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.
So you strongly feel that depending on the case that the Old Testament should overrule the U. S. Constitution? In other words, all homosexual rights, such as same sex marriage, should be overturned?
I'd like the critics to cite where Barrett has ever used the bible to do that.
This is nothing but crazy irrational dems screaming "OMG a Catholic! She will bring back the Spanish inquisitions and witch burning!!"
Is there any evidence that she actually rules against the Constitution, or established laws, in order to enforce the bible's teachings instead? No, otherwise the article would have pointed out such rulings.
This is just one of many to come, hit pieces, hating on a person, tossing out baseless conjecture and condemnation, simply because of her religious beliefs. There is no proof she ignores the law and uses the bible to rule on cases. This is just more angry, leftist, conspiracy talk, meant to scare monger.
All they have are lies and false claims of extremism. Yet the weak minded and low information types believe this far left propaganda.
Is there any evidence that she actually rules against the Constitution, or established laws, in order to enforce the bible's teachings instead? No, otherwise the article would have pointed out such rulings.
This is just one of many to come, hit pieces, hating on a person, tossing out baseless conjecture and condemnation, simply because of her religious beliefs. There is no proof she ignores the law and uses the bible to rule on cases. This is just more angry, leftist, conspiracy talk, meant to scare monger.
They might as well replay her hearings from 2017. She was confirmed then 55-43, with all R's and three D's voting Yes, two D's not voting. Now, with the election in a few weeks controversy, I'm not sure she or anyone else will get 50 Yes votes.
You can't be serious. For a supreme court nominee, that is EXTREMELY troubling.
MUCH more troubling than fraternity boy naughty hijinks allegations, by far.
This is an issue that would make her absolutely unfit to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, if she values the teachings of the Bible over the US Constitution, that would be her job to interpret.
I am not a Trumper but even the story in the link does not match the headline. If this is all the Democrats have on her (and we do not know if she will be the nominee) then she would easily get confirmed.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 9 days ago)
35,635 posts, read 17,982,736 times
Reputation: 50665
Here's an article from a hearing where Trump had nominated her for circuit judge 2 years ago.
I'm concerned that when asked about her statements that religion should rule a judge's actions, she states she would "word her views differently today". I'd rather she said "I'd rule differently today". Wording her views just means that's how she'd represent herself to questioner, doesn't address how she'd arrive at decisions.
On the other hand, as we've seen in the recent past, very conservative sounding judges don't always rule that way when they're finally in their dream/goal job and can top pandering to politicians. Sometimes they go with their higher wisdom and not what they think will get them promoted by the ruling powers that be.
So what exactly is the context of "the bible precedes the constitution"?
Form the referenced article "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases",
Abstract
The Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty places Catholic judges in a moral and legal bind. While these judges are obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty, they are also obliged to adhere to their church's teaching on moral matters. Although the legal system has a solution for this dilemma by allowing the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job, Catholic judges will want to sit whenever possible without acting immorally. However, litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, which may be something a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense. Therefore, the authors argue, we need to know whether judges are legally disqualified from hearing cases that their consciences would let them decide. While mere identification of a judge as Catholic is not sufficient reason for recusal under federal law, the authors suggest that the moral impossibility of enforcing capital punishment in such cases as sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, and affirming are in fact reasons for not participating.
Havent had time to read the entire thing to see where she says the bible should take precedence over the constitution. I'm sure you did though, so could you quote in context her words?
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.
