Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

US says Israel has agreed to the framework for a Gaza cease-fire. Hamas must now decide
Military by HatetheSwamp     March 3, 2024 3:30 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [3 views]


The Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court Hold the Record as the World's Most Expensive Whores...
Crime by Ponderer     February 29, 2024 10:35 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (39 comments) [339 views]


James Comer is not sure an impeachment of Biden is warranted
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 4:25 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (12 comments) [105 views]


James Comer has been big on promises, short on delivery. MAGA is feeling let down.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 1:28 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (6 comments) [80 views]


Bad news for the Doddering Old Fool: Polls stagnant since the Hur Report
President by HatetheSwamp     March 2, 2024 4:57 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (4 comments) [27 views]


Rep. Lauren Boebert's son Tyler allegedly made a sex tape with co-defendant
Crime by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 11:24 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (11 comments) [172 views]


Ex-Jim Biden business partner disputes loan testimony before Congress
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 2, 2024 3:07 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [18 views]


So, Curt, can you still say that there's "NO EVIDENCE" that Joe was involved in the Crime Family?
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 1, 2024 6:33 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (15 comments) [113 views]


Oversight and Judiciary Committees Release Hunter Biden Transcript
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 5:51 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (13 comments) [100 views]


Is Trump going broke? Is he bringing the GOP down with him?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 5:46 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [115 views]


Parenting selectors, pages, etc.
Amy Coney Barrett's Former Religious Group Was Accused of Child Sexual Abuse
By Donna
June 6, 2022 12:27 pm
Category: Parenting

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

I know, I know - "accused" doesn't mean "guilty". But...

***

Cynthia Carnick, a woman who was suing to deny visitation rights to the father of her children citing his membership with the People of Praise, filed the court documents in question in 1993. The allegations made in the documents primarily name Dorothy and Kevin Ranaghan, the founder of the religious group, which is a covenanted community that requires members to live together and share their incomes.

Per the allegations, Dorothy Ranaghan would allegedly “tie the arms and legs of two of the Ranaghans’ daughters—who were three and five at the time the incidents were allegedly witnessed—to their crib with a necktie,” The Guardian reports. Carnick further alleged that the Ranaghans practiced “sexual displays” in front of their children and adults in the household, including Dorothy lying on top of Kevin and “rocking” in front of their kids.

One affidavit supporting Carnick’s written statements came from a woman who had lived in the Ranaghan household, and said she had been “shocked” to learn Kevin showered with two of his young daughters. She recalled later being told by Dorothy that Kevin had “decided to quit showering with them,” shortly after the woman had questioned Dorothy about this.

Another affidavit by a woman who had lived with Kevin and Dorothy Ranaghan in the 1970s confirms that she also witnessed inappropriate sexual behavior from the Ranaghans, and details the extreme control Kevin had over her life:

“When I was part of the People of Praise I was in full life submission to Kevin Ranaghan, under full obedience to him and he exercised this authority over most areas of my life. For example, we were ‘in common’ financially, which meant that I had to hand over my paycheck to Kevin Ranaghan and he would decide on how that paycheck would be used. Kevin Ranaghan controlled my dating relationships, deciding who and when I should date.” [...]

According to public records, Barrett lived in the Ranaghans’ household during her time in law school in the 1990s, and her husband Jesse Barrett, also a member of People of Praise, lived there as well. On top of this, Justice Barrett served in a leadership capacity as a “handmaid,” or female adviser to the group’s other female members. And from 2015 to 2017, Barrett served on the Trinity Schools board, which requires its members to belong to the People of Praise, and proudly bars the admission of children of same-sex parents as well as openly LGBTQ teachers.

***

In any case, Amy Coney Barrett was a member of a cult.


Cited and related links:

  1. jezebel.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Amy Coney Barrett's Former Religious Group Was Accused of Child Sexual Abuse":

  1. by Curt_Anderson on June 6, 2022 1:32 pm
    You have to wonder how capable she is of rational, critical thinking. Not exactly the sort of person you want as a judge.


  2. by HatetheSwamp on June 6, 2022 1:35 pm

    pb is very pleased with her as a person and as a Justice.


  3. by Donna on June 6, 2022 4:15 pm
    Curt - Especially a judge who believes she's on a mission from God.


  4. by HatetheSwamp on June 7, 2022 2:57 am

    Really, Donna? On a mission from God? Do tell.


  5. by islander on June 7, 2022 9:04 am

    For anyone who accepts that a lie is an attempt to deceive, it can’t be denied that Amy Barrett lied at her confirmation hearing.

    When Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, then the top Democrat on the committee, asked Barrett about her stance on Roe V Wade: “So the question comes, what happens? Will this justice support a law that has substantial precedent now? Would you commit yourself on whether you would or would not?”

