*In this period of time women with courage, conviction & dedication to doing what is right are often called "Nasty Women". I hope Moira Biris, a relative of Amy Coney Barrett, is not offended by my giving that title to her. I personally embrace it as a badge of honor. She certainly is displaying courage, conviction &; dedication for writing the following.*

**“But she’s so nice!” isn’t enough"**
By Moira Birss

Amy Coney Barrett is like family to me. Actually, she is family to me.

President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee is my relative through marriage. Her husband, Jesse Barrett, is my first cousin. And so the daily articles about her family, her membership in the group People of Praise, and the implications of her possible confirmation to the highest court of this land have hit very close to home for me and others in my family. Despite my family pride and my affection for Amy as a person, I am also a woman, part of a community, and someone who believes deeply that everyone deserves to be protected and treated with dignity. That is why, after much deliberation, I have decided to make my opposition to her confirmation public.

I didn’t grow up in South Bend, as Jesse and many of our cousins did. But I lived only a couple of hours away, and my mom and I would visit regularly. The family usually gathered at our grandparents’ farm outside of South Bend, and we cousins loved to ride with our grandfather as he drove the tractor around the yard, sometimes cutting grass and sometimes just taking us for joy rides. I’m an only child, so my cousins are the closest thing I have to siblings.

Though I was also raised Catholic, neither I nor other cousins grew up within People of Praise, as Jesse did. Nonetheless, “the community,” as we cousins grew up calling it, was an ever-present part of our family, since our grandparents belonged and hosted prayer meetings at their house. While I’m very uncomfortable with its emphasis on patriarchal hierarchy, I don’t think People of Praise is a cult. In fact, I know its emphasis on mutual aid between members has much to admire and has provided important support in times of need for members of my family.

As we grew older, went to college, and moved to other parts of the country (or world), I fell out of touch with many of my cousins. But I would often make it back to South Bend for our annual family reunion at Thanksgiving, for cousins’ weddings, and, of course, when our grandparents passed.

In those family gatherings, I met Jesse’s wife, Amy. Those personal interactions, and the relationships she has with other family members, made clear to me what a warm and kind person she is, though Amy and I never established as close a relationship as she did with some other members of the family with whom I am also close.

Therefore, when Amy’s name began to show up on President Trump’s Supreme Court short list, I was torn. I’m a campaigner for racial and climate justice, dwelling at the other end of the political spectrum from Amy, and normally would have deep concerns about any candidate that Trump and the GOP would favor. But Amy is part of my family, and is such a nice person, and has raised — with the help of other members of our family — such delightful children. I have actually bristled at some of the personal criticisms of Amy and her family, because, after all, those are criticisms of my family.

Like many others in this country, people in our family hold a wide range of political views — in fact, most of our family is on the opposite of the political spectrum from Amy and Jesse. But we all find Amy lovely to be around, and as a result many of us, myself included, began to tell ourselves that her tenure on the Court wouldn’t be as harmful to marginalized people as we believe those of many other conservative jurists might be. “But she’s so nice!” is a common refrain within the family as we have discussed her rise as a conservative legal star in recent years.

But in recent weeks, I, like many others, have learned more about Amy’s legal writings and decisions, and I have researched political groups she’s a part of, like the right-wing Federalist Society. And it has become clear that her views on the law would put so many members of our society — and even our own family — at risk: from those who rely on the Affordable Care Act for life-saving healthcare, to low-wage workers and non-white workers, to LGBTQ people.

And it’s not just her record that has forced me to rethink my “but she’s so nice!” justifications. From what I know and have heard from family about Amy, she dislikes much about Trump, especially the disrespect he shows for women. Yet the fact that she’s willing to accept the blessing of a nomination from him and all he represents, without raising her voice against those behaviors, particularly in this deeply partisan nomination process so soon after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and in the midst of an election after millions of people have already voted, tells me that I must override my inclination to give her a pass because she’s family and because I’ve enjoyed our personal interactions.

