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

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:

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.

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

majority Supreme Court  

5 Catholics, 3 Jews, 1 Protestant  

Fucking commie like jesus.

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

But hey, they are, you know, Jews. 

I stand corrected.  Thank-you.  

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

I didn't even KNOW about her antisemitic bent.

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

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

[Deleted]

"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. 

[Deleted]

IMPASSE

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?

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.

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."?

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...

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...

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

Permanently locked