The Pick Is In: Amy Coney Barrett

W.J. Astore

As expected, President Trump has selected Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court. Intellectually, she’s qualified. But any candidate supported strongly by Trump’s evangelical base is suspect. The reason is simple: evangelicals wouldn’t support her if they weren’t confident of her opposition to Roe v. Wade. And Trump has indeed gone on the record as predicting she will be instrumental in overturning it.

Amy Coney Barrett, it’s fair to say, is a conservative Catholic. I can relate to her because into my early 20s I was a church-going Catholic. (I even carried a Catholic study bible to church.) Following the lead of the church, I thought abortion was wrong, and I tended to have a holier-than-thou attitude about it. Except in cases of rape or incest or the life of the mother, I saw no reason to publicly fund abortions. If I recall correctly, I accepted the church’s teaching that life begins at the moment of conception.

My problem was conflating my personal religious beliefs, guided by Catholic dogma, with politics and public policy. Put bluntly, I was mixing religion with politics, as if my religion had all the right answers for all Americans. But I got over it. I met more people of different religions, traveled, read a lot, got my master’s and doctorate (focusing on relations between science and religion in historical terms), and realized my personal religious beliefs should neither intrude nor interfere with the rights and privileges and beliefs of my fellow citizens.

Amy Coney Barrett will doubtless say all the right things at her Senate confirmation hearing. She’ll affirm that her religious beliefs won’t determine or even shape her decisions on the law; she won’t say how she’ll rule on Roe v. Wade, but she’ll affirm that she respects judicial precedent; she’ll affirm she’s a believer in judicial restraint; in brief, she knows the drill at these hearings.

But all this won’t be the full truth. She’s not the dream pick of evangelicals because she’s unbiased and disinterested. They know from her record (and her personal life) she’s a critic of Roe v. Wade. They also know she can be counted on to rule in favor of moneyed interests. For example, if she votes against Obamacare, as her record indicates she will, the richest Americans will see a financial windfall (they will effectively get a substantial tax cut). She can be counted on to deliver for the richest among us as well as for evangelicals and conservative Catholics, else she wouldn’t have been picked to begin with.

Two more items of interest. The conservative Catholic organization she belongs to is rather retrograde, to put it mildly, in arguing for a nuclear family of heterosexuals with the man as the “head” of the family. Homosexuality is seen as aberrational and sinful, which is how I saw it when I was carrying my Catholic study bible around. Again, all the evangelicals who support Barrett know exactly where she stands here. Finally, while being pro-life, she is also a strong supporter of gun rights and the Second Amendment.

So there you have it. Amy Coney Barrett is much like I was when I was in my early 20s. Back then I thought I had a lot of life’s answers right there in my holiest of books, and I was unafraid to suggest that public policy should be informed, if not determined, by my personal religious beliefs. But I grew up. Trump’s evangelical friends are counting on the fact that Barrett remains what she’s always been: a conservative Catholic loyalist whose religious views will very much inform how she rules from the bench.

So, goodbye to Roe v. Wade. Goodbye to Obamacare and health care for millions. Hello to a land in which corporations as “citizens” will have even more power than before. A 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court will say this is justice — until the rest of us say otherwise.

63 thoughts on “The Pick Is In: Amy Coney Barrett

  1. As I have said–mostly to myself, admittedly–for many decades: “The only good Catholic is…a lapsed Catholic!” Now, this view, which may be misinterpreted as simple “anti-Papism,” raises a very important point: your hardcore Protestant “Evangelical” DESPISES Catholicism!! Surely you understand that, Mr. Astore! The KKK also has Catholics high on their Hate List. So why THIS nominee? I think that, in addition to checking off the required boxes–anti-Roe, pro-guns, pro-Big Bizness, etc.–Judge Barrett must also have met the requirement to have a minimal “paper trail” to potentially embarrass her in the Senate hearings. What a delicious irony it would be if the choice of a Catholic–and barring some incredible dramatic revelation soon, Mitch McConnell will ensure her elevation to the big bench–was to cost Trump enough Protestant votes to throw the election to Biden? And ‘Sleepy Joe,’ BTW, has had problems with Mother Church himself. If I remember correctly, he was practically ejected (refused Communion, at least) from one Catholic church because he is divorced! Or was it for having made mild pro-choice comments? Sorry, my memory ain’t quite what it used to be.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Interesting point about evangelical Protestants. Hadn’t thought of that.