    Barrett replied, “Senator, what I will commit is that I will obey all the rules of stare decisis,” Barrett replied, referring to the doctrine of courts giving weight to precedent when making their decisions, “I’ll follow the law.“

    Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions. Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.

    ”The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. For example, if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals adhered to the ruling of a previous Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case, that would be horizontal stare decisis. A court engages in vertical stare decisis when it applies precedent from a higher court. For example, if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals adhered to a previous ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, that would be vertical stare decisis. Or, additionally, if the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York adhered to a previous ruling by the Second Circuit, that would be vertical stare decisis.”* 

Roe V Wade had been decided by the Supreme Court and confirmed a number of times by the Supreme Court.
    * Cornell Law School


  6. by Donna on June 7, 2022 9:18 am
    When you believe you're on a mission from the creator of the universe, the end justifies the means, which of course includes lying your ass off.


  7. by HatetheSwamp on June 7, 2022 1:15 pm

    isle,

    Because I'm so great an admirer of ACB, and am a geezer with lots of time on my hands, I watched nearly every minute of those hearings.

    In the end, Chris Coons voted against her because she wouldn't commit to support Roe.

    Coney Barrett said repeatedly that only a few Supreme Court decisions could be so firmly settled that they could not be overturned. She mentioned Marbury v Madison and Brown v Board of Education. She called those decisions "Super Precedents."

    I will point out that, to this point, ACB has not voted to overturn Roe.


  8. by islander on June 7, 2022 2:46 pm

    If Barrett doesn’t vote to overturn RVW then I’ll take back what I said about her intent to decieve since my position would have been in error. It is based on my understanding of what the Supreme Court leak said.

    If she does vote to overturn RVW then my position stands 100%. 



    I am guessing that the leak might have been intentional (I have no absolutely no proof of this) in order to judge how the nation would react to overturning RVW, and seeing the reaction they might,/i> try to modify their decision so that it doesn’t directly overturn RVW but effectively overturns it (but that's another topic).

    As far as a super precedent goes:
    Super Precedent
    Michael J. Gerhardt †


    Stare decisis is not an inexorable command in constitu-
    tional adjudication, except when it is. The potential of stare de-
    cisis as an inexorable command came to public attention when
    Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter asked John Roberts
    during his confirmation hearings to be Chief Justice of the
    United States whether Roberts agreed there were “super-duper
    precedents” in constitutional law. The nominee left open the
    possibility of there being such precedent, though he refrained
    from citing specific examples. In asking about “super-duper
    precedents,” Senator Specter was reputedly borrowing a notion
    of stare decisis initially recognized by Circuit Judge Michael
    Luttig, who once referred to Roe v. Wade2 as having achieved
    “super-stare decisis” in constitutional law because of its re-
    peated re-affirmation by the Court.


    Barrett, at her congressional hearing, convinced a lot of people that she would not overturn RVW, for example:

    “I don’t see her overturning the decision in Roe v. Wade, based on — based on the weighting of the reliance factors,” Murkowski, a GOP moderate who is voting for Barrett, said Monday evening.

    “I believe, I believe, that given how she outlined, not only to me but how she spoke to the issue of reliance when she was before the committee, I believe that she will look at that and weight that in any matters, in any cases that come before her that take up Roe v. Wade,” she explained.
    Murkowski is viewed as a pro-choice senator but she has supported some restrictions. She does not support using federal funds to pay for abortion or late-term abortions.

    “While I support a women’s right to make her own reproductive choices, that support is not without limits,” she said earlier this year.”


    thehill.com


  9. by HatetheSwamp on June 7, 2022 3:18 pm

    isle,

    As I said, she listed the decisions that served as super precedents for her and Roe wasn't on her list.

    My guess is that, even if she follows Roberts and upholds the Mississippi law without overturning Roe that you won't be her fan.

    You don't have to lie about it.



  10. by Donna on June 7, 2022 3:52 pm
    Right.She doesn't consider Roe a super-precedent even though it has stood for 49 years. So in her eyes, it's fair game for reversal, else why make a distinction between a precedent and a super-precedent?


  11. by islander on June 7, 2022 3:54 pm
    "My guess is that, even if she follows Roberts and upholds the Mississippi law without overturning Roe that you won't be her fan.

    You don't have to lie about it"


    Of course I'm not a "fan" of hers. Why would I lie about it?




  12. by HatetheSwamp on June 8, 2022 3:30 am

    You're suggesting that you'll only be miffed if she votes to overturn Roe.

    I suspect that it pi$$es you she's a devoted, practicing Roman Catholic.


  13. by islander on June 8, 2022 6:20 am

    You're suggesting that you'll only be miffed if she votes to overturn Roe.

    You’re making stuff up again.

    I suspect that it pi$$es you she's a devoted, practicing Roman Catholic.

    What thought processes do you use to come up with stuff like that LoL !!

