Amy Coney Barrett and husband both tested positive for virus this summer

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  sister-mary-agnes-ample-bottom  •  4 weeks ago  •  34 comments

By:   By Seung Min Kim, Josh Dawsey, and Robert Barnes

Amy Coney Barrett and husband both tested positive for virus this summer
Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was diagnosed with the coronavirus earlier this year but has since recovered, three officials familiar with her diagnosis told The Washington Post.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T





Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was diagnosed with the coronavirus earlier this year but has since recovered, three officials familiar with her diagnosis told The Washington Post.



Two of the officials said she tested positive for the virus in the summer. All of the people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose her medical condition.




The White House declined to comment on Barrett’s earlier diagnosis.




As the Supreme Court nominee, Barrett is now tested daily and most recently had a negative diagnosis for covid-19 on Friday morning, according to deputy White House press secretary Judd Deere.



Deere said she was last with President Trump, who has tested positive for the virus, on Saturday, at her Rose Garden ceremony announcing her nomination to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Barrett has been on the Hill at least three times this week, meeting with roughly 30 senators in one-on-one meetings to discuss her nomination.


“She is following CDC guidance and best practices, including social distancing, wearing face coverings, and frequently washes hands,” Deere said.



The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, where Barrett is currently a judge, did not comment.



Barrett is also on the faculty of the University of Notre Dame. The school’s spokesman, Dennis Brown, confirmed on Friday that Barrett was teaching this semester but declined to comment on her personal health.

“It would be inappropriate for the university to provide information on an employee's health history,” the spokesman, Dennis Brown, said.






Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom    4 weeks ago

The White House declined to comment on Barrett’s earlier diagnosis.

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1    4 weeks ago

And how is that newsworthy?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

They are in the right party for it. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
2.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 weeks ago

I wonder what 'this summer' means.  Summer ended on September 23rd.  Would the Senate take such a risk just to fill that stupid SCOTUS seat?  Of course they would.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
3  Dean Moriarty    4 weeks ago

Good we know she has a strong immune system and don't have to worry about her health once confirmed. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dean Moriarty @3    4 weeks ago

you can't be sure that it didn't affect her in some other way like her heart or lungs

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1    4 weeks ago

We also do not know about long term effects.

I wonder who pays for the daily testing?

She now has a pre-existing condition, will she still vote to kill the ACA?  Of course she will if she is confirmed, she will have the best insurance available for the rest of her life.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.1    4 weeks ago
I wonder who pays for the daily testing?

I would imagine that would be her insurance company or herself.

She now has a pre-existing condition, will she still vote to kill the ACA? 

SCOTUS nominees should not discuss cases that may come before the Court. A pre-existing condition would have no bearing on that.

Of course she will if she is confirmed, she will have the best insurance available for the rest of her life.

Conjecture and speculation.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
3.1.3  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.1    4 weeks ago
Of course she will if she is confirmed, she will have the best insurance available for the rest of her life.

Is it safe to assume that her husband and 7 children will enjoy those free medical benefits as well.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3.1.3    4 weeks ago
Is it safe to assume that her husband and 7 children will enjoy those free medical benefits as well.

Just like others do!

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1.5  Ronin2  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3.1.3    4 weeks ago

So did Ginsburg, who used those medical benefits quite often. 

What is your point again; outside of acting like conservatives don't deserve the same governmental benefits that liberals do?

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
3.1.6  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.4    4 weeks ago

I thought you didn't like paying for the healthcare of others.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3.1.6    4 weeks ago
I thought you didn't like paying for the healthcare of others.

Perhaps before passing judgment on me, ask first next time.

And what MY personal opinion about "paying for the healthcare for others" is is not relevant to this.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.1    4 weeks ago
She now has a pre-existing condition, will she still vote to kill the ACA?

Good point but as you say, she will enjoy the benefits of health care that being a supreme court justice will offer. Once again it's "I got mine, screw you!"

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.5    4 weeks ago

But Ginsburg supported the ACA didn't she? So what's your point?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.5    4 weeks ago
So did Ginsburg, who used those medical benefits quite often.  What is your point again; outside of acting like conservatives don't deserve the same governmental benefits that liberals do?

That is the only point, and it is pretty damn weak, IMO.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
3.1.11  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.9    4 weeks ago
But Ginsburg supported the ACA didn't she?

She did indeed support it.

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.12  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.2    4 weeks ago
SCOTUS nominees should not discuss cases that may come before the Court. A pre-existing condition would have no bearing on that.

I quite agree but she already expressed her position on abortion and Roe v Wade in a public newspaper, would that not be disqualifying, regardless of her reasons?

