Pope Francis on the supreme court

[TreeFrogTrader]

Barrett reportedly told students at Notre Dame that a "legal career is but a means to an end . . . and that end is building the Kingdom of God."

The New York Times reported that Barrett and her husband, who are parents to seven children, are members of an obscure group called People of Praise.

"Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a 'head' for men and a 'handmaid' for women," the report read. "The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family."

According to The Times, the group describes itself as a "charismatic Christian community." The "heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home and how to raise children."

She is your worst nightmare and the New York Time's worst nightmare too.

And Ruthie's worst nightmare ....and...and.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Barrett reportedly told students at Notre Dame that a "legal career is but a means to an end . . . and that end is building the Kingdom of God."

The New York Times reported that Barrett and her husband, who are parents to seven children, are members of an obscure group called People of Praise.

"Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a 'head' for men and a 'handmaid' for women," the report read. "The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family."

According to The Times, the group describes itself as a "charismatic Christian community." The "heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home and how to raise children."

Again, can she separate that from the job at hand? If she says yes she can then we must take her word on that just like we take it when someone on the left says it.
You know it's bullshit. I know it's bullshit. Everyone knows it's bullshit.. The court is a bunch of political hacks. Should not be that way, but it is. Elections matter and the spoils go to the victor.

 

[Cuddles]

Again, can she separate that from the job at hand?

she's telling people in public she can't.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

she's telling people in public she can't.

And the Constitution is telling the Senate that they cannot give her a religious test.

It is a delicate road to be walked. She should make it as delicate for them as it is for her or even moreso.

She should give the absolute bare minimum response in regard to her religious views and practices and she should give the absolute bare minimal response in regard to abortion issues as those may and will come before her if she is on the court. This would hurt her majorly if she were trying to win over any votes but realistically she is not. The dems are all going to vote against her anyway so if her answers piss them off it will not change the vote count in the least. They are just looking for political material to use against her and Trump.

The Senate dems run a very real risk of creating political material that can be used against them too if they go too far down the road of probing someone's religion. You are not going to hear any of them tell a muslim that "dogma speaks loudly in them" as Feinstein said to Barrett. But they think it is open season on Christians and acting that way can blow up them. It is open season on Christians in their circles. Not necessarily in the heartland of America.

 

[LacesOut]

Oh the Irony of athiest leftards wondering what the Pope thinks...
I say this as an anti-theist Conservative - who gives a fuck what any religious ‘leader’ thinks?

 

[Cuddles]

who gives a fuck what any religious ‘leader’ thinks?

Amy Coney Barrett does, you daft cunt. It's the whole premise of the thread.

 

[easymon1]

At 47min:14sec
an hour with atty bob barnes - amy sucks for SCOTUS and here's why...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MqadTsSPhTKv/

BONUS!
1hr:59min:30sec - Nadler Sharts His Giant Penguin Drawers at Pelosi Presser lol,
waddles off stage, what a stud, the real Jerry Nadler. Har de freakin' Harr Harr, gotta see homie waddle like a Shart Duck. Distinguished Govt in Action, LOL. Nancy and Duck man. HooWee.
https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/...larious-news-33min-33sec.350388/#post-5210629

 

[El OchoCinco]

RvW is not in danger. You need to get with reality. Here is a good article from NBC from two years ago that speaks to this. Nothing has changed from this standpoint, nor will it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...ade-likely-not-grave-danger-no-matter-n888836

this is a rallying cry, dog whistle...whatever you want to call it...akin to the "democrats want to take away all your guns". Sure, some do. But they'll never get it done.

I have been saying this for some time but people are so panicked. There is not a raiontal legal argument to tear down RvW and make abortions illegal in the country.

This is not the same as overturning Plessy v. Fergunson (separate but equal) or Dred Scott cases.

The only real fight left for the court is regulations that are too burdensome or too lenient that allow late term abortions and this, just like the 2d Amendment, is not about getting rid of it, but clarifying the permissible and impermissible regulations.

 

[El OchoCinco]

I don't give a fuck whether she agrees or not. The only question is can she separate her religious views from constitutional law. Leftists always give that consideration to their own, but somehow never believe a conservative can do that.

How can yo be a devout _______ that is diehard religions and serve on the highest court of the land? In addition to reviewing all past decisions of a judge, any statements like this woman has put out or organizations that she is extremely active in should be used to disqualify her.

If you look at the history of the Court, conservative or liberal comes down more to what cases they decide to hear at times but in rare cases will move a court to make bad law in the modern era. A conservative is not against equal rights for gays but a devout Christian judge can possibly ignore the law to meet their own fantasy beliefs.

 

[CaptainObvious]

How can yo be a devout _______ that is diehard religions and serve on the highest court of the land? In addition to reviewing all past decisions of a judge, any statements like this woman has put out or organizations that she is extremely active in should be used to disqualify her.

If you look at the history of the Court, conservative or liberal comes down more to what cases they decide to hear at times but in rare cases will move a court to make bad law in the modern era. A conservative is not against equal rights for gays but a devout Christian judge can possibly ignore the law to meet their own fantasy beliefs.

You're right that a devout anything is likely to influence decisions, but the constitution also states no religious tests are to be given. What I'm saying is there are and will continue to be judges and politicians who are religious and when one of those who lean left say that their religious beliefs won't get in the way of their constitutional duties we are expected to believe them. Why is that same consideration so difficult to get to when it's a conservative? Personally I think all of these religions range from slightly nuts to completely crazy, but that is not relevant. We are left to hope and accept that they actually can put those beliefs aside when making their rulings.