This decision must be about whether the nominee believes the protections of the law extend to everyone, not just the already powerful. It must be about whether or not a potential justice is willing to stand up to the powerful within their own political circles and to exercise good judgment for the well-being of all people.

Which is why I have come to the painful conclusion that the decision about who becomes our next Supreme Court justice should not — cannot — rest on whether someone is a nice person. And while I may be the only one in our family publicly speaking out, I have heard from several relatives in recent weeks who are in full agreement with me.

After all, so much is at stake in this confirmation battle: the protection of voter rights, particularly for people of color, incarcerated people, and the poor; accountability for police violence against Black people; the ability of our government to comprehensively address the climate crisis; the right of all of us to make our own decisions about when and whether we want to have children.
So today I am doing an incredibly hard thing, a thing that may upset some of my family members because at the end of the day the survival and dignity of the most marginalized people in my community are that important. And the harmful impacts of my relative Amy’s being on the Court will be much greater for them than for me.
I am urging the Senate to reject the confirmation of a family member of mine whose personal kindness will never compensate for all she will do to make America less kind.

Have you made your calls to your U.S. Senators yet regarding the sham taking place there? You should be outraged that McConnell & Graham are determined to ram through the confirmation of Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court. They and the American people need time to thoroughly review this nominee's record and determine her fitness for a lifetime appointment to our nation's highest court. By their actions Republican Senators will cause irreparable damage to the public's faith in the integrity of the Court and the Senate.

Judge Barrett has an extensive history of speaking about and writing about her opposition to liberties most Americans believe they should have i.e. reproductive rights, gay marriage rights, and the right to good healthcare. Now she wants us to believe she cannot answer specific questions about such issues. Instead, she says she will make decisions per the law if and when individual cases come before the court.

We are not stupid! Trump made it very clear why he nominated Barrett. In golfers' terms, she is his ace in the hole.
**202-224-3121** - ask for your Senator. Tell him/her you are outraged - but do it politely. While you're at it, tell him/her they should be working on bills to help their constituents who are suffering badly right now, not spending time confirming a judge.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The recent account, by a licensed practical nurse-turned-whistleblower, regarding the treatment of detained immigrant women at Irwin County Detention Center in Georgia is beyond horrific – it is unconscionable and inhumane.

According to the complaint, a number of immigrant women reported being recommended hysterectomies, with so many taking place, the whistleblower compared it to “an experimental concentration camp.” Many of these women underwent procedures, despite not being fully informed about the impacts – including the inability to later become pregnant. On top of this, the complaint further detailed the mishandling of the pandemic health threats at the facility, which is operated by a private prison company. Those who dared to speak out against these conditions were put into solitary confinement.

NOW renews the urgent call of our “Unlock the Future for Immigrant Women and Girls” campaign for real reform to the abusive immigration practices, ending the current detention prison system and demanding a bill of rights for women and children housed in immigration detention prisons that provides, at a minimum, access to vital human needs such as reproductive health care, feminine hygiene products, and mental health care.

NOW supports and urges the House of Representatives to take up and vote on federal legislation, the Stop Cruelty to Migrant Children Act (H.R. 3918/S. 2113) and The Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act (H.R. 2415,), which would address many of the issues highlighted in our Bill of Rights.

The United States has a long history of dehumanizing women of color and exerting undue control over their bodies which adds to the violence of white supremacy and structural racism. The individuals and institutions responsible for the forced sterilization that these immigrant women have suffered must be prosecuted to the full measure of the law. NOW is committed to ending the current cruel, costly, privately owned detention system and working for a fair and humane immigration process for women and children fleeing to the U.S. seeking refuge from sexual violence, assault, and poverty.