    Why on earth do you think I’d be pissed that she’s a devoted, practicing Roman Catholic ? 😕


  14. by HatetheSwamp on June 8, 2022 6:33 am

    You said of Coney Barrett, in reference to Roe, "For anyone who accepts that a lie is an attempt to deceive, it can’t be denied that Amy Barrett lied at her confirmation hearing."

    You absolutely will be upset if she votes to overturn Roe and proves that you think she did lie.

    Why on earth do you think I’d be pissed that she’s a devoted, practicing Roman Catholic ?

    Because of your disdain for people who base their opinions on "religious beliefs."


  15. by islander on June 8, 2022 6:51 am

    "You absolutely will be upset if she votes to overturn Roe and proves that you think she did lie."

    You are not making any sense.

    "Because of your disdain for people who base their opinions on "religious beliefs."

    Wrong as usual !! LoL

    I don't care if people base their opinions on their religious beliefs, I might or might not agree with them but what I do oppose is people who try to use our government to make laws that apply to all of us based solely on their religious beliefs.

    For example...a Catholic legislator trying yo pass a law banning contraceptives because he believes, based on his religious conviction, that using contraceptives is a "sin".





  16. by HatetheSwamp on June 8, 2022 7:37 am

    I'm not certain that I believe you but, if you're being honest, we agree.


  17. by islander on June 8, 2022 2:57 pm
    I'm not certain that I believe you"

    Why wouldn't you believe me?

    You claim that I have disdain for people who base their opinions on "religious beliefs."

    Apparently you don't read my posts. I don't agree with a lot of people's religious beliefs but I completely understand how and why, if they have a particular religious belief it has such a powerful influence on their opinions.

    It's one of the reasons I enjoy honest and sincere discussions and debates concerning topics dealing with religion, philosophy, and psychology, etc.

    I'm also keenly aware of how hard it is for a person with a genuine religious beliefs, for instance, the story of Noah's ark is literally true, or that Jesus is the only begotten son of God (or that there even is a God), or that the wafer is the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, or the Mormon's beliefs about their underwear, to feel defensive when someone tells them that they don't believe their religious beliefs. Other people's religious beliefs often sound preposterous to those very same believers, so they know how their own religious beliefs must sound to a "non-believer".


  18. by islander on June 8, 2022 3:31 pm
    Pardon the typos...wish we could edit or view the post as it would look 'before psting', as we could in the old board. That's when I'd see a lot of my typos.


  19. by Curt_Anderson on June 8, 2022 4:16 pm
    Islander
    I sometimes will correct people's typos if I notice them. Especially if they would tend to confuse readers. But in general, in this non-formal setting, people accept and excuse minor grammatical errors. We are much harder on factual errors.

    Compared to 99% of the comments sections I see I online, our gang is a rather erudite and persnickety bunch. The comments below the articles in the New York Times, even the "editors' picks", are replete with grammatical errors and typos.

    As you probably know, you can't edit your comments but you can edit your article (initial post) from your member page, see link below.
    selectsmart.com


  20. by HatetheSwamp on June 8, 2022 4:21 pm

    isle,

    I agree about editing.

    What's the Mormon underwear thing?


  21. by Curt_Anderson on June 8, 2022 4:34 pm
    HtS,
    You don't know about Mormon underwear? I guess you don't subscribe to the titillating Latter Day Saint magazines that I read. Check out the "Girls of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir" edition, Zowie! See link below.
    en.wikipedia.org


  22. by islander on June 8, 2022 4:38 pm
    Thanks Curt! I hadn't realized you could do that in the members page.
    I know the typos are no big deal, but it amazes me that I can type my post, look it over and see no typos. Than "aftr" clicking on post and reading it again..they all jump right out at me LoL !!!


  23. by HatetheSwamp on June 8, 2022 4:42 pm

    Interesting on the underwear. But, living in Amish country?, it's bush league.


  24. by islander on June 8, 2022 4:43 pm
    I was just about to post the wikipedia link about the Mormon underwear.
    Here's another one.
    allthatsinteresting.com


  25. by Curt_Anderson on June 8, 2022 4:50 pm
    Islander,
    People of our generation were indoctrinated with the strong sense of "proper English". It surprises me when well educated, bright people who appear on television because of their expertise on some subject will make an ear bending grammatical error. I will routinely hear something like me and them did such and such...

    Just today in the Washington Post I saw this headline:
    "Fox News's blackout of Jan. 6 points to a hidden crisis for Democrats"

    I am pretty sure I was taught that it's "Fox News' blackout..."


    washingtonpost.com


  26. by Donna on June 8, 2022 5:01 pm
    As I've said before, journalism ain't what it used to be.

    islander - I can relate!


Go To Top

Comment on: "Amy Coney Barrett's Former Religious Group Was Accused of Child Sexual Abuse"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page