Amy Coney Barrett is completely qualified for this position so this will not be an avenue in which Democrats will substantively attack her. They will, however, attack her for her religion. I thought some of these points might be worth knowing. #ACB
She is Catholic, as Antonin Scalia was, and 5 other current Justices.
Clarence Thomas
John Roberts
Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor
Brett Kavanaugh
Neil Gorsuch was raised Catholic, is now Episcopalian. Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan are Jewish, as was Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
33 Supreme Court justices have been Protestant Christians. 14 have been Catholic Christians. 8 have been Jewish.
The youngest person appointed was 21, the oldest was 67. The youngest person appointed who is currently serving is Thomas at 43.
The youngest currently serving is Gorsuch, who is 53 years old. Barrett is 48 years old. There's not many things they can really attack her for, outside of strawmanning her for her religion, or for her constitutional views. Regarding religion, she's by no means unique for SCOTUS.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Well, after listening to that Space, I think we should define Frenchism (if it's not already defined). If Trumpism is defined by Donald Trump's personality and ideals, then so should David French's belief system or philosophy be similarly fleshed out.
I think Frenchism is a parallel to The Conservative Case for _something the left believes_. Only David finds a way to craft an argument against what Christians, evangelicals, Conservatives, or Republicans are doing as a response, to what the political left did in the first place.
The left is fighting this culture war, and they always have. The ways they do for the last several decades are often using the tools they might be against in principle, against the targets they hate, because the ends justify the means with them. So they can use tactics we can't.
I want to make something clear here. I've been Conservative for over 3 decades, so I've seen countless infighting in my time alone, not just from what came before me. But a lot of Conservatives lose their ideology when they work in politics for money. They don't call the shots.
Conservatism is an ideology that predates the existence of these people. It will also outlast them. They can choose to believe in Conservative ideals, or not, or decide which faction suits them best. Or believe in something else and cling to the label. But they don't own it.
I'm an American Conservative, but also a Fusionist. I came to terms with the various factions decades ago, and I've actually fluctuated a bit across them over time. But I've never had the gall to try and whittle it down to merely one of those factions. The reason why is simple.
Jonah complains about how people took issue with him not being outraged enough, or he's charged with hypocrisy for being less severe against Kessler than he is about other Conservatives. He laments that's it's not good enough that he criticized Kessler. gfile.thedispatch.com/p/tucker-carls…
He didn't actually criticize Kessler. For any reason. Read his tweet, and his subsequent tweets on Kessler. Hell, search through his entire account about outrage at Kessler. Show it to me. I'll wait. I'll save you the time. It's not there.
Lastly, he says he made the assumption that Kessler might be decent enough to recognize he made a mistake. Why, in 2021, would Jonah Goldberg still think Glenn Kessler is worth trusting as a Conservative? WaPo fact-checking ha been an abysmal nightmare of political hackery.
Thread. I'm going to live blog my viewing of the 60 Minutes Interview released by President Trump, with Leslie Stahl. I just watched it, took notes, and will make this thread about that. It's long so I'll post at once so it appears less like spam.
Stahl asks Trump what his best domestic policy wins were and he says the economy, unemployment, jobs, stock market price, and he was right Stahl wouldn't boldly tell Biden he's wrong in an interview. Trump gives stats and she says she won't "fact check" him.
She has already started to fact check him. It's too late to say she's not. Then she says one domestic policy win, when the economy is that one thing, as denoted by the indicators he just listed.
The fascinating thing about Tweetdeck is it allows people to view multiple columns side-by-side, so they can track multiple lists, in addition to the Home feed, as well as have something like a Search column. I've noticed some accounts never appear in my Home feed, but in lists.
So I follow someone like @realDonaldTrump and I put him in a couple lists which display on each side of the Home feed, so I can see if he ever appears in that Home column. He never does. I can see the moment his new tweet appears in the two lists, but he doesn't in the Home feed.
I no longer use the traditional twitter URL to view Home page updates, since it's drastically limited, so I can't tell if he shows up there, but the Tweetdeck Home column is supposed to represent that. Unless there's a sampling issue, I don't think he'll appear in my Home feed.
Just a reminder, The Bulwark and Dispatch currently are trying to service the same niche audience, but once Trump leaves office, only one of them will remain, and it's The Dispatch, aiming to capture the TWS audience of old, and the Bulwark will be shuttered.
The only way I can think The Bulwark can survive is by dumping it's remaining semi-conservative writers, who would all scamper to The Dispatch anyways, and become a full-time leftist publication. But I submit that chance is rare given that intellectual space is competition-rich.
I think it's up to the current people atop the Bulwark to keep it a viable product, but I have zero confidence that project is anything but temporary. We'll see if I'm wrong in the months after Trump leaves office. See also: The Lincoln Project. It can't last.