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.
" The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator'
The Declaration came BEFORE the Constitution and what our contry was founded on.
That is hardly clear as to what deity is being addressed. Anyway "God" is not religion. There are many faiths which are not aligned with Christian beliefs or the Bible represented in the US. They are different than yours. They have their own books, writings, and prophets. Do your beliefs take precedence over theirs? Are they to be ignored? The constitution seems clear that no "religion" can be part of the laws of the US - the Catholic taith and the Bible included. The Bible has no place in the decision of the courts.
And Homer's Odyssey is another piece of fantastical religious literature that predates both. Does that mean our legal questions should be answered by how well we can shoot an arrow through a dozen axe heads in order to win the hand of a maiden (that's Greek mythology, in case anyone is confused).
Republicans need to stop doing crazy stuff because they can. You can't say they have America's best interests at heart anymore.
Can you quote or show actions where she has said or put religion before the constitution?
From the article linked in the OP
Quote:
Amy Coney Barrett is a judicial nominee the likes of which we have rarely seen: a person who believes and has stated that judges can and should put their personal beliefs ahead of the law and Constitution when carrying out their duties. Specifically, Barrett has written that judges should put their religious faith ahead of the law in certain cases. She also has written that judges should not have to abide by precedent if they disagree with how past cases were decided.
Yes I read the article that he/she said she said.
What did she say in context.
What report in the AFJ from the report. "Much of the concern about Barrett’s religious extremism is documented in a report from the Alliance for Justice (AFJ). According to the report, Barrett believes that “judges should be bound by their religious faith, not the law.”
Was it from
“Catholic Judges in Capital Cases.” Where she discusses judges recusing themselves if there be a conflict between their religion and the constitution in capital cases. Did you read that?
So again, specifically can you link quote where SHE said justices should put their religious beliefs before the constitution in deciding cases?
Not all would, but I don't think there is a shortage of Republicans in the Senate who would agree that the Old Testament should overrule the U. S. Constitution.
No one has said to follow the old Testament. Some clown said something and you, as well as the others fell for it. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?
Yes they do and it's laughable to say otherwise. Granted your 3 word post must have taken a lot out of you, otherwise I'm sure you would have backed up your claim.
This is almost the same argument they used against Clarence Thomas because he believed in "Natural Law". In all instances, Thomas has been a stalwart at following the simple words and original intent of the Constitution, and not employing "Natural Law" where not sourced in the Law as codified by the US Constitution.
I have yet to hear a single utterance by Clarence Thomas where he just pulled judgements out of his ass, like the revisionists do.
I have no clue what to think of ACB yet, but her reference to the bible sounds a lot like Thomas's reference to "Natural Law", and indicates she would follow a strict original reading of the constitution, rather than saying "Well, the Old Testament requires an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
Stupid article is preposterous, but I would expect 100 ridiculous attacks a day on any presumptive Trump nominee.
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.