      I was thinking yesterday that, 60 years ago, the fear was that JFK would take his orders from the Pope. Now, we’re looking at a Supreme Court justice who may very well be influenced by the Catholic cult to which she belongs. Are the two fears equally justified?


      1. Our formidable nation has been prone to more biases and bigotries over its lifespan than one can enumerate. Yes, it took until 1960 before a Catholic could be elected POTUS, and we know how he turned out. And don’t for a moment discount the role of Protestant bigotry in the heads of those who hatched the conspiracy that played out in Dallas that day. (Oh, foolish me! I momentarily forgot it was “a lone gunman”!) I saw a documentary many years ago that identified the KKK as a kind of “Protestant cult.” Why should burning a cross, specifically, terrify the Klan’s victims, when there are so many other terror tactics that could be employed? The burning cross is said to “shed the light of Jesus” upon the world, and in a proper ceremony the participants make a magical three circuits around the cross. I am NOT making this up, I assure you! You are very likely aware that Dallas was a hotbed of rightwing extremism at the time of the assassination. Getting back to the immediate topic, I imagine the great majority of Trumpites will be willing to overlook the Catholic background of this nominee, out of their love for and obedience to Fearless Leader.


        1. Did not know that lore specifically about burning crosses. I’d always thought just the symbolism of burning a sacred object was frightening enough.

          Did know that about Dallas. Protestant fanaticism may have had a role in events, but I think that JFK’s plan to de-escalate in Vietnam was the prime motivation. I find it interesting that Pappy Bush and Richard Nixon were both in Dallas that day. Coincidence, I’m sure.


          1. I should’ve spelled out that it’s a dark web of beliefs and motivations operating in the minds of those who would assassinate a president. Heaven forfend I be accused of stereotyping, BUT…it’s easy as pie for me to picture one of these creatures (oh no, now I’m dehumanizing them!) attending church on Sunday morning, a Klan rally in the afternoon, and an “educational” meeting that night drawing the connections between homosexuals, integrationists, atheists, child molesters, Satanists, Communists abroad and those Commies at home who want to fluoridate the drinking water supply!! “Tonight’s Guest Speaker: General Jack D. Ripper.” You dig?

            Liked by 1 person

      2. Evangelicals don’t think Catholics are true Christians. Believe me, I was married to an evangelical & I used to go to his church (was married in his church! … I was crazy in love but that’s another story). But they will use Catholics politically to end Roe v Wade, to shore up the 2nd Amendment & to turn this country into a theocracy. When they have achieved these ends, they will turn on every single Catholic in the country, regardless of their personal persuasion or politics.

        There’s a reason the Founding Fathers wanted to keep religion out of politics. As much as I admire Jimmy Carter, when he started talking about his faith, I knew that was a very bad sign for us as a country. It has only gotten worse. Much worse.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Yes. There’s nothing wrong with religion informing your life. In fact, if it’s a system of belief that you take seriously, how could it not inform your life?

            But if you’re a judge it shouldn’t inform your judicial decisions (unless you believe in something like Sharia Law), and it sure as hell shouldn’t dominate.

            Basically, many of today’s evangelicals believe in Sharia law, replacing the Koran with the Bible, of course. And their reading of the Bible, which supports the prosperity gospel and leaves out the poor.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Valid comparison with Sharia Law, I think.

            And yet….the fanatics all believe they have a lock on the one true way. They admit no possibility of multiple, equally worthy, paths to the same end. Meaning they’re all dangerous, whether they follow Torquemada or Jerry Falwell.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Absolutely! A religious fanatic is, by definition, a menace to civil society, regardless of what sect or cult the individual kneels to. Because this person’s basic premises are based on superstitious nonsense that could never be proved true in an unbiased court of law. Yet no other point of view can be acknowledged, lest the world see that the emperor’s new clothes are nonexistent. To steer clear of all this, the United States was established as a secular republic. Oh, how we’ve changed!

