Who is the designated and highly controversial constitutional judge Amy Coney Barrett? Much has been written about her in recent days, for example about her attitude to abortion. We want to take a different, rather unusual look: that of your body language during the Senate hearings. The author and body language expert Ulrich Sollmann, who blogs at www.body-languages.net, analyzed Barrett’s performance for us:
“With a brisk pace, she strides purposefully towards the chair that has been specially reserved for you this week. The world is watching with excitement. The world wants to know who this woman is. This woman, who, as said, tips the scales, the political, Republican Fires Lighting the Supreme Court Will this woman save Trump and shape the political fate of the US in the years to come?
Who is this woman: what is she like? What does it stand for? Why this woman now? When will she show her true colors? Why do the US legislature and judiciary need this woman? Why now?
A few minutes later:
Sitting upright with her head tilted slightly to the right, Judge Amy Coney Barrett remains almost motionless during the current Senate hearing. Is it a hearing, cross-examination or even a tribunal? If you look carefully, you don’t have to answer this question.
The person who looks (closely) feels the knowing before his knowledge enters consciousness. Both are important. Both open up answers about specific expression and effect patterns of the named person when compared to each other. Patterns that are especially noticeable under stress. (And the hearing is stressful) These answer where Berett the committee in words failed.
Beret sits upright, almost motionless. The head, tilted slightly to the left, is under extreme tension. A tension that is mainly expressed in a mask-like facial expression. The forehead is permanently wrinkled. The eyes widened wider than would be the case for a single person. Every now and then, as if you were on the move, features of fear and panic appear in those almost piercing eyes. Afraid of what? Panic about what?
A small line of rejection sweeps around your mouth, like a whiff of frozen disgust. When Berett answers, the words follow, without much hesitation, almost automatically, you could come up with a secret plan, well-dosed and tempered from your mouth.
Berett knows she won’t say anything. She knows she doesn’t have to say anything. The questions she is supposed to answer are insignificant questions to her. Unimportant because the answers are not needed before the questions are asked.
Berett is committed to her faith. Equivalent only to an oath, it represents the sole and universal orientation in the undeniable and unshakable devotion to the code of values thus formed.
As a rule, Berett talks like a speaking machine without emotion. So she replies, “I never say good or bad”. Doesn’t she even need that? Does the orientation anchored in this code of faith through her special devotion to herself give her the decision about what is right or wrong?
So the question is whether it takes its word for it or interprets the US Constitution based on the circumstances. Berett has her orientation in herself, deviating from this would (possibly) pull the emotional ground away from under her own feet. Your religious devotion to yourself, which at least seems unthinkable to many Europeans, seems to me to be the one that comes into effect in a Christian community of fellow believers. Unmistakable and for life.
At this point it is permissible to ask to whom Berett feels obliged by an oath or oath.
“I have no opinion” then means that it is not her opinion that is relevant, but what her own belief (this particular type of belief) gives her. This is “my belief,” she might say. Finally, “my belief” does not mean an impartial belief as would be appropriate in relation to the US Constitution.
When asked if she has a (hidden) agenda at all in the sense of a program, she answers plausibly that she doesn’t have one. Doesn’t need it either. She knows what to do because of religious confidence. This is not a program then, but an irrefutable belief that should not be shaken for whatever reason. She herself said during one of her lectures at the Catholic University of Notre Dame, “A career in the judiciary is always just a” means to an end “and the goal is” to build the kingdom of God ” This sentence is still criticized, but related questions mercilessly roll from Berett.
At this point, there is no need to ask Berett about her independence. She doesn’t want to be. And she can’t, because then she would have to turn her back on the group of siblings who were sworn together under oath. Who does not remember the tremendous difficulties of dropouts struggling to escape a cult or fundamentalist community?
Beret is upright. She is motionless. You remained steadfast in yourself. Anchored in a belief to which she, unmistakably shaped by her youth, has lived through self-confession and self-commitment.
That is their belief. A Senate hearing is not required to recognize this. So asking them their opinion on Obama Care, abortion, homosexuality or whatever is like taking owls to Athens. The more powerful this happens, it exposes the questioner rather than the helpless in this spectacle.
When asked if “the dogma would live in her,” she referred to her own seriousness in her faith to underline her independence as a judge in the same breath. If you remember her body language, you can guess how unshakable faith and self-assurance are embodied in Berett’s attitude.
At least their followers are now celebrating “dogma attribution” as a cult. “The dogma lives loudly in you” was even printed on mugs and T-shirts.
Do Berett’s followers even know something that Berett is afraid to adopt? ‘