Court Case, Griswold v. Connecticut , that involved married couples' use of contraception — was a coded religious attack against Barrett given Catholics' religious opposition to it.

That, of course, is a real stretch, but it’s Senator Hawley, so that’s the way that goes. But one does wonder now, with that very strange formulation during Wednesday’s oral arguments, whether or not Justice Barrett might be stronger in the dogma than we thought she was.

BUZZ NOTE: Comments are subject to the Confucius group RED RULES which may be accessed by clicking on the Confucius group avatar at the top right of this page.

Article is LOCKED by moderator [Buzz of the Orient]

Tags

[]

Professor Expert

1 seeder Buzz of the Orient 3 years ago

That viewpoint was in a source that is rated by MBFC as Left-Centre, but I also saw on the same Microsoft Bing internet search page an article about the issue posted by an extreme left wing source as rated by MBFC, and that one virtually CRUCIFIED Barrett. I see no reason not to post that article that was published by Crooks and Liars because at least one member on NT posts articles by extreme right-wing ultra-Christian sources so this might provide a little balance to the site:

Justice Barrett Wonders About 'Jewish-Palestinian' Conflict

In a case about separation of church and state, Justice Gilead lets everyone know her "position on Jews."

By Aliza Worthington — December 10, 2021

Supreme Court Justice Amy Christofascist Barrett let her anti-Semite flag fly wild and free on Wednesday while questioning an attorney defending Maine's right to maintain the separation of church and state.
The case, Carson v. Makin, pits religious families against the state of Maine, who gives vouchers to parents who live in extremely rural areas to send their children to private schools closer to their homes than the nearest public schools, as long as those private schools are non-sectarian. This is not good enough for the zealots, who want the government to subsidize their children's religious school education. In fact, according to Vox , one of those schools requires teachers to sign contracts that state “the Bible says that ‘God recognize[s] homosexuals and other deviants as perverted’” and that “[s]uch deviation from Scriptural standards is grounds for termination.’”

The state of Maine objects.

In any case, let's assume McTurtle's Supreme Court, now firmly in Federalist Society's creepy control, is going to blow the separation of church and state to smithereens when they hand down their decision in the spring. Bye bye. The point of THIS post is to highlight just how gross Justice Bigot reveals her attitude towards Jewish people (and Israel) to be.

She asked , "Is there any kind of -- I mean, how would you even know if a -- if a school taught all religions are bigoted and biased or, you know, Catholics are bigoted or, you know -- or we take a position on the Jewish-Palestinian conflict because of our position on, you know, Jews, right?"

*Blink*

*Blink"

No, seriously, here it is in official transcript form, straight from the Supreme Court.

I'm sorry, what? "Jewish-Palestinian conflict?" "Position on, you know, Jews?"

Listen, you rapture-desperate Jesus freak. It's the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, you f*cking pinecone. It's language like yours, framing like yours, which allows the anti-Semitic-curious to go full-fledged Nazi using the cover of a "progressive" cause. It's asinine, reductive conflating of a deeply complex set of circumstances into an oversimplified (and mind you, incorrect) childish sketch of reality. And it's all under the absurd, insulting premise that nutjobs like you give an actual sh*t about Israel, which you DON'T, because you just want to make sure it remains intact for when your ghost-daddy arrives to carry you into the sky.
And what, may I ask, is a "position" on "Jews?" Are we permitted to exist? Is there a debate about whether or not we're born with horns? Do we really all get checks from George Soros? Honestly, I'm dying to know, Amy. Let's just hope you don't get to write the majority opinion, because Jewish God only knows how much of it will be lifted directly from the Elders of Zion.

Professor Expert

2 seeder Buzz of the Orient 3 years ago

I can KICK myself for stupidity because back when Trump was considering who to nominate to the SCOTUS (at the time he did nominate Kavanaugh) on seeing her qualifications and thinking that she had great qualifications and had to have enough integrity to recuse herself in any abortion case brought before the SCOTUS, because of her DEEP and PUBLISHED attitude about abortion. How wrong I was. I was wrong about her integrity, and I didn't even KNOW about her antisemitic bent. The late Justice Ginsburg must be turning over in her grave.

Professor Principal

2.1 Gsquared replied to Buzz of the Orient @2 3 years ago

Barrett was predictably a complete disaster. Now that we have a reactionary majority Supreme Court, we are in for a world of hurt.