            Liked by 1 person

          4. The fundamental (that word again!) issue is that the Founding Fathers totally respected religious scruples, but insisted they remain in one’s private life. The line into the public domain in our society was crossed very long ago. In this respect, many gov’t officials perhaps should be charged with Treason for their betrayal of the country’s (supposed) foundational principles. But, of course, Treason is a dangerous concept to be tossing about!!

            Liked by 1 person

          5. The PNAC group should be among those prosecuted for treason, because of their actions geared toward shaping U.S. policies to try to bring about the End Times (looking at you, Cheney and Wolfowitz).


        1. Yes, the ultimate objective of the “Evangelicals” is to establish something like The Republic of Gilead, a la “The Handmaid’s Tale.” Anyone who snickers at this, proclaiming “It can’t happen here!” is not awake. At least one group, The Dominionists, openly published their game plan long ago. (A spokesperson was interviewed by Terry Gross on “Fresh Air” on NPR.) I agree with you on Jimmy Carter, but of course long before his presidency it had been made mandatory–may as well have been written into law!–for Amer. politicians to profess their religious faith and say “God bless America.” It’s still being debated whether Abe Lincoln was a “closet” agnostic or atheist. It is beyond imagining that a modern candidate for a high office (and many lesser levels!) would have a chance of election if publicly “outed” as an atheist. All that said, I have declared publicly many times that I have no doubt whatsoever that, privately, Trump is an atheist, believing himself “bigger” than Jesus or any notion of a god. (Sorry, Zeus old boy!)

          Liked by 1 person

    2. Hardcore evangelicals don’t have much use for Roman Catholics — that’s often true, Greg. But they make common cause when it comes to abortion.


      1. How Machiavellian this all is! The Protestant evangelicals back the Orange One, despite the fact that he’s the antithesis of all of their supposed beliefs (the hypocrite quotient there notwithstanding), evidently for the sole reason that he’s made noises about helping to overturn Roe v. Wade. So, now they’d stand with despised Catholics for the same reason? It’s sounding more and more as if these evangelicals would support the devil himself, if he delivered on a promise to outlaw all abortions. And in the scheme of things, with climate change threatening the entire planet, for instance, that one issue is irrelevant. Such single-minded fanaticism over one facet of our society is not only mentally warped, it’s profoundly dangerous. Deck chairs on the Titanic, and all that.


        1. It’s fundamentally (no pun!) an issue of defending the PATRIARCHY of society. Women MUST be DENIED the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. As far as I’m concerned–speaking strictly metaphorically, of course, as I hold no religious superstitions personally–these “Evangelicals” have BEEN IN BED WITH LUCIFER for many decades now!! Meanwhile, as SCOTUS has been awaiting an abortion rights case “for the ages” to work its way up the judicial chain, the forces of reaction have, in practical terms, already succeeded in outlawing abortion in many, many parts of the country.


        2. Given that this “anti-abortion” group also seems hell-bent on cutting medical care and aid to the poor “You hypocrites. How can you claim to love the unborn child you cannot see when you do not love the women and children you can see.”
          I think I am paraphrasing the first letter of John.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. The concept of hypocrite is really not adequate to describe some of the individuals who have risen (?) to prominence in our society in my lifetime. Yeah, rotting corpse of Jerry Falwell Sr., I’m callin’ YOU out!! Hell (pardon my use of the term), you were just as rotten while you still breathed! Hey, Billy Graham, “personal pastor” to Nixon and good friend of Donald Trump–I ain’t lettin’ you off the hook, either!

            Liked by 1 person

  2. This is a carefully argued and persuasive article. The gist is Barrett uses her religious views to obscure or confuse her radical conservative views. Or, she selectively cites religion for conservative positions that are attractive to her for other reasons. In fact, how do you disentangle her personal religious views from her judicial decisions when she herself has argued that Catholic judges are influenced by their religion and should recuse themselves in certain cases where dogma is involved, such as opposition to the death penalty?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Per the article from The Guardian you cited yesterday, “She [Barrett] has also said legal careers ought not to be seen as means of gaining satisfaction, prestige or money, but rather ‘as a means to the end of serving God’.” For me, this one statement invalidates her for any position of authority. A legal career should be a means to serve justice, to uphold the rights of individuals or the state. A legal career has nothing to do with God or religion.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes. But certain evangelicals (and I guess conservative Catholics) see everything as an act of serving God, even when they’re cutting you off in the parking lot as they leave church 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

        1. And therein lies the hypocrisy quotient I mentioned. The several evangelicals I’ve known personally, in totally unrelated scenarios, are all breathtakingly, staggeringly hypocritical, variously ripping off employers and cheating on spouses, among other transgressions..


