Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Four Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate fell over themselves to show deference to religious right voters in a forum sponsored Friday by The Family Leader. Right Wing Watch reported three of the candidates vowed they would block federal judge nominees who did not adhere to “natural law,” which the candidates described as handed down by God.
Radio host and retired Air Force colonel Sam Clovis said he would use natural law as a “litmus test” for judges, while Sarah Palin-backed state Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Red Oak) said judges and senators should understand U.S. laws “come from God” and make their decisions “within that criteria.”
But Matt Whitaker, a former federal prosecutor, declared his opponents had not gone “far enough” and said he would demand federal judicial nominees be “people of faith” who “have a biblical view of justice.”
A Biblical view of justice? I wonder if they will demand Biblical punishment as well. Could be a lot of stoning and burning at the stake in the Hawkeye state in the coming years.
The radical nature of conservatism is a sight to behold. That more Americans don't know just how radical conservatives have become is also amazing to me.
This judge is just another in a very, very long line of elected conservatives who believe absolutely false and insane things about this nation's history and it's founding.
Both the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Supremacy Clause says Iowa can't, so there's that.
It does not say that actually.
"Bible believing judges" are still operating in the confines of a secular law system.
It is true Iowa cannot declare XYZ its official religion, but its elected officials can nominate/appoint whom they wish by whatever criteria they wish.
If you think the people of say, Brooklyn aren't voting for Jewish judges I have a local bridge to sell you.
Why don't we hear the left arguing against Sharia law (which is Muslim, by the way, not Christian)? Some of you have expressed support for introducing Sharia into US law.
What should we call the Leftist 'Taliban,' who are every bit as fanatical as any Muslim Taliban?
Such hypocrisy!
You are mistaken if you think just because I don't want Christianity influencing our laws, that I want Muslims influencing our laws. I don't want ANY religion to be the basis of how we run our government or make our laws.
"Bible believing judges" are still operating in the confines of a secular law system.
It is true Iowa cannot declare XYZ its official religion, but its elected officials can nominate/appoint whom they wish by whatever criteria they wish.
If you think the people of say, Brooklyn aren't voting for Jewish judges I have a local bridge to sell you.
The issue isn't the religious beliefs of the Judge, the issue is if the Judge lets those Judicial beliefs influence decisions. The Republicans running for the Senate seat seem to want the Jude to base their rulings off religious beliefs. While they might work in a Primary due to the conservative base, fortunately it will not likely work in a General Election..
Am I surprised that none of the potential candidates took the time to try to educate the audience on some of the more basic parts of the constitution? Nope, not at all. Just pander to their fears in hopes of gaining their vote. Same old same old politics. It really is sad that fear rules the politics of both parties. Of course fear of the "other" has, from the beginnings of politics, been a sure fire vote getter.
Am I surprised that none of the potential candidates took the time to try to educate the audience on some of the more basic parts of the constitution? Nope, not at all. Just pander to their fears in hopes of gaining their vote. Same old same old politics. It really is sad that fear rules the politics of both parties. Of course fear of the "other" has, from the beginnings of politics, been a sure fire vote getter.
Think of Steve King and his rhetoric, that is basically the GOP base for the Primaries. The problem for Republicans running in the state is unless you have served multiple terms (Branstad) you need that base to win a Primary in Iowa, which in turn hurts you big time in the general because the crap that flies with the base voters won't in a General. That is why Steve King and Bob Vander Platts passed on running. They knew they couldn't win a General (looks like the GOP might be trying to nominate someone similar)
"Four Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate fell over themselves to show deference to religious right voters in a forum sponsored Friday by The Family Leader. Right Wing Watch reported three of the candidates vowed they would block federal judge nominees who did not adhere to “natural law,” which the candidates described as handed down by God.
Radio host and retired Air Force colonel Sam Clovis said he would use natural law as a “litmus test” for judges, while Sarah Palin-backed state Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Red Oak) said judges and senators should understand U.S. laws “come from God” and make their decisions “within that criteria.”
But Matt Whitaker, a former federal prosecutor, declared his opponents had not gone “far enough” and said he would demand federal judicial nominees be “people of faith” who “have a biblical view of justice.”
A Biblical view of justice? I wonder if they will demand Biblical punishment as well. Could be a lot of stoning and burning at the stake in the Hawkeye state in the coming years.
They "fell over themselves", eh? That's real quality objective reporting there.
It's funny how when it was the head of Mozilla being ousted for not agreeing with the liberal point of view on something, that was fine. But when some Republicans say they won't approve a judge that doesn't agree with the religious right's view on something, then that's an outrage.
So if your 12 year old first cousin really wants you to have sex with them, no harm done, right?
So you're saying that having sex with a 12-year-old does no harm?
Because I certainly never said any such thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
