Yes, yes, and yes!

I can not like this enough.

Welcome to GC Ronaldo. You make excellent points.

A post from my Rhodes friend: “This likely nominee is an alumna of Rhodes College, my alma mater. Her views, prejudices, interest in taking away rights of women, dislike of LBGTQ rights - are in complete contrast to my experience & my people at Rhodes College and the sorority to which we both pledged. I am angry and disappointed that the most famous KD and Rhodes graduate appears to be such an outlier. Please do not judge the college, KDs, or me by her. “

I am a Kappa Delta and a Catholic. The thought of her politics and attitude being part of the Supreme Court decisions for the next 30 years makes me want to hurl. The church she belongs to in South Bend is cray cray. Welcome to Gilead.

Kappa Deltas have every right to speak out FOR and AGAINST her stances, actions, politics and beliefs. What is bad form is shaming the Central Offices for posting congratulations for the accomplishments of a sister.

A virtual high five to my hero for the day Ronaldo! Well said!!

One ? for the crowd to ponder- how would you respond if/when the next Democratic SC nominee happens to be a practicing Muslim woman?
Seriously?
Will she be faced with claims that she will have to ask her husband to proof her opinions? Will she face claims that she hates the LGBTQ community just because, well, Muslims still routinely KILL homosexuals?
Think about it.

Two of my aunts are Southern, Catholic, and KD (sisters twice!) - on opposite ends of the political spectrum - they are both pleased to see a KD sister nominated, but one has had personal experience with the nominee's church and that colors her view of the nomination and ACB as a potential justice. The other is a lawyer and has been encouraging family on both ends of the spectrum to look into her actual ruling history and legal writings, before deciding she'll either be a boon to conservative causes or demonizing her as the end to all rights.


I didn't find out that one of my sorority sisters was a homophobe until I came out as bi - the murky underside didn't reveal itself until after we had graduated. If she ran for high public office, I'd sure be speaking against her character.

Interestingly enough, Senator Loeffler represents the State of Georgia, but Beyond that, I'm curious as to what else is interesting about that?

Congrats. Your humor made me laugh, and you succeeded in making your points. Let's remember we all retain the right to do so in an atmosphere of respect.

Since we're sisters ITB I'd just add that I respect your viewpoint and would vigorously defend your right to say it. My family comes first as well, as I imagine it does with everyone participating in this discussion, regardless of which group they are affiliated with.
Greek Letter Organizations have had targets of various sizes and shapes on their backs off and on and at varying levels of intensity for all of those 150 years. I hope that we're careful not to add those targets ourselves because we have different political viewpoints. I'm not sure I'd sit silently if Ann Coulter were nominated either, but I doubt she'd miss our endorsement much either way. She sure seems to have little trouble being "out there" regardless (LOL) :rolleyes:

Nothing like taking things to an extreme. Though I do not support her nomination, I do not support your item (a). As for (b), a valid description of my friend - and former mentor - would be the opposite of this as well. She is very well known in the educational community and has been Head of School in the US and overseas.

Also, as a former Catholic I have the same concerns about the sub group to which she belongs as others on here have stated.

I'm Catholic as well, albeit not a very observant one. I had some concerns as well about this community of faith, that upon further review seems to be a Christian group comprised of more than just Catholics. They sound very evangelistic or fundamentalist, which is not really your "average" Catholic who in my world doesn't identify that way at all.
As I said in my first post in this thread my first choice was Justice Lagoa, and it was for that very reason. I understand why ACB was chosen,though- expediency and a fairly recent vetting resulting in a somewhat bipartisan confirmation. Time is of the essence here, because of the election.
Given the increased likelihood that some issues regarding this election may well end up in the SCOTUS, it is very important that the risk of a 4-4 deadlock be avoided.

I don’t post here very often, but I read posts here a LOT. Including every single word of this thread.

You know who it’s hard to be right now?

The PR department at KD.
And the National Council members of KD.

And you know what?
It’s not so hard because of ACBs views or nomination.

It’s because people have completely forgotten how to disagree without being disagreeable.

People are justifying acting like a$$holes because we think our brand of bad behavior isn’t NEARLY as bad as the behavior of the person we complain about. And yet, all this vitriol, even that which purports to be in the name of inclusion, equal rights or other things that the loudest voices deem virtuous, is ruining us.

