Amy Coney Barrett- what in the actual F?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I cringed of her description of her adoptive children. Major white savior complex.

Yep, I also cringed. Describing her biological children in academic terms and describing her Haitian children as happy go lucky and a good athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP lawyer who keeps saying you don’t know the child is yours until the adoption is final-

Don’t they also stress that the kids aren’t dogs and you don’t get to try them out and return them if it doesn’t work? The kid in this case was already stateside. Things could go awry but the parents should be committed at that point. You don’t get to return or rehome your intended children-weird it even seemed like an option to her.

It isn’t that you don’t know the child is yours; it is that you are explicitly told that legally that child is not your child until a court blesses it and you need to understand that until finalizing the child can be taken from your family for any reason at all and there isn’t anything you can do about it.

Again, life is not easy and neat. Everybody on both sides of the political aisle agrees that an unexpected pregnancy can be and often is paradigm shattering event for a woman. I don’t understand the critique that she had a human reaction in that particular moment and she was honest and candid about it. Would you rather she hide the truth or pretend it didn’t happen? And of course, the situation was compounded by the fact that she was already in the middle of a stressful event (taking custody of a child she was trying to adopt). I don’t doubt that some people would have a perfect emotional response in such a moment, but having been through the process myself and knowing others in the community that have been through the process, I would venture that many (perhaps most) would have reacted as she did.

Aer. S

The court does not "bless" you. The court finalizes the adoption.

Yes, I would rather that she had the presence of mind to understand that second guessing her near-final adoption bc she was having another child is not a talking point. She may as well have said that she found out she was having twins and deliberated for three hours whether to abort one.

Okay. Well, if you listen to the interview the story is a lot more complicated than portrayed here. Listening to her in her own words, prior to the Haiti earthquake she and her husband had been led to believe the adoption wasn’t happening. Post-earthquake they were told some state department red-tape would be lifted but it wasn’t entirely clear they would be able to adopt. During this time the child was in Florida but there was still some confusion as to whether they would be able to clear the process. Then they got the go ahead that they would clear diplomatic red tape and they had to decide whether they were going to adopt or not (the reference of going to Florida to kick him up) while simultaneously finding out they had an unexpected pregnancy.

she shouldn't have shared the story. You know who's life was more complicated??? Her kids. Adoptive parents like her looooooove to center themselves. It's disgusting.

Last I checked, it was considered a good thing to be open about adoptions and adoption stories. Honestly, I have like 10 adopted kids in my circle and I know the details of them all. It is much better than when all this was swept under the rug. There is nothing to be ashamed of in adopting or being adopted.

As for the comments, the older child was thought not ever able to walk due to severe malnutrition, so of course her parents are proud she has overcome that and is strong and healthy. And the younger had severe PTSD from the orphanage and earthquake he lived through, so of course they are proud he is outgoing and happy-go-lucky. It is a huge achievement and shows how much he has been loved by his adoptive family. Her other kids haven’t been through any ordeals so their descriptions are more run of the mill.

This is where you are dead wrong. It's fine to be open about adoption in general, but not about the child's story. That is adoption 101. You can see how deep-seated the christian fundamental approach to aoption permeates in society that even the most liberal person does not get adoption.

My kids have known about their adoption since day 1. I don't shy away from questions about it with them. I don't broadcast their stories all over social media, and certainly not on a job interview. I ask their permission on what they want to share. it's not that hard.

This poster is correct. Modern perspectives on this say that the child's "story" (mean why they were available for adoption, how they were found, the conditions they experienced before they came into your family, etc) is theirs to tell. For example, I know one friend whose (adoptive) daughter's birth mom was a teen who got pregnant after hooking up with someone for casual sex. She claimed to not know the guy's name, so he could not be consulted about the adoption. Those details are for the child to learn, at an older age, and share as SHE deems fit. Not for every family friend and relative to know and spread as the girl is about to enter adulthood. Think of a kid who was conceived through rape (it happens) OR was born in prison. These details can be turned against adult adoptees and should be shared as THEY wish.

Well trained adoptive parents are taught this.

If that were so true your friend sucks as an adoptive mom, given you seem to know the details of her kid’s story. I can’t believe you even thought to type this without a thought toward self-reflection! WTF.

[Anonymous]

^^ What a "gotcha" !! Right PP, there is absolutely no room in between sharing info at a public televised hearing and sharing info with your most trusted confidante.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cringed of her description of her adoptive children. Major white savior complex.

Yep, I also cringed. Describing her biological children in academic terms and describing her Haitian children as happy go lucky and a good athlete.

Yikes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cringed of her description of her adoptive children. Major white savior complex.

Yep, I also cringed. Describing her biological children in academic terms and describing her Haitian children as happy go lucky and a good athlete.

NP. I think from the position her adopted children were in originally (deeply affected by trauma, etc) this is an outcome that the family should be incredibly proud of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cringed of her description of her adoptive children. Major white savior complex.

Yep, I also cringed. Describing her biological children in academic terms and describing her Haitian children as happy go lucky and a good athlete.