Released on September 15, 2020

“Our Lives Begin To End The Day We Become Silent About The Things That Matters” (MLK) A famous quote by Dr. Martin Luther King, Our lives matter only when we’re actively involved in the things that matter. In this November presidential election will your lives (BLM, WLM, HLM, ALM) really matter, if so let the words of Dr. King ring true in the souls of your convictions, become that agent of change we so desperately desire, by making sure everyone you know participate in this election, begin the catalyst that ensure this great American democracy live up to it’s full potential. I see this election, as the final assault on the ideology of bigotry and hate where we as a nation must put an end to this lastly and forever. This struggle will not go away it must be defeated at the ballot box. So with that said, as a former Marine I solicit your help to join me in this fight at making this nation a more perfect union under God in which we all can live free. The struggle for good has never been easy to achieve or without sacrifice. This same struggle of good versus evil has been waging from the beginning of civilization and has cost the lives of many. For too long we have allowed the voices of the few to dictate to the masses the policies by which we should live. That’s why I am calling for all good and decent Americans from every corner of this great nation to rise up and claim your inheritance, as so expressed in our constitution, prepare to vote on November 3, 2020. “Let your one small, but precious voice be heard” {One Nation under God, Indivisible with Liberty and Justice For All} H Griffin (CCFC)

Trump has said he will nominate a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court this week, adding that it may be a woman. As offensive as the whole idea of this action is so close to the election, it is sickening to think who that person may be. One possible female nominee might well be Amy Coney Barrett. Earlier she was reported to have been on Trump’s shortlist to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The following is an article by William James of The Intellectualist. It underscores why we must do everything we can to thwart this or any other nominee being voted upon until after the Presidential election.

**Amy Coney Barrett reportedly belongs to People of Praise, a group to which members must swear a lifelong loyalty oath.**

One of the individuals reportedly topping President Donald Trump’s shortlist to replace outgoing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy belongs to a religious group that believes husbands should rule over their wives, among other highly conservative and traditional beliefs.

Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed by the Senate to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago in October 2017, is reportedly part of the Christian group People of Praise – a fact which never surfaced during her confirmation hearing, according to The New York Times.

Ms. Barrett told the senators that she was a faithful Catholic, and that her religious beliefs would not affect her decisions as an appellate judge. But her membership in a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise never came up at the hearing, and might have led to even more intense questioning.

Some of the group’s practices would surprise many faithful Catholics. Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a “head” for men and a “handmaid” for women. The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.
The Times spoke with legal scholars who concluded that loyalty oaths such as that required by the People of Praise could prove problematic for a judge.

The scholars said in interviews that while there certainly was no religious test for office, it would have been relevant for the senators to examine what it means for a judicial nominee to make an oath to a group that could wield significant authority over its members’ lives.
“These groups can become so absorbing that it’s difficult for a person to retain individual judgment,” said Sarah Barringer Gordon, a professor of constitutional law and history at the University of Pennsylvania. “I don’t think it’s discriminatory or hostile to religion to want to learn more” about her relationship with the group.

According to Craig S. Lent, the group’s leader, People of Praise is neither “nefarious” nor “controversial”; however, per group policy, he would not confirm or deny Barrett's membership status.
“We don’t try to control people,” said Mr. Lent, who is also a professor of electrical engineering and physics at Notre Dame. “And there’s never any guarantee that the leader is always right. You have to discern and act in the Lord.”
He later added, “If and when members hold political offices, or judicial offices, or administrative offices, we would certainly not tell them how to discharge their responsibilities.”

The Times reported that Barrett and her husband do appear to be group members, though Barrett herself declined to comment on several occasions. Current and former members of People of Praise said that Ms. Barrett and her husband, who have seven children, both belong to the group, and that their fathers have served as leaders. The community, founded in 1971, claims about 1,800 adult members in 22 locations in North America and the Caribbean.

Should Trump choose Barrett to replace Justice Kennedy, certain Democrats could struggle to justify denying a ‘yes’ vote.
As CNN noted, five Democratic senators helped confirm her nomination last year:

She received 55 votes, including from Democrats Joe Manchin (West Virginia), Joe Donnelly (Indiana) and Tim Kaine (Virginia) as well as several moderate Republicans like Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).
While that group could make the argument that the Supreme Court is different than a Court of Appeals, it's a tough political position to be in given their past support.