Freshman Silent

2.1.1 TOM PA replied to Gsquared @2.1 3 years ago

majority Supreme Court

5 Catholics, 3 Jews, 1 Protestant

original

Professor Participates

2.1.2 Thrawn 31 replied to TOM PA @2.1.1 3 years ago

Fucking commie like jesus.

Professor Principal

2.1.3 Gsquared replied to TOM PA @2.1.1 3 years ago

Since RBG died, there are now two Jewish members of the Supreme Court, Breyer and Kagan.

Professor Participates

2.1.4 Thrawn 31 replied to Gsquared @2.1.3 3 years ago

But hey, they are, you know, Jews.

Freshman Silent

2.1.6 TOM PA replied to Gsquared @2.1.3 3 years ago

I stand corrected. Thank-you.

Professor Participates

2.2 Thrawn 31 replied to Buzz of the Orient @2 3 years ago

Trump nominated her, all you needed to know...

Junior Participates

2.3 Nowhere Man replied to Buzz of the Orient @2 3 years ago

I didn't even KNOW about her antisemitic bent.

You need to fix this, cause you ARE going to lose me with this one....

Professor Expert

2.3.1 seeder Buzz of the Orient replied to Nowhere Man @2.3 3 years ago

I thought we decided that to maintain our friendship we would not get into politics with each other.

Junior Participates

2.3.2 Nowhere Man replied to Buzz of the Orient @2.3.1 3 years ago

[Deleted]

Professor Expert

2.3.3 seeder Buzz of the Orient replied to Nowhere Man @2.3.2 3 years ago

"That HAS to be a two way street..."

Yes it does, and I don't need friends that make friendship conditional on complying with their political loyalties. And if we're talking bigotry, I can recall an issue quite a while ago concerning Kavika's feelings about AIM, and I didn't require it to be fixed or it was the highway. SO BE IT.

I never thought I would see the day when a restauranteur would ban a person because they had a different political loyalty, and I guess that polarization is pervading America in every aspect of life.

Junior Participates

2.3.4 Nowhere Man replied to Buzz of the Orient @2.3.3 3 years ago

[Deleted]

Professor Expert

2.3.5 seeder Buzz of the Orient replied to Nowhere Man @2.3.4 3 years ago

IMPASSE

Professor Participates

3 Thrawn 31 3 years ago

because of our position on, you know, Jews, right?

THAT is what stood out to me. Ummmmmmm, what the fuck are you saying there? What exactly is "our position" on "Jews"?

What is the SCOTUS' position on Jews?

Professor Principal

4 Kavika 3 years ago

Perhaps she would like to articulate the SCOTUS position on Jews?

This so-called position could be interesting to say the least.

She could ask Kagan who I believe is Jewish.

Professor Expert

5 seeder Buzz of the Orient 3 years ago

It should be noted here that around 75% of Israelis are Jews. Here are the demographics:

Jewish 74.8%, Muslim 17.6%, Christian 2%, Druze 1.6%, other 4% (2015)

THAT is why saying "Jewish-Palestinian conflict" is not just wrong, it's IGNORANT, and just what IS the SCOTUS' "...position on, you know, Jews."?

Junior Participates

6 Nowhere Man 3 years ago

You can read the entire Transcript right here ... (It's a PDF) Justice Barrett's chance to question the State's attorney starts on Page 86 and finishes up on Page 92...

An easy few minute read.... If you want I'll post the relevant section in it's entirety... Of Course, It's isn't what the Radical Haters say it is...

Junior Participates

7 Nowhere Man 3 years ago

Oh what the hell, I'll just go ahead and post it...

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Justice Barrett?
JUSTICE BARRETT: I have one -- I have a question, but I have one quick follow-up to an answer you gave Justice Kavanaugh. You said that if a private secular school taught that all religions were bad, religions were bigoted, that they would not be eligible for participation in Maine's program. Why? That's not sectarian, is it?

MR. TAUB: Well, the -- the goal of the program is religious neutrality. And so, you know, we've -- we've never heard of a school that's sort of antireligious, a school that teaches that all religion is bad. But -- but it's clear that such a school would not be religiously neutral. And so, because the whole purpose of the program is to --

JUSTICE BARRETT: But the statute says non-sectarian. It doesn't say religiously neutral, right?

MR. TAUB: Well, that's true. But -- but I think that -- that -- that the spirit and purpose of the program -- and -- and -- and we've talked about this with the commissioner of the Department of Education, and -- and -- and her position is -- is the same as ours, that -- that a school that is -- that is antireligious is not religiously neutral, and so it would not qualify for this program.