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett signed onto a two-page newspaper ad in 2006 calling for the overturning of Roe v. Wade and slamming the landmark abortion rights case as "barbaric." The open letter was published in the South Bend Tribune in the form of full-page advertisements sponsored by the St. Joseph County Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, according to reports from the Guardian and the Daily Beast .

Barrett, then a law professor at Notre Dame, and her husband, Jesse, joined hundreds of people from the border region of northern Indiana and southwest Michigan known as Michiana who signed their names to the statement calling for an end to abortion and to protect the rights of the unborn.

"We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death," the letter states. "Please continue to pray to end abortion."

The accompanying ad condemned Roe v. Wade as "an exercise of raw judicial power” and mourned the "more than 47 million children dead and counting" from abortions.

“It’s time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade and restore laws that protect the lives of unborn children," the statement concluded.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/amy-coney-barrett-barbaric-roe-v-wade

.

Of course she will if she is confirmed, she will have the best insurance available for the rest of her life. Conjecture and speculation.

Really? Do you think if confirmed she would decline s top tier government healthcare benefit and opt to pay out of pocket?

Well, I suppose it is possible, however very unlikely it may be.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.12    4 weeks ago

I quite agree but she already expressed her position on abortion and Roe v Wade in a public newspaper, would that not be disqualifying, regardless of her reasons?

so you would have disqualified Ginsburg for her public endorsement of   roe vs wade?

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.14  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.13    4 weeks ago
so you would have disqualified Ginsburg for her public endorsement of   roe vs wade?

If she had publicly done so before her nomination?

Clinton was widely criticized for nominating a Jewish woman who opposed Roe V Wade.

It was widely known that she was not in favor of Roe V Wade in 1992 & 1993

and she established ( jokingly ) the Ginsburg rule, to not answer any Senate confirmation gotcha questions

on any potential cases that could possibly come before the Court.

Several Senators tried every possible Roe V Wade scenario

and she refused to answer any of them.

The joke was on us.

Eventually it became clear that she found fault with the privacy argument and it's pitfalls

believing  gender equality was a more valid argument to uphold abortion rights.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.14    4 weeks ago

It was widely known that she was not in favor of Roe V Wade in 1992 & 1993

well, you’ve made my case. Per you, her position on roe was “widely known” prior to her nomination.  She also publicly  embraced abortion rights at her confirmation while refusing to answer other questions.  It’s  No different than Kagan arguing for hate speech regulations at a seminar before becoming a judge.

The idea that lawyers can’t comment on legal while  a private citizen would bar any accomplished  lawyer from the court. Many nominees come from academic backgrounds and commmentiing on legal issues is literally what they do.  To claim that all lawyers who want to be judges later in life  must never talk in public about legal issues is, frankly, insane. 

The standard you seem to be groping for is not about A lawyer  addressing legal when they are private citizens. They aren’t supposed to address issues publicly that will come before  them once they are nominated to the court.   It’s not a ban disqualifying any lawyer who spoke  on a legal subject in their lifetimes.

no one who graduates law school could become a judge under that standard.

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.16  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.15    4 weeks ago
no one who graduates law school could become a judge under that standard.

That's why we vote for judges in Texas Sean, a law degree isn't necessary for most "judgeships" in Texas.

Common sense is something that isn't conferred by a law degree.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.17  Trout Giggles  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.16    4 weeks ago
That's why we vote for judges in Texas Sean, a law degree isn't necessary for most "judgeships" in Texas.

No wonder justice is so screwed up in Texas

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.18  Split Personality  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.17    4 weeks ago

lol

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4  Trout Giggles    4 weeks ago

And now I hear that the trmps have it

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
4.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Trout Giggles @4    4 weeks ago
And now I hear that the trmps have it

Which tramps?

 
 
 
devangelical
4.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1    4 weeks ago

melania and ivanka ...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MUVA
5  MUVA    4 weeks ago

And?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  MUVA @5    4 weeks ago

What the hell. We have a pissed off former employee recording conversations and now, HIPPA laws be damned, we have anonymous sources supplying the WaPo with red meat?

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1    4 weeks ago

And none of it will affect her confirmation.

Thankfully.

 
 
 
Snuffy
5.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1    4 weeks ago

yeah,  my first thought was that if I who work in the medical insurance industry releases medical information, under hippa laws I can be held personally liable.  But once again,  anonymous sources..

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.2    4 weeks ago
anonymous sources.

The left's favorite go to. Always believable to them, never identifiable or held accountable for the crap that is regurgitated by the media- and lapped up by those with rampant TDS.

 
 
 
PJ
6  PJ    4 weeks ago

The Lord works in mysterious ways.......  It's a sign.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Dismayed Patriot
Kavika
Paula Bartholomew
Ender
JaneDoe
JohnRussell
Ed-NavDoc


50 visitors