I was looking for a contractor to dig a new foundation the other day and I came across Amy Coney Barrett. Contractor extraordinaire. Referred by Don the Con Construction Advisory Panel. So I had her come in and do an estimate.
Me: Hello Amy, I am happy to see you. So, what is your experience as a contractor?
Amy: I am certified as a contractor by Home Advisor and the Federalist Society.
Me: OK. So, need you to provide some references.
Amy: Certainly, just look at my website. It is all about me .
Me: I did that already. Yes, well your website says you are a contractor and that you are an honest contractor. No examples of your work. But, do you have any references from places you have done work for in the past?
Amy: That is a good question. I am well aware that references exist and that references are something that all contractors should have. However, divulging references at this point may prematurely influence your decision to hire me. However, at some time in the future I may or may not divulge references.
Me: I see. Well how many foundations have you dug and what kinds of materials do you use?
Amy: Excellent, thoughtful question. As you may or may not know, there are many types of foundations. It is important to find the type of foundation that best fits every individual’s needs. Some foundations are better than others. There are a variety of styles of foundations. As well as sizes.
Me: Ok. So what kind of foundations have you constructed in the past.
Amy: I would like to answer that question as fully as possible. I am certified to build foundations of many types and styles. At this time I cannot really commit to any one foundation, although I can assure you that I will faithfully build a foundation. Foundations are the foundation upon which buildings are built. Before I can discuss a foundation I will need you to sign my contract. Here is my contract.
Me: (Reading the contract). Hmm. Ok, it says here that I am hiring you for life. That is a pretty big commitment.
Amy: Yes. Before I can start to explain what a foundation is and what I may or may not build, I need a lifetime commitment from you that I will be the sole contractor you ever hire. And I will be paid regularly, of course, for the rest of my life. Whether or not I actually build any foundation is not the issue. It is the lifetime guarantee of employment that is important.
Me: I see. Well, so, can you tell me what you plan to build the foundation out of, before I sign the contract. And are there any guarantees on my end?
Amy: That is a good question. I would like to explain to you exactly what I do and how I will do it. However, to do so may influence how I make my foundation building decisions in the future. Certainly that would be unfair to any future construction. Premature. Just sign.
Me: Well, what about guarantees? What if the foundation collapses or leaks?
Amy: Interesting point. In the past there have been some contractors who would guarantee their work. In that case there is a guarantee. In other cases there is no guarantee. I feel it is premature to discuss any guarantee until you have signed and returned the contract to me. At that time I may, or may not, discuss guarantees.
Me: What about foundations you have dug in the past? Can you give me some addresses so I can look at them.
Amy: A very astute question. Which I think I already answered. Delving into the past is not needed. Whatever I may or may not have built in the past is not important. What is important is the future. I keep an open mind on each foundation I dig. If I dig foundations. Which I do. Or maybe I don’t .Can’t discuss it until the contract is signed.
Me: So, you want me to give you a job for life even though I have no idea how you are going to build a foundation or if you will guarantee your work. Or even if you will show up at all?
Amy: Well, to be clear. As I said in the past and I will say in the future. A contract is a contract and a guarantee is a guarantee. That said, I cannot commit at this time to the actual building of the foundation until the contract is signed. At that point I will open to discussions of all contractual arrangements.
Me: What if the foundation collapses and harms or kills my wife or kids.
Amy: That is a good question and I would like to discuss it now. However, any discussion of possible damages or injuries may be premature. There is nothing in the original Constitution that requires me to build a foundation that will not collapse. I refer you the the original document.
Me: Ok. Sounds like a good deal to me. I will give you a lifetime contract. You will not answer any questions about your past foundations or plans for building my foundation. You accept no responsibility for faulty work. I guess I could sign.
Amy: Good. Sign here and here and here. Ok. I will be back sometime in the future to perhaps perform a function for which you will pay me for the rest of my life. As for now, I have another appointment. Don’t call me, I’ll call you.
Me: Thanks Amy. Sure is good to know I am in the hands of an honest professional.
The Old Liberal 
Excellent!!! I say, do NOT sign on the dotted line!
LikeLike
Well done Joseph! I wish you had a wider audience. I could hardly stand to watch her being questioned…..she looked and sounded so incompetent, definitely not Supreme Court material no matter where her interests lay. I thought Kamala Harris did an excellent job of grilling her, and the resulting glares were very interesting in terms of body language.
LikeLike
Just to clarify why i settled for 3 (rather than 4 or 5) additional justices in my previous comment: 3 would do 2 things: set the number of Supremes at 12, which (to those for whom “precedent” is important) has been the centuries-established (if not codified in law) standard for number of jurors — and isn’t that what justices really are when they decide the fate of of the issues ‘on trial’ before them? The second thing 3 additional justices would do is even the balance between liberal and conservatives on the court at 6 each….while still giving the election-winning Dems the tie-breaker (presumably VP Kamela Harris) when there are deadlocks.