          1. Ha-ha!! But don’t you get it, Jesus has already given them a blanket pardon in exchange for their falling to their knees and acknowledging his supreme status!! Such a simple formula! No wonder so many find it appealing.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. You’re exactly right. I asked the guy who’d cheated on his wife almost from the day they were married, and who otherwise lied to her and mistreated her (and practiced his right to dominate her, btw), how he could call himself a Christian. He said he’d taken Jesus as his savior, so he was forgiven. Unbelievable.


          1. An astute observation! Proving that politics and religion have been bedfellows for nearly “time immemorial.” Denying the existence, or at least the power of, the official Roman gods would get a fella into deep, deep doo-doo a couple millennia ago.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. Gee, it must say somewhere in the Constitution that the Judicial Branch exists to serve God, right?……………NOT!!! Thomas Jefferson would have ordered these knuckleheads tied to trees and flogged severely! (A punishment that would likely be ruled unConstitutional eventually!)

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I believe Ms. Barrett or her surrogates have already “assured” us she WON’T be colored by her religious views in deciding cases. Uh-huh. Take THAT to the bank, folks!

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Surprise! Barrett rules for corporate interests against workers’ rights. Who knew?

    “Just weeks before President Donald Trump reportedly selected her to fill the new Supreme Court vacancy, Judge Amy Coney Barrett delivered a ruling that could help corporations evade longstanding laws requiring them to provide overtime pay to their workers.

    That ruling was one of a number of cases in which Barrett helped corporate interests prevail over workers. Her highest-profile business-focused actions on the federal bench have limited the enforcement of age-discrimination laws, restricted federal agencies power to punish companies that mislead consumers and reduced consumers’ rights against predatory debt collectors, according to a recent report from the Alliance for Justice.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think Jesus would have something to say about those rulings. Interesting how many people claim to be Christian and work to oppress the poor, which is an activity Jesus tended to condemn.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “Evangelical Christianity” and Libertarianism, wotta combo!! A true Ayn Rand-worshipping Libertarian wishes poverty would resolve itself by all poor people finding a corner somewhere in which to curl up and die. Preferably nice and quietly. Do I exaggerate? Read up on Ms. Rand’s belief system!

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Right on all points, I’d say. Religious fanaticism of any kind—and the evangelicals are certainly fanatics—is a perversion of any given creed.

    As for the continued dominance of patriarchy, I’ve been saying for several years that we’re living the early pages of Atwood’s novel.


    1. I read “The Handmaid’s Tale” fairly recently and was vexed by the lack of detail on how the fanatics overthrew the US Gov’t! It was, like, one day they just showed up and put everybody in front of a firing squad! Laziness on Ms. Atwood’s part? I found the novel most effective in eliciting an atmosphere of constant dread, which I guess was the author’s objective. I note that she is a downright prolific writer.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Thanks for the comment on patriarchy, especially as espoused in certain religious — and even judicial — doctrines. Apropos of the subject, I came upon a rather scatological take on the subject in Anthony Burgess’s last novel — Byrne — written almost entirely in ottava rima verse.

      Another brother came like Christmas sun
      When Byrne the father thought his wells were dry.
      His wife’s fertility had months to run
      Before the menopause should bid it fly.
      It seemed to him that what the Lord had done
      Was like the dayspring flashing from on high.
      His knowledge of the Bible being dim
      He did not think of Anne and Joachim.
      – p. 8

      It was coincidence that made them christen
      The fruit of this late coupling Sean or John.
      Paternal pride made rheumy optics glisten
      Behind the mended glasses they had on.
      It brought the country past alive to listen
      To lullabies culled from a time long gone.
      But, like saint Joseph, he’d a certain doubt
      About his wife the nights that she was out.
      – p. 8

