Girl Scouts Tweet Congratulation to Justice Barrett, then DELETE

[RememberSchiff]

On Wed. night, the GSUSA posted on Twitter and Facebook “Congratulations Amy Coney Barrett on becoming the 5th woman appointed to the Supreme Court since its inception in 1789.” Their post included photos of all five female Supreme Court Justices with a Girl Scout green background.

Their post quickly set off a fury of online criticism such that the GSUSA deleted the post and apologized:

“Earlier today, we shared a post highlighting the five women who have been appointed to the Supreme Court. It was quickly viewed as a political and partisan statement which was not our intent and we have removed the post.” The tweet also read, “Girl Scouts of the USA is a nonpolitical, nonpartisan organization. We are neither red nor blue, but Girl Scout GREEN. We are here to lift up girls and women.”

https://www.newsweek.com/girl-scouts-post-tweet-congratulating-amy-coney-barrett-then-delete-it-after-criticism-1543079

 

Buffalo Chip cookies coming soon?

Edited October 29, 2020 by RememberSchiff

[scoutldr]

Well, I guess I've bought my last box of cookies.  Sad.

[Navybone]

2 hours ago, scoutldr said:

Well, I guess I've bought my last box of cookies.  Sad.

Why?  They were trying to recognize success of women to the highest court in the land.  Regardless of your political leading, there have only been 5 female justices.  It is wholly within their mission to provide examples that women can do Anything they put their mind to.  That is a positive message for young girls and women as they grow,   

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, Navybone said:

Why?  They were trying to recognize success of women to the highest court in the land.  Regardless of your political leading, there have only been 5 female justices.  It is wholly within their mission to provide examples that women can do Anything they put their mind to.  That is a positive message for young girls and women as they grow,   

I don't think the concern is that GS posted the 5 justices. I think the concern is that the GS took down the post as a result of "woke" pressure because one of the justices was Amy Coney Barrett.

[Navybone]

23 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I don't think the concern is that GS posted the 5 justices. I think the concern is that the GS took down the post as a result of "woke" pressure because one of the justices was Amy Coney Barrett.

Good point.  But with today’s political division, they were in a no win position. 

[qwazse]

1 hour ago, Navybone said:

Good point.  But with today’s political division, they were in a no win position. 

My gut ... If you are in a no-win situation, double down.

• If it's your thing, you still invite POTUS to jambo.
• If it's your thing, you still honor women who achieve greatness.

And, you encourage the detractors in your entourage to do the same.

Meanwhile, if you have a buddy who is replacing his classic Farah Fawcett poster with a full-size ACB, you call the helpline. I don't know which one, but he's gonna need it.

[qwazse]

Oh, and I'm buying cookies from any scout who knocks or phones.

[qwazse]

What if this isn't about optics?

Suppose the GS/USA's litigation against Scouts BSA gets appealed all the way to SCOTUS. Could this be an attempt to get the judge on record with an opinion so she would in a few years have to recuse herself?

[CynicalScouter]

16 minutes ago, qwazse said:

What if this isn't about optics? Suppose the GS/USA's litigation against Scouts BSA gets appealed all the way to SCOTUS. Could this be an attempt to get the judge on record with an opinion so she would in a few years have to recuse herself?

First, the follow-up post made it clear: it was about optics.

Second, I don't see how GSUSA putting her photo up as part of a "women on the Supreme Court" tweet forces her to recuse (or Sotomayor or Kagan for that matter).

Justices are allowed to give presentations and even accept awards (but not money) from parties that appear before them. That does not create a requirement to recuse.

[RememberSchiff]

IMHO, GSUSA leaders  need a reminder from this former Girl Scout...

 

[69RoadRunner]

It wasn't because it seemed political. They yielded to the progressive rage mobs. They have other posts still up supporting the women who served on the SC before ACB. If they didn't want to appear political, they'd delete those, too.

Apparently they only support women with the "proper" views today.

[BAJ]

Though I don’t tend to come to a scouting board for the politics, if this is the discussion of the hour, I would submit for balance that there were apparently calls to boycott the Girl Scouts because Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez had been a past member.  Let’s at least appreciate that we have diversity in rage stoking mobs, even just in the niche market of “rage aimed at scouting organizations.” 

https://www.newsweek.com/ocasio-cortez-ridicules-writer-girl-scout-cookie-boycott-1355802

[CynicalScouter]

Just as a point:

Someone in a thread recently said BSA needed to "stay out of politics". I noted that these days EVERYTHING is political.

Wearing a mask? Political statement.

Listing the 5 female SCOTUS justices? Political statement.

There's simply no way to avoid making a "political" statement.

[Eagledad]

Oh, we'll probably keep supporting the Girl Scouts. They have been a political pawn since the 70s and we still support them. Even though they are the most sexist youth scouting organization, probably in the world, it's hard to turn down those cute little innocent faces.

Strangely, Girl Scouts older than 7 have never come to our door to sell cookies. Do you think the older Scouts know I was a BSA Scoutmaster? There are no signs in the yard that would hint of my past volunteerisms, I try not to stir things up in the neighborhood. But I do keep a nice lawn. I wonder!

Barry

[qwazse]

16 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Just as a point:

Someone in a thread recently said BSA needed to "stay out of politics". I noted that these days EVERYTHING is political.

Wearing a mask? Political statement.

Listing the 5 female SCOTUS justices? Political statement.

There's simply no way to avoid making a "political" statement.

Rubbish. Showing girls that they have the potential to adjudicate on the highest court of the land is no more political than having boys hear from the siting POTUS.

I once attended a lecture by the director of our local Planned Parenthood. I can vouch that she was an excellent speaker. That is not a political statement. We held strikingly disparate views on specific issues and agreed on others; regardless, sitting in a hall and listening to her lecture is not political. It's called growth and understanding.

The people who find political incorrectness in everything are making the "politicial" statement. Like I said, the only way to respond to such rhetoric is to double down and clear the air. A good example https://scoutingwire.org/chief-perspective-presidential-visit/