NP. I think from the position her adopted children were in originally (deeply affected by trauma, etc) this is an outcome that the family should be incredibly proud of.

She could have said something other than happy go lucky and good athlete. I'm sure they have other skills and abilities.

But, why is she even talking about her kids and not about how she would interpret the law? That's what I want to hear about. Any rich person can adopt a couple kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cringed of her description of her adoptive children. Major white savior complex.

Yep, I also cringed. Describing her biological children in academic terms and describing her Haitian children as happy go lucky and a good athlete.

NP. I think from the position her adopted children were in originally (deeply affected by trauma, etc) this is an outcome that the family should be incredibly proud of.

So if academic skills for these two siblings are totally off the table, why highlight that in a prepared text? Why not praise all the kids for being good people who are a pleasure to know and have in the family?

It's the defined contrast that raises eyebrows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cringed of her description of her adoptive children. Major white savior complex.

Yep, I also cringed. Describing her biological children in academic terms and describing her Haitian children as happy go lucky and a good athlete.

NP. I think from the position her adopted children were in originally (deeply affected by trauma, etc) this is an outcome that the family should be incredibly proud of.

So if academic skills for these two siblings are totally off the table, why highlight that in a prepared text? Why not praise all the kids for being good people who are a pleasure to know and have in the family?

It's the defined contrast that raises eyebrows.

I have a client who adopted two black children. Both girls are great athletes and both having learning disabilities. She posts constantky about their athletic achievements and never mentions their learning issues. I see nothing wrong with her comments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cringed of her description of her adoptive children. Major white savior complex.

Yep, I also cringed. Describing her biological children in academic terms and describing her Haitian children as happy go lucky and a good athlete.

NP. I think from the position her adopted children were in originally (deeply affected by trauma, etc) this is an outcome that the family should be incredibly proud of.

So if academic skills for these two siblings are totally off the table, why highlight that in a prepared text? Why not praise all the kids for being good people who are a pleasure to know and have in the family?

It's the defined contrast that raises eyebrows.

I have a client who adopted two black children. Both girls are great athletes and both having learning disabilities. She posts constantky about their athletic achievements and never mentions their learning issues. I see nothing wrong with her comments

I agree completely. I have an adopted child from an African nation. If I were to describe my 4 children (3 bios/1 adopted), I would be concentrating on their strengths PERIOD. Which for one of my biological children would NOT be academics!!! And actually probably would not be for my adopted child either, as her strengths lie in her musical talent and love of animals (she is only 10), and only for 2 of my bio children would their biggest achievements be academic. I love my children equally and they have many abilities and wonderful traits. I see nothing wrong with what she said at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cringed of her description of her adoptive children. Major white savior complex.

Yep, I also cringed. Describing her biological children in academic terms and describing her Haitian children as happy go lucky and a good athlete.

NP. I think from the position her adopted children were in originally (deeply affected by trauma, etc) this is an outcome that the family should be incredibly proud of.

They SHOULD be proud of these accomplishments. They should also be respectful of the kids and leave it up to them to share their own stories. AND they should have enough of an understanding of the realities of racial stereotyping to avoid doing just that — particularly with minor children who may not be be able to object or to anticipate the potential long term consequences of what their parent chose to emphasize about them. It’s not hard to imagine the kids being teased or adversely affected in the future by this information dump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cringed of her description of her adoptive children. Major white savior complex.

Yep, I also cringed. Describing her biological children in academic terms and describing her Haitian children as happy go lucky and a good athlete.

NP. I think from the position her adopted children were in originally (deeply affected by trauma, etc) this is an outcome that the family should be incredibly proud of.

So if academic skills for these two siblings are totally off the table, why highlight that in a prepared text? Why not praise all the kids for being good people who are a pleasure to know and have in the family?

It's the defined contrast that raises eyebrows.

Yes! This!
I hadn’t realized that this was from a prepared text. That makes the contrast exponentially worse — that she thought about it, maybe ran it by a few people, and still chose to sharply contrast her kids with each other in this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cringed of her description of her adoptive children. Major white savior complex.

Yep, I also cringed. Describing her biological children in academic terms and describing her Haitian children as happy go lucky and a good athlete.

NP. I think from the position her adopted children were in originally (deeply affected by trauma, etc) this is an outcome that the family should be incredibly proud of.

So if academic skills for these two siblings are totally off the table, why highlight that in a prepared text? Why not praise all the kids for being good people who are a pleasure to know and have in the family?

It's the defined contrast that raises eyebrows.

I have a client who adopted two black children. Both girls are great athletes and both having learning disabilities. She posts constantky about their athletic achievements and never mentions their learning issues. I see nothing wrong with her comments

I agree completely. I have an adopted child from an African nation. If I were to describe my 4 children (3 bios/1 adopted), I would be concentrating on their strengths PERIOD. Which for one of my biological children would NOT be academics!!! And actually probably would not be for my adopted child either, as her strengths lie in her musical talent and love of animals (she is only 10), and only for 2 of my bio children would their biggest achievements be academic. I love my children equally and they have many abilities and wonderful traits. I see nothing wrong with what she said at all.