LikeLike
The foundation is rotten to its unconstitutional core. When she declined to answer the questions about the president postponing election and refusing to commit to peaceful transfer of power, she showed a pretty original disdain for originalism—the answers are right there in her purported guide. She pretty much wore a sign: “I was bought by the vested interests and I’ll do whatever they expect.”
Joseph, I had a really unpleasant exchange with a bunch of anti-small d Democrats on Twitter who echo Mike Lee’s assertion that the US is a republic—not a democracy. I said it’s both: a democratic republic and a representative democracy, as opposed to a pure Athenian democracy. They said nope—democracy means tyranny of the majority and “lady, go back to civics class.” Very worrisome.
If you haven’t seen Sheldon Whitehouse’s brilliant tutorial on how we got to where we are, I have a video of a good portion of it in my post “Something’s Wrong Around the Courts.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
In my opinion, textualism and originalism are euphemisms for opportunism–once on the court, the Justices do what they like. The confirmation process is meaningless, because the result is foreordained.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hope Biden has the balls to “pack the court” with at least five new justices (including Merritt Garland) after he’s elected and the Dems gain control of the Senate. Let the Repubs scream and protest all they want to — as they themselves say, “Elections have consequences,” and DO THEY DESERVE THE CONSEQUENCES!
LikeLiked by 2 people
However tempting, adding Justices for political reasons would set a terrible precedent. If Democrats win control of Congress, they may address many issues with clearly written laws and possibly constitutional amendments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One could also say that it’s tempting to shun the original temptation, but which is the lesser of two cavils? The GOP (led by Mitch McConnell) has already dishonored precedent by ramming Amy Coney Barrett unto the Supreme Court just weeks before a Presidential election, after refusing to even consider Obama’s nomination of Merritt Garland ELEVEN MONTHS before a Presidential election.
I may have indulged in overkill by proposing five new justices in my previous comment, so I’ll concede that three would be a more judicious number. Beyond that, Trump and the GOP have had no qualms about playing dirty pool (to put it magnanimously) for the past four years, and they merit nothing less than a taste of their own medicine when the shoe is on the other foot (pardon my mixed metaphors).
LikeLiked by 1 person
What is the “message”? The “message” is that the American people deserve a Supreme Court that reflects the American people. There is no Constitutional number for SCOTUS members. Adding 4 young liberal justices would be legal and Constitutional. For the last 40 years we have watched the extreme right wing play the “legal” and “Constitutional” game. They have and will do anything to maintain power. If the Dems win the election and do not use their power to expand the court, they might as well lose the election. Because government of and by the people will be dead. Adding justices is not a terrible precedent. It is the Constitutional solution to the problem of authoritarianism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If Democrats add four Justices, the next time the GOP gains power (and they will) they will add four more. Long term nothing is gained; whatever vestige of respectability the court still has, it will be further degraded.
LikeLike
In a nation of 340,00,000 people I see nothing wrong with having 13 or 23 or 50 members on the court. Why should we depend on 9 unelected people to decide the fate of women, health care, etc.
LikeLike
In a nation of 340,000,000 people, I see nothing wrong with having 9 Justices on the court, unless they are overworked. According to RBG, the justices work together and influence each other; that might not work well with a larger group. Unelected isn’t necessarily bad–Congress, where incompetence and corruption certainly are common, is elected. Each Senator, on the average, represents 3.4 million people. The problem is not the court, but elected Presidents who choose unwisely and elected Senators who rubber-stamp bad choices. If it is wrong to depend on 9 unelected people to decide the fate of women, health care, etc., how is it right to depend on 15?
LikeLike
She seems just as corrupt as the rest of them. Refusing to be honest after making a big deal of being “under oath”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The best thing for Judge Barrett would be to withdraw. If confirmed, as she likely will be, she will be tainted for life by the fact that those who pressed her nomination, and the President who nominated her, count on her to be corrupt.
LikeLiked by 4 people
But since her withdrawal is not going to happen, she joins Kavanaugh and Thomas as an unholy (term used deliberately and not to cast religious aspersions) trio serving with dark clouds hovering above them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With Roe vs Wade, Justice Blackmun tried to forge a compromise, which would address persistent problems and satisfy diverse views. The compromise failed, because opponents of abortion, and those politicians who wished to exploit the issue, were uncompromising. If Roe is overturned or defanged, the problems that Justice Blackmun wished to address will fester.
LikeLike