Tonight, I texted my chapter sister (and grand-big) who is on KD National Council. My goal? To offer her support in the middle of what is a hot mess. She’s looking at every single angle she can to be fair and respectful, whether she agrees with political views or not, and there’s just no way to win. Please, KDs, if you know someone involved in this, please text the leader and wish them well and thank them for serving....whether you agree with them or not.

And if you are in another sorority and have similar struggles going on - also thank your leaders for trying to do the right thing.

Ta Kala Diokomen,
(Which means let us strive for that which is honorable, beautiful, and highest)

QueenD

Ranaldo: I'm not going to argue with you as we each have the right to our opinions. I do not believe ACB has a enough of a body of judicial work for us to know how she might vote - that and her personal beliefs concern me. I live in Alabama and, should SCOTUS send abortion rights back to the states, it will be devastating for the women who will have to search out illegal abortions as we did before Roe. And yes, as a woman of 74 years of age who has lived thru legal gender discrimination for decades, I am concerned.

There is so much about Kelly Loeffler that doesn't support Alpha Gamma Delta's values. If I were voting in Georgia, I would campaign against her.
She inherited a vacant seat and was appointed by Gov.Greg Kemp (I could on on at length about him) based on financial connections. Loeffler had deep pockets and Trump put intense pressure on Kemp to appoint her to the open seat.

Loeffler's husband, Jeffrey Sprecher, is Chairman of the New York Stock Exchange and CEO of the Intercontinental Exchange. In March, the public release of federal financial-disclosure documents revealed that Sprecher and his wife, interim U.S. Senator Kelly Loeffler, sold millions of dollars of stock the couple owned in companies vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic. The sales began the same day Loeffler and other senators received a private briefing from federal officials about the looming crisis. The documents also showed that the couple purchased stock in a company that would potentially benefit from the shelter-in-place orders that have since been implemented throughout the United States to prevent the spread of the virus. Insider information? Yes!

Additionally, Loeffler is minority owner of the WNBA Atlanta Dream and has stated her objection to the Black Lives Matter Movement. Her comments led some WNBA players to call for her removal from ownership. There are many other personal views where I differ with her but I will stick with the facts of the problems with her seat as to what is "interesting".

Loeffler is up for reelection in November. In August, members of the Dream came out in support of her opponent. So yes, there is a lot of interesting facts about Kelly Loeffler's very short political career which are not honorable nor just.

I want to thank you for your exemplary example of sisterhood.

My cousin, also a member of my sorority, is a very devout Roman Catholic. She was raised in a Catholic household, attended Catholic schools k-12 and a Catholic college. That said, she has come out strongly against ACB because of her faith. I have another cousin who is a less devout Catholic and a KD who is also against her appointment. Not that any of this matters to those who will review her appointment, but I'm giving my two cents.

The statements from my 2 cousins piqued my interest so I researched the Catholic Group, People of Praise, of which ACB and her husband are part. First and foremost, People of Praise subjugates women. They are a religious community based in charismatic Catholicism, a movement that grew out of the influence of Pentecostalism, which emphasizes a personal relationship with Jesus and can include baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues.

ACB’s family are deeply connected with the organization. As recently as 2017 ACB served as a trustee at the People of Praise-affiliated Trinity Schools Inc. Barrett’s father has served as the principal leader of People of Praise’s New Orleans branch and was on the group’s all-male Board of Governors as recently as 2017. Her mother has served in the branch as a “handmaid,” a female leader assigned to help guide other women.

The group has been portrayed by some former members, and in books, blogs and news reports, as hierarchical, authoritarian and controlling, where men dominate their wives, leaders dictate members’ life choices and those who leave are shunned. A former member has been indicated her mother saying a wife could never deny sex to her husband because it was his right and duty. She also recalled People of Praise meetings held in her parents’ living room where members prayed in tongues to cast out demons from a person writhing on the floor, rituals she described as exorcisms.

People of Praise has roughly 1,800 adult members nationwide, with branches and schools in 22 cities across the United States, Canada and the Caribbean. It was founded in South Bend in 1971.

Agreed. Three years is not enough.

That's an understatement! If you ever read the book about Robert Hanssen, a former FBI agent who spied for Soviet and Russian intelligence services against the United States, you will read of his family's involvement in the Opus Dei movement of the Catholic church. The name of the book slips my mind but I'm sure you can find it on Amazon.