I’m curious: Have you spent any time listening to adult or older Black children adopted by white American parents? While you might not see anything wrong with Barrett’s comments, you might have noticed that those of us who do are more focused on the well-being of the kids than on the perspective of the parents. If you see “nothing wrong with what she said at all”- I encourage you to widen your perspective a bit. My goal here is to suggest that the perspective of the Black adopted kids might be different from yours — and might be REALLY different when they become older and have to deal with the impact of the permanence of their parent’s comments.

No one is questioning anyone’s love. Some of us, however, are questioning empathy and judgement — which are two really nice things to have if you’re a Supreme Court Justice.

[Anonymous]

This article perfectly sums up the attitude of liberals insisting ACB has done anything in any way nefarious regarding the way she speaks about her adopted children. Guarantee: if she was a liberal, the very same critics would be praising her nonstop. You people are completely transparent, not to mention unhinged.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/16/barrett-children-adopted-racist-slur/

“These descriptions of Barrett’s remarks are remarkably uncharitable. To understand why she might tell a story involving Vivian’s strength, a humane observer might want to consider that when Barrett and her husband brought Vivian home, she was 14 months old yet weighed a mere 11 pounds. It wasn’t clear whether she’d survive. That Barrett would boast of her daughter’s ability to weight-lift as much as men isn’t a racially motivated dismissal of her intellectual accomplishments: It is a testament to the miracle of her life.

And these were the comments that supposedly reduced John Peter to a racist stereotype: “John Peter joined us shortly after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, and Jesse, who brought him home, still describes the shock on J.P.’s face when he got off the plane in wintertime Chicago. Once that shock wore off, J.P. assumed the happy-go-lucky attitude that is still his signature trait.” It requires hyperpartisan dishonesty to interpret this description as something other than a loving mother describing the personality of her young child.

In the end, it was Barrett and her husband, not their critics, who chose to adopt two children from Haiti and raise them as their own and who made the courageous choice to raise their youngest son, eschewing the more common decision of abortion. For progressives to offer armchair judgments about Barrett’s family in an effort to delegitimize her illustrates their willingness to prioritize ideology above simple humanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it seems the bizarre trolls here would a) prefer ACB had left these children to languish in an orphanage, b) prefer she never speak of the fact that they were indeed adopted, or c) leave them at home at all times so that no one need be reminded that she and her husband adopted two black children.

You people are beyond disgusting. There really is no hope for you.

Let me explain something to you. And this has to do with BK as well. While I understand many judges would consider a Supreme Court nomination the culmination of everything they have worked for, the truly just would realize that it is not about them as much as what is best for every American in this country. ACB wouldn't be where she is without the work of RBG. She would have to be incredibly ignorant not to realize the hypocrisy of her appointment at this particular time. BK cried and talked about beer because he wanted the job so bad without any regard to what might be best for this country as a whole. People aren't giving ACB a hard time for being an adoptive parent (although it might be appropriate in this situation given the fact that she has denounced IVF and reproductive rights), they are angry that she is using her children as props and not people. If she had any ounce of integrity she would recuse herself immediately for too many reasons that have all been discussed on this forum. Dark money politicized judges make all courts obsolete. We've got a lot of work ahead of us after November.

Wow. So much to unpack here. You clearly think you’re in a position to school others, which is amusing. ACB has never “denounced” IVF or birth control. Provide links to back up those absurd claims. In fact: The judge argued that it's "shockingly unlikely" the Supreme Court will overturn Griswold.
"I think that Griswold is very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely to go anywhere," Barrett said.
She added later, "I would be surprised if birth control was about to be criminalized." https://www.businessinsider.com/amy-coney-barrett-scotus-precedents-legalizing-birth-control-lgbtq-relationships-2020-10 She is under no obligation to give her personal opinion on any issue, and your ridiculous hyperbole only makes you look stupid.

She also cannot answer abstract, hypothetical questions - such as anything about IVF - as you should know. She’s a sitting judge and as such is not allowed to give personal opinions on anything other than her own writings and decisions. Not sure why you can’t get that through your head. Especially since that concept is called the Ginsburg rule.

And you really don’t want to bring up dark money. There is far more of it on the left. Fun fact.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/19/dark-money-democrats-midterm-071725

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democrats-used-rail-against-dark-money-now-they-re-better-n1239830

https://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-ted-cruz-on-sheldon-whitehouse-and-his-friend-the-judge-11602714506

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s let this counter the OP. Between this and the gall of Dems bringing up laundry and raising kids, things they’d never bring up with a man, shows Dems true colors. Hypocrites to the end.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/16/barrett-children-adopted-racist-slur/

Your ignorance is astounding.
It was REPUBLICAN’S who asked those questions. I’m embarrassed for you.

DP. It was ONE Republican and he was obviously joking around. Of course, the literals (liberals) have to take *everything* so very seriously and have zero sense of humor, so we are not allowed to laugh at that.