Pope Francis on the supreme court

[TreeFrogTrader]

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.

Well yeh, mostly.


Even if Roe v. Wade at its core is left alone the courts are still presented with other cases every session that deal with the spin-offs from it or abortion in general. Can you abort a fetus at 11 months, can states require mothers to go to classes to learn about adoption options before aborting, is abortion considered to be health care within the meaning of statute X,Y,Z.

Therein lies the basis for the sub silentio dance that will take place between Barrett and the dem Senators. Barrett can, probably will, or could argue that she accepts Roe v. Wade as settled law. Problem is the various interpretations of it are not settled in regard to follow-on issues. The left wants her to say that she accepts Roe as settled law and that she will not support any restrictions on abortion whatsoever. Those are two different arguments. As you said, they know the game because they are playing it themselves with the 2nd Amendment.


Not to digress but while the analogy over to the 2nd amendment is useful it is also limited. Gun rights in at least fundamental form are flat out stated as a separate constitutional amendemt. Abortion "rights?" Not so much. It is a judicially constructed argument based on an elusive "right to privacy." Which does not appear in the constitution anywhere.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

How can yo be a devout _______ that is diehard religions and serve on the highest court of the land? .

Refer to the Constitution for more on this.

 

[El OchoCinco]

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.

It is not a religious test.

But if you publish and comment publicly on devout religious beliefs that could easily contradict constitutional principles (left or right)...then you opened the door for your religion to be part of the confirmation process.

There is a legal principle that once you open the door, everyone gets to walk in.

 

[CaptainObvious]

It is not a religious test.

But if you publish and comment publicly on devout religious beliefs that could easily contradict constitutional principles (left or right)...then you opened the door for your religion to be part of the confirmation process.

There is a legal principle that once you open the door, everyone gets to walk in.

Again, if she says she can separate the two it's a done deal after the first question. All subsequent questions fall into the asked and answered category, but the political grandstanding in this dog and pony show must go on. If she was an atheist the same people upset about her religious beliefs would be calling her a godless whore who couldn't possibly empathize with the common folk.
In the end we're back to the elections matter point and the victors call the shots. The dems can put up electable candidates to address that reality.

 

[Cuddles]

Again, if she says she can separate the two it's a done deal after the first question. All subsequent questions fall into the asked and answered category, but the political grandstanding in this dog and pony show must go on. If she was an atheist the same people upset about her religious beliefs would be calling her a godless whore who couldn't possibly empathize with the common folk.
In the end we're back to the elections matter point and the victors call the shots. The dems can put up electable candidates to address that reality.

Is that like Putin's strong denials?

 

[Bugenhagen]

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?

Who gives a fuck what any political leader thinks?

In the end (beginning and middle) the large religions are major political forces.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

If she was an atheist the same people upset about her religious beliefs would be calling her a godless whore who couldn't possibly empathize with the common folk.

Heh, funny dat.

Aside from the fact that she may already have the votes, one of the biggest challenges that the dems may face is that Amy Barrett may present as a likeable figure in the public's mind and they won't know where to go with that.

They understand how to take the men down. It's a two step dance- as with Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas - step one is to transform them into sexual villains that no one in their right mind should like- then step two, just keep piling it on so that you have tainted them for life (except they both were confirmed, but nevermind).

But that approach requires the public to start seeing them transform into villains as the hearing progresses to justify the nasty stuff. Although they are good at it, I am not convinced yet that the dems know how to adapt themselves as needed to someone who is not an easy target because she has probably - horror of horrors- just been studying, going to church, and raising her own and adopted kids and being an appellate judge. LOCK HER UP AND HAVE THE FBI INVESTIGATE HER FURTHER AS WITH KAVANAUGH? Not so quick. Not the way to treat a woman.

Kamala is on the ticket and not considered to be very likeable, and she is going to try her usual routine against Amy? Careful dat. Minefields can be negotiated until they can't. BOOM! Amy can take a major hit to her likeability and still accomplish her goal. Not sure there is room for much more downside with Kamala if she wants to accomplish her goal.

 

[El OchoCinco]

I disagree it would be an issue if she was a devout atheist as most in the legal community would prefer that over a devoutly open and loud religious person. There is nothing in the law that requires you to beleive in a God...

 

[LacesOut]

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

Sounds to me like the thread is Here4Penis letting us know that the Senior Pedo has an opinion on the SCOTUS.
Who cares????? ACB might also be a Chiefs fan. Who cares?

 

[Cuddles]

Sounds to me like the thread is Here4Penis letting us know that the Senior Pedo has an opinion on the SCOTUS.
Who cares????? ACB might also be a Chiefs fan. Who cares?

hit and miss. All that latent homosexuality is messing with your reading comprehension.