More Than 70 Science & Climate Journalists Challenge Supreme Ct. Nomination of Coney Barrett

[appalachiablue]

- 'More Than 70 Science & Climate Journalists Challenge Supreme Court Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett.'- “Judge Coney Barrett has displayed a profound inability to understand the ecological crisis of our times, and in so doing she enables it.” Rolling Stone, Oct. 25, 2020.



We are science and climate journalists. We are researchers and weavers of information, creating a fabric that explains the work of scientists who themselves are working to describe our natural world and universe. We are published in the nation’s leading outlets, both large and small, including Scientific American, Nature, National Geographic, MIT Technology Review, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and many more.

Over decades of reporting on the threats and now deadly and devastating harms of worsening climate change, we have succeeded in at least one respect. The vast majority of the world’s people, including those in the United States, not only acknowledge the scientific certainty of climate change, but also want action taken to address it.

We have succeeded because the science is clear, despite there being a massive well-orchestrated effort of propaganda, lies, and denial by the world’s largest fossil fuel corporations, including ExxonMobil and Koch Industries and fossil-fuel-backed institutes and think tanks. It is frightening that a Supreme Court nominee — a position that is in essence one of the highest fact-checkers in the land — has bought into the same propaganda we have worked so hard to dispel.

And it is facts — a word under repeated assault by the Trump administration, which nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett — that are at issue here. “I’m certainly not a scientist…I’ve read things about climate change. I would not say I have firm views on it,” Judge Coney Barrett told Sen. John Kennedy during the Senate confirmation hearings on October 13th.The next day, Sen. Richard Blumenthal asked Judge Coney Barrett if she believed “human beings cause global warming.”

She replied: “I don’t think I am competent to opine on what causes global warming or not. I don’t think that my views on global warming or climate change are relevant to the job I would do as a judge.”...

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/amy-coney-barrett-climate-journalists-challenge-supreme-court-nomination-1080453/

[mitch96]

1. Ok lets say we have the prez, house and senate.. Can she be impeached?

What would be a good sound reason?
m

[appalachiablue]

2. There's precedent for one SC justice who was impeached, 1800s

I think. And for her it's warranted. No time like the present.

[mitch96]

3. "And for her it's warranted" But for what?

Lying? "miss remembering?"
m

[appalachiablue]

5. Incompetent, evasive, not answering, bias from oil ties,

just name it.

[asiliveandbreathe]

4. Either incompetent, lacks curiosity, in the pocket of big oil,

lazy, or all of the above..

“I don’t think I am competent to opine on what causes global warming or not...I don’t think that my views on global warming or climate change are relevant to the job I would do as a judge.”...

I don't think you are competent to opine on any subject...so what Barrett needs to do is step aside, and let a more competent person fill those very big shoes of RBG...

[Newest Reality]

6. This nomination may bring into question...

This nomination may bring into question the very legitimacy of the Supreme Court and its decisions.

We should realize that legitimacy is not a concrete rule. It rests on the acceptance by the electorate, the constituency, to accept and agree on it. When you have a no faith response to a government and any of its branches that serves to dilute confidence in it and that's one of the risks the GOP is taking, though their tendency to "follow the leader" and put party over country may be a portent of something very dark.

I would say that the legitimacy of power rests on agreement and confidence in order to be maintained. That means that the legitimacy needs to be questioned and even challenged in order to continue. Without that test, who or what can claim that authority and by what values do they do so.

This was founded as a government of, for and by the people. That's where the authority actually comes from. No faith, and there goes the validity of any authority unless you resort to draconian measures to maintain it, which is where we are going.

If nobody agrees that a dollar is worth anything, it's just a piece of paper with ink on it.

[The Blue Flower]

7. What about the violation of committee rules to push her along?

Could that be grounds for challenging her placement on the court?

[marie999]

8. She will not be impeached.

First, she would have had to lie under oath which she didn't do since she didn't answer questions but said she would first have to see the cases and second, the House will not bring it up.

[world wide wally]

9. She is not a pediatrician either, but she will opine on abortion.

She is also not a politician, but she will opine on who wins the election.
She is not a chemist, but she will opine on who is polluting the water.
She is not a sociologist, but she will opine on gay sex...
and so forth.

[marie999]

10. Which justices are a pediatrician, politician, chemist or sociologist?

[world wide wally]

11. Not even one, but they will all offer opinions on the viability as related to law

[marie999]

12. That is why I didn't understand your post #9

[world wide wally]

13. During the hearings, she kept saying she couldn't answer questions because she was not an expert on

the topics. Her words... not mine.

[marie999]

14. Thank you