      But Father Leary brooked no contradiction
      About the unitary fatherhood.
      Paternity was but a legal fiction,
      And God was good, particularly good,
      As was made clear from scriptural depiction,
      At fertilizing. Earthly fathers stood
      Stuck in a kind of foster-parent’s groove:
      True fatherhood’s a thing you cannot prove.
      – p. 9

      Naturally, I took this as a personal challenge to compose something on the topic myself. And so, for consideration by those confused by conflicting genealogical/theological narratives:

      Problematical Patriarchy
      (or: “Higher Father” heresy)

      “Why are you not about your father’s work?”
      The townsfolk asked of Jesus, little jerk.
      “I am,” he answered, pointing to the sky.
      “A higher Father told me He’s the guy.”

      So call him “Zeus” or “Yahweh,” Greek or Jew,
      Earth women find Him lots of fun to screw.
      And if their fathers, boyfriends, husbands bitch,
      Tell them to grow ten inches. That’s the pitch.

      “Mother’s Baby Father’s Maybe,” women say.
      Have God and Joseph check their DNA.
      Then Jesus can go looking for his dad
      Among the “godly” men that Mary had.

      This thing about a virgin mother reeks
      With every word the priest or preacher speaks.
      For if his genes came from his Mom alone,
      Then that would make of Jesus Christ a clone.

      See: No “Y” chromosome means no male sex,
      Just mitochondria and one more “X.”
      Church doctrine, thus, can down the toilet swirl.
      Since genomes point to Jesus as a girl.

      So if you’ve bought this “Faith” as taught to you,
      You haven’t paused to think the whole thing through.
      You skipped basic biology or slept
      Till false, fantastic Figment you’d accept.

      The choice to call the Jesus child “begotten”
      Had implications rather best forgotten:
      That casual – though “Heavenly” – flirtation
      Led straight to uterine insemination.

      What Mary said to Joseph, no one knows
      When pregnancy cut off her monthly flows
      And swollen belly said to all concerned:
      “Not everyone, like Joseph, have I spurned.”

      And now his kid goes skulking through the town
      In search of theological renown
      Embarrassing his cuckold father whom
      A “God” had beaten to his mother’s womb.

      Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller,” Copyright © 2020

      Liked by 1 person

  5. “It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities. The theologians, taking one with another, are adept logicians, but every now and then they have to resort to sophistries so obvious that their whole case takes on an air of the ridiculous. Even the most logical religion starts out with patently false assumptions. It is often argued in support of this or that one that men are so devoted to it that they are willing to die for it. That, of course, is as silly as the Santa Claus proof. Other men are just as devoted to manifestly false religions, and just as willing to die for them. Every theologian spends a large part of his time and energy trying to prove that religions for which multitudes of honest men have fought and died are false, wicked, and against God.”
    ― H.L. Mencken, Minority Report

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I recommend Mencken’s “Treatise on the Gods.” I meant to extract a bunch of juicy quotations from it after digesting it, but didn’t get around to it. One of these days!


  6. In the TV series, there was vague reference to the fanatics’ having infiltrated the government at all levels, and then having staged a coup.

    I only watched the first season, exactly because of the feeling of dread you mention. It was just too dark and depressing to withstand. A friend recently sent me the book, remarking that the first few pages were enough to tell her she didn’t want to read it.


    1. After reading the original novel (haven’t seriously pondered tackling the recently published sequel), I looked at the Hulu series. I bailed after about 2 1/2 episodes. Didn’t think the changes they made improved the story. I did revisit the original feature movie (1985, I think) and thought it pretty good. Directed by progressive German Volker Schlondorff.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I saw the movie, Greg. One disturbing scene stays with me — most movies you tend to forget, especially after 30 years have passed.

        I haven’t watched the cable series — it’s been highly praised, I know that much.

        One of the best movies about patriarchy is the original version of “The Stepford Wives.” Why marry an independent, flesh-and-blood woman when you can have an obedient robot slave in the form of a woman? Creepy indeed.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I was able to rent the 1985 movie on DVD from Netflix. Don’t know what streaming options there are, especially with the mini-series getting all the attention these days.

