By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Amy Coney Barrett to be Nominated to the Supreme Court

LivingMetal said:
sethnintendo said:

I'm not just anti catholic.   I'm anti almost all religion. She could be mormon for all I care and my view still wouldn't change.  Actually I'd probably make fun of her more if she was mormon.  Just barely looking into her past she is just someone that Notre Dame college put all their backing behind to try to advance her career to eventual highest court.  Looks like their strategy has worked.

Least I can say I don't belong to an organization that supported and hid pedophile priest that molested and raped little boys for the past centuries.

Yet, there are atheist who engage in pedophilia so...

And you think that's equivalent? 



...

Around the Network
Torillian said:
LivingMetal said:

Yet, there are atheist who engage in pedophilia so...

And you think that's equivalent? 

I think what's equivalent is that all individuals are imperfect and I base my assessment of people base on the person themselves, not by a group or one's definition or expressed perception of that group.  Some atheists do engage in pedophilia while some support it.  It doesn't mean all atheists condone it.  What the Catholic church did from a bureaucratic standpoint was wrong.  It doesn't mean Barrett condoned such actions.

Last edited by LivingMetal - on 26 September 2020

TallSilhouette said:
NightlyPoe said:

Would you care to provide any evidence that she is a proponent of a church-led state?

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=commencement_programs

“keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and as Father Jenkins told you this morning, that end is building the kingdom of God.”

I'm having trouble to see how an honest & fair critic can read into the whole speech and come out thinking she's a proponent for some kind of Christian theocracy.  You have to deliberately disregard any context between private/personal & practice here, which even then wouldn't do it justice.

Public officials reference "God" as the primary driver in accomplishing their life's goals, becoming a more ethical person, etc. etc.  This doesn't mean you're living in The Handmaid's Tale.

It'd be more worthwhile to pursue some of her legal rulings that'd substantiate viv's claim versus this route.



NightlyPoe said:

Does that mean that Engel v. Vitale, Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges can now be safely ignored if a state feels strongly enough about it?

And the silliest part of this is that Judge Barrett is likely to do exactly as you wish.  As a judicial conservative, she'll put most hot-button issues to the state and the voters if it doesn't actually violate the Constitution.  Overturning Marbury v. Madison isn't needed.  All you lose is the "I win" button here, not the ability to fight for them within the legislatures.

No, it means that congress doesn't need to go beg the Supreme Court to be allowed to use its political-power. Chances are, since the majority wants it, the end results of those cases would be enforced. You'll still have a federal government that prevents discrimination, it just wouldn't beg kritarchs to do so.



Saudi USAbia



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:

Multiple news agencies are reporting that tomorrow afternoon, the president will nominate Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.  This is not a surprising turn of events as she had already been a finalist for Justice Kennedy's seat to which Justice Kavanaugh was selected instead.  Trump had allegedly stated later that he was saving her for Justice Ginsburg's seat and she'd become something of a favorite within conservative judicial after she weathered an attack from Democrats in her appeals court hearings based on her Catholic faith.

There was speculation that Trump might select Barbara Lagoa to the court due to political considerations (she being both Cuban and from the swing state of Florida), but the timing of the nomination and strict deadline if they wished to confirm her by Election Day meant that the already well-vetted Barrett with whom Trump was comfortable and was popular with his base had an overwhelming advantage.  McConnell further signaled that Barrett had sufficient support from within the Senate to confirm her.

In the Senate, there is bound to be a huge fight over this nomination, largely based on Republicans refusing to hold a vote for Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland four years ago when Justice Scalia died and general acrimony where it comes to a conservative judicial nominee.  Two Republicans have already signaled that they are against filling the position until after we have a winner in the upcoming election (though Murkowski has since softened to state that she may ultimately vote in favor of a nominee).  However, a majority of Republicans still control the timing and each of the remaining Senators that might have voted against the nomination due to either election concerns, perception as a moderate, or previous statements that they would oppose an election year nomination all signaled that they are in favor of confirming a new justice.

Since the 80s, nominations have generally taken 2-3 months to go through.  The current plan is to complete this nomination by Election Day a little over a month away so as to avoid the less-than-ideal possibility of having to confirm during a lame-duck session after the president and/or Senate have been voted out of office.  This leaves a little over a month to get this done.  Such speed was common in the past, and as recently as Ginsburg herself took only 42 days.  The current schedule calls for a process more along the lines of what the Reagan-appointed Justice O'Connor's experience in 1981, who was confirmed in 33 days.

Gay.

User was warned for this post. - Hiku

Last edited by Hiku - on 27 September 2020

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

vivster said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Is being catholic = being a bigot? No judge is "neutral", bet they still all have to interpret the law, whatever their background.

No, being a bigot is being a bigot. Also being an asshole is being an asshole. She ticks both of those boxes. No judge is neutral, but being religious as opposed to irreligious is already a giant red flag.

I'd rather have judges who base their opinions on evidence than faith.

You mean you prefer judges who ground their opinion in non-religious ideology rather then faith? One always makes a desicion based on the evidence, with rational arguments founded on your ideological worldview. Being religious doesn't make you irrational, being irreligious doesn't make you rational.



Another one with prehistoric thinking, just what america needs...



eva01beserk said:
Don't know this person. But the way the democrats are behaving any Republican will be good. Theese riots are the biggest red pill I can see.

Democrats are supporting riots? Can you provide a source to this claim?

Supporting protests is not supporting riots.
That would be like saying Republicans support police brutality if they support the police.

melbye said:

Republicans need as much power as they can get. Democrats have failed at everything, their support for criminals, lowlives andviolent revolutionary communists who have been running rampant for months now is sickening

Which Democrats supported which criminal?
Which Democrats support violent revolutionary communists?

Last edited by Hiku - on 27 September 2020

NightlyPoe said:
Hiku said:

Democrats are supporting riots? Can you provide a source to this claim?

Supporting protests is not supporting riots.
That would be like saying Republicans support police brutality if they support the police.

Which Democrats supported which criminal?
Which Democrats support violent revolutionary communists?

Not to mention all the Democrat politicians that have allowed the riots to expand by pulling back the police and not calling in the National Guard.  Not to mention all the Democrat DAs who have made a deliberate decision not to charge rioters for their crimes.  Not to mention the media reports that gaslight the nation calling the protests "mostly peaceful" even as scenes of arson, destruction, and violence are on the screen for all to see.

Y'know, that sort of supporting.

https://risk-analytics.io/pages/george_floyd_protests.html

I don't understand how you can say "I see arson on the screen" and conclude that the protests can't possibly be mostly peaceful. If 1000 people protest and one person lights a building on fire is the protest mostly peaceful? This is even taking out the fact that the bulk of protests for George Floyd's murder did not have any recorded violence, but I'll be charitable and assume you mean describing a single protest as "mostly peaceful" rather than the overall protests which have obviously been mostly peaceful. 



...