JUSTICE BARRETT: Thank you. And my question is as follows. It kind of goes back to Justice Thomas's questions about rough equivalent of a public school. So all schools, in making choices about curriculum and the formation of children, have to come from some belief system. And in public schools, the public school -- the school boards, the districts are making that choice, those choice of classes to be taught and the kind of values that they want to inculcate in the students. Is there any kind -- I mean, how would you even know if a -- if a school taught all religions are bigoted and biased or, you know, Catholics are bigoted or, you know -- or we take a position on the Jewish-Palestinian conflict because of our position on, you know, Jews, right? How would they even know? Because it's my understanding that in choosing whether a non-sectarian school can be funded or not, you're not engaging in that kind of oversight about what the belief systems are of the school. So long as they're not Sectarian, it's a thumbs-up?

MR. TAUB: So I will answer that -- that question, Your Honor. Obviously, I will answer your -- your question, but -- but I -- I just -- I just want to make this point first because this might be lost in -- in the record. Over 99.8 percent of children in Maine go either to a public school or one of what we call the Big 11, which are schools that enroll at least 60 percent publicly funded students but -- but, in reality, enroll more like 95 percent publicly funded students. So it's -- it's only .2 percent of students that are going to other private schools. And the Department of Education is very familiar with the curriculum at the Big 11. So -- so the Department is very comfortable that when it comes to those schools where almost every student is going, we know what's being taught there. But -- but, to answer Your Honor's question, there is a process that schools have to go through to become part of our program, and through that process, if a Department of Education official says -- sees information that -- that -- that the school seems to be teaching antireligious views, that would raise a red flag, and -- and that would result in the kind of inkling --

JUSTICE BARRETT: But it was my understanding that that wasn't part of -- just based on the record, and I may not understand it, but as it was laid out in the briefs, it was my understanding that if the school is accredited, that there weren't particular curricula requirements the school had to satisfy to be eligible for participation in the program. You know, a school, for example, could be single sex. It didn't have to be co-ed. And I assume all the public schools in Maine are co-ed. I mean, it didn't have to match up along all of those metrics and that there was no formal examination into what kinds of values that the school was seeking to inculcate in students.

MR. TAUB: That is true, but -- but what the Department of Education does when it gets a new school apply is it does a little homework, and so it'll go to the school's website and say, okay, I've never heard of this school before, I want to learn a little about it. Or maybe it takes a look at the student handbook. And, you know, if the first sentence in the handbook says that our school is designed to promote white supremacy interests or our
school is designed to promote antireligion, that is going to be a flag that's going to get tripped, and that's going to result in the kind of inquiry. So you're absolutely right, Your Honor, that -- that the schools are not submitting their curriculum to us as part of this process.

JUSTICE BARRETT: And there's no visit to the school? There's no talking to the teachers? There's no -- it's just kind of what you can find on the website? And that's not -- that's not pertinent to the statute because the statutory requirement is simply sectarian/non-sectarian?

MR. TAUB: Yeah. I mean, in just the run-of-the-mill cases, these schools are well-known to us. They check off a box saying they're either sectarian or non-sectarian.

JUSTICE BARRETT: Okay. I -- I understand the Big 11.

MR. TAUB: Yeah.

JUSTICE BARRETT: But I think you answered my question for this.

MR. TAUB: No, but -- but that's true for -- for all schools.

JUSTICE BARRETT: Okay. Thank you.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.

She is clearly making the point that is it a government official that is making the determination, she connected it back to Justice Thomas's & Justice Kavanaugh's point that it was a change in politics at the State Board of Education back in the 80's that removed such schools from the program simply based upon politics... Prior to the political change, there was no issue with these schools participating in the program, was Thomas's point...

Barrett is trying to find out what the decision point is, what trips the trigger of exclusion... And the answer is simply what they check on a box on the application form with no real investigation... In extreme cases they will take a look at the schools public releases... But other than that it is simply checking a box that triggers the exclusion...

Such was already illustrated by the Chief Justice AND Justice Kagan as discriminatory...

Professor Expert

8 seeder Buzz of the Orient 3 years ago

Now unlocked for CIVIL comments about the topic and NOT for members threatening or attacking each other.

Professor Expert

9 seeder Buzz of the Orient 3 years ago

Permanently locked

You must be logged in to post a comment

Who is online

437 visitors