          Liked by 1 person

  7. The religious view is the argument from authority and there is the problem. I’d cite Prof. Astore’s freeing himself from the Bible as something everyone should do regarding any authority. The superior guide is experience because it is undeniably based on the reality of one’s life.

    This is the argument I use repeatedly on comment boards where my debate opponent is claiming all the tired reasons for carrying a gun around. I always ask the person what has happened to him/her in daily life that says a gun is needed for protection. I’ve yet to have anyone answer this. I ask for things such as home invasions, threats on the street, police not coming when called, anything from actual experience. To date nothing has been provided. I use my personal experience of 70 years in the big city with not one single incident that has made me think I should be armed. I’m talking about walking and biking in the big bad South and West sides of Chicago, of riding public transportation every workday for 23 years including on the 3-11pm shift where I had to walk five blocks through Chicago’s Loop around midnight.

    Not one incident.

    But we all know from the news that while home invasions are extremely rare, people killing other people with guns either in anger or accidentally is a daily occurrence. And that gets me to the subject of the Supreme Court and the Constitution. In the Heller decision, Scalia put aside the very words of the 2nd Amendment that state clearly the purpose: the need for a well regulated militia…and he claimed to be a literalist, as is Barrett, saying that we have to stick to the text of the Constitution as the founders intended!

    Thus we end up with the SC giving the green light to everyman a gun carrier based on a selective reading of a 250 year old document. This in the face of the reality that present day militias are not in any way regulated and boldly present arms in situations where they are a danger to everyone. The law should be blind, everyone should be presumed innocent, but that is certainly not in the minds of our self-appointed militia members. Kyle Rittenhouse had no difficulty picking out people to kill. Surely we can say that the very last thing the founders wished was for armed people to band together to defy the law in small groups such as happened with the Bundy epidode at Malheur Wildlife Refuge.

    The only way to fill a SC seat is to look at the history of rulings the candidate has made on divisive issues and verify that there is no consistency. Always ruling against or for abortion would be a red flag, for example, particularly because the founders took no position on it.

    To wrap up, going back to my opening concept: We are mired in the idea that the SC should be stacked for one view or another, a sure sign of a poor judge who doesn’t take the specific issue into consideration but rather rules from ancient authority, that like the Bible, placing the words of long gone writers over crying current needs. The result is such perversity as Heller and Citizens United.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It’s largely the luck of the draw. I lived in NYC in the ’70s and was mugged three times on the sidewalks of Brooklyn. This “allowed” someone else to live to age 99 in the City and never encounter a single problem. The law of averages, in other words. It is the militancy and persistence of the anti-abortion movement that has boxed Democrats into seeking SCOTUS candidates who are on record defending Roe, since the Constitution has nothing to say on the subject. For that matter, though the Constitution purports to protect us from unjustified use of force by the state against the individual, it contains no “guarantee” of life in general! Its Preamble states that government is instituted to promote the General Welfare. Since Trump’s intentional acceleration of climate disaster damages the welfare of all, I argued he should have been impeached on THAT basis. And of course the welfare of corporations is far from identical with the General Welfare.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. The old Boss Tweed bit “What are you going to do about it?” comes to mind regarding the supposed opposition party here. Loathsome as I find the GOP when they want to do something they do it – and seem to be able to do it even when they don’t have majorities in the houses or the White House. The only time I’ve seen the Dems play hardball in my lifetime has been when they faced a challenge from the left of their own base, then the gloves came off. There will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth and much bloviating in the media but she’ll get her appointment. It will be to the detriment of the country but she’ll get it. Of course if the Dems would actually expend effort at winning seats from the state level to the national level and producing legislation and governing the Supreme Court wouldn’t be as critical an institution as it is. I dunno, maybe the Dems like it that way: no matter how weak their policies or presidential candidates are they can always paint any election as an existential matter due to court appointments.

    Liked by 1 person

        1. Apropos of the election in general, I’ll observe that I initiated the process of signing up to be a polling place monitor here in this Trumpian town wherein I dwell. Then I got the word: the only shift available (you get paid, BTW!) was all damn day, 5:15 AM to 9:30 PM. At my age, I just can’t deal with that!


          1. Well, I have no basis to say that. GOP controls the School Board but not the township overall. I think this is just the way it is, possibly a state-wide situation.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s