Opus Dei is a controversial orthodox form of Catholocism. It shares the doctrines of the Catholic Church and has "no other teaching than the teaching of the Magisterium of the Holy See", as per the founder, Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer.

Criticism of Opus Dei has centered on allegations of secretiveness, controversial and aggressive recruiting methods, strict rules governing members, elitism and misogyny, and support of or participation in authoritarian or right-wing governments. Critics allege that Opus Dei maintains an extremely high degree of control over its members—for instance, requiring numeraries to submit their incoming and outgoing mail to their superiors for inspection, and members are forbidden to read certain books without permission from their superiors. Critics charge that Opus Dei pressures numeraries to sever contact with non-members, including their own families.

Opus Dei received international attention due to the novel The Da Vinci Code and its film version of 2006.

While Robert Hanssen was active in Opus Dei, attended mass daily and recruited members for the organization, he regularly frequented strip clubs, shared recordings of he and his wife having sex and had a relationship with a stripper for whom he purchaed jewelry and a Mercedes Benz.

As to your and Titchou’s point, did you take issue with Elena Kagan’s lack of experience on the bench?

As in she had none.

Is Opus Dei the one Mel Gibson and his dad are in?

As for People of Praise, mixing Pentecostalism and Catholicism sounds to me like putting ketchup on a banana split.

Rightfully so, but Elena Kagan had was the Dean of Harvard Law School for a decade at the time of her nomination and the deans of over one-third of the country's law schools, 69 people in total, endorsed the nomination in an open letter.

As for ACB, I'm waiting on that letter of support.

To be completely candid, I said basically this same thought to mr. honeychile earlier today. Good call!

The KD chapter at Rhodes didn't know what Amy Coney's political leanings were when they extended a bid and, a few weeks or months later, initiated her. At that age her political leanings were most likely still being formed. (Sure, rush conversation has changed over the years but I rather doubt that her political views came up.)

I object to her nomination is first and foremost the Republican hypocrisy of pushing it forward NOW in contrast to the Republican stonewall of Merrick Garland's nomination four years ago. Sure, we understand why McConnell acted that way then and why he and his cronies are acting that way now.

I also object to ACB's nomination because I don't think she has enough experience. It's a very Trump-typical appointment: pick someone who looks right and ram the nomination through, whether that person if fully qualified or not.

And, yes, of course I object to ACB's nomination because I don't want a 6-3 conservative anti-choice, anti-universal-health-care, etc., etc. Supreme Court.

I quickly scrolled through this thread -- don't know how many have observed that Christine Blasey Ford is also a Kappa Delta.

Lots of off-topic back and forth was deleted. Please return to topic.

Original comment deleted to respect Kevin's above message

Thank you Kevin for encouraging civility. I do just want to reiterate my point that I want us to engage in a dialogue. I too worry about reproductive rights, but I have faith that the legislative branch (at both the state and federal level should it come to that) won’t allow that to happen. I have not seen any indication that ACB will legislate from the bench any more than any other member of the Court.

I have to say that I disagree with Ronaldo on the composition of the Court. I had hoped that RBG would have had the foresight to step down during Obama’s term. Not to be indelicate, but she has been less than the picture of health for roughly a decade. Anyway, I like the idea that the Court has a 4-5 split at any given time.

Again, I would like to reiterate my points that facts are not offensive (ex: it is offensive to some/most of us that the Kardashians are role models to young women, but my telling you that and backing it up with evidence is not, nor is presenting evidence to the contrary).

I'm not sure if Mel and his father are members but for a time, former Justice Scalia attended services at an Opus Dei "chuch". Probably scared the Roman Catholic out of him and he ran.

BTW...love the anology.

I don't plan to edit or delete anything because thankfully, this entire post was on topic. To be clear, what I will delete without hesitation are posts spent entirely attacking other posters. Attack the subject matter which you disagree with to your heart's content.

I have no agenda. I'm just trying to call balls and strikes here.

Well. This election cycle is certainly reminding me that bad faith arguments aren't worth my time.

This.

This is really about the GOP wanting a 6-3 majority and that they are going to do their damnedest to achieve it. Right and wrong do not matter in politics. Winning is what matters. All of this silly bullshit moralizing about "How Lincoln didn't appoint a justice in an election year" and about Merrick Garland's failed nomination is nonsense. The GOP has the means an opportunity for a huge win. I don't like it. I don't think a supermajority on the Court is going to be a good thing for either side in the long run. If PP v Casey was really overturned, and reality sets in for a lot of women, I think the backlash will be massive for the GOP. Similarly, if you take away expanded Medicare for millions of people, there's going to be a massive political price for that. I am not sure why the GOP wants to achieve either of those results because either result for the GOP is simply an exercise in self-immolation.

I would similarly have no problem if the Court was to be expanded if the Dems win the Presidency and both houses. One raw exercise of power invites the next one and that'll continue until we have a 3rd party or until we have a failed Republic.

I just fell virtually in love with you!

So your response is that the Dems did it first and that justifies equal retribution. Okay. I guess that's fair. It's a bit juvenile--and "He hit me first" in the schoolyard nowadays still results in both students going home. It's regrettable that option is not really available.

And if that continues, absent intervention, that'll spell the end of the significance of being a Senator rather than a Representative and we'll have a "judicial" body consisting of 30 some-odd justices acting as essentially a super-legislature. I don't want that. I would hope no one wants that. I would hope one side would pump the brakes, but everyone is so cynical, that they rightly or wrongly believe that one side pumping the breaks would simply invite the other side taking full advantage of that situation.

I'm not sure there are really any true originalists on the Court or whether there ever have been. Off of the top of my head, Scalia had a rather expansive interpretation of the interstate commerce clause when it came to finding federal jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause exists to regulate marijuana grown entirely within a State using only implements from within the State. I've found "originalist" judges are often using originalist arguments to complete the mental gymnastics necessary to obtain a certain result, e.g., reading the Second Amendment's clause regarding "a well-regulated militia" to essentially be without meaning or importance in interpreting the right to bear arms.

I used to think I was an originalist. Then I went to law school and saw how inconsistently the philosophy was applied. And now I'm a lawyer who uses whatever argument to advance my cause which I think has a chance at working. Was I to serve on the bench, I would aspire to originalism, but recognize it's a much more squishy proposition than anyone wants to admit considering the Bill of Rights contains that whole 9th Amendment thing.

It works for so long as either side can motivate its base to show up and only so long as the people retain ultimate power. Most are predicting a flipped Senate and a Biden presidency. Not only do I predict that they will expand the SCOTUS. I think they'll pack the Article III courts as well, which is probably warranted as their case load and the populations they serve have expanded, so there's almost certainly a decent rationale there.

And of course, why stop there? Statehood for D.C., maybe turn California into some sort of gerrymandered mess of new states in order to pack the Senate and really consolidate power.

Abd why stop there? Then how about disbanding the electoral college and electing the President by popular vote?

The natural progression of what you propose foresees a back and forth equilibrium. The only logical step for either party is to do whatever it can to upset the equilibrium and place themselves in an unassailable position. This is how dictatorships begin.

When I recall the fall of the Roman Republic and how that transpired, it seems we're standing on the precipice of something like that.

Except this is not a case where mutually assured destruction exists. History has shown us that with Republics, there are means by which the will of the people can be circumvented or rendered symbollic. Take Russia and just about any other Republic-in-name-only. It's the same story.

One side can win and the other side can lose. Recent months have shown us that large segments of our country would be fine with that.

That is kind of where you'd expect the GOP to slide as the country is becoming less white and trending Democratic. If Texas becomes a blue state, the GOP, given its current policies, might nearly become irrelevant.

Back to the topic at hand though--the last time any President had to threaten to expand the Court was under FDR. And at that point, the body that blinked first was the Court. Roberts, it would appear may be malleable. I think Gorsuch is maybe more malleable than anyone thought. Especially considering his work on the McGirt case, which has the justice system in my State overwhelmed.

Billy Joel once sang, "We Didn't Start The Fire", too.

I'll maintain a respectful dialog with you if you'll not refer to Democrats as rats. FWIW, I am a Republican. And before the complaint that I'm being unfair with you. I pruned the vitriolic back and forth on the last page or so. I don't have any intention of manicuring the rest of the thread. If that upsets someone's post count, my deepest sympathies.

I appreciate this dialogue. You are both articulate and well informed. I wish that more people would leave the comfort of their echo chambers to engage in similar discussion.