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.
But I do know that Kennedy's catholicism was used against him; that was more than 50 years ago, and a lot has changed.
That's my point -- a lot has changed indeed -- we have regressed and are now once again into religious bigotry in an attempt to smear someone, this time a Supreme Court nominee.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 2 days ago)
35,607 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes
That's my point -- a lot has changed indeed -- we have regressed and are now once again into religious bigotry in an attempt to smear someone, this time a Supreme Court nominee.
I don't think it's religious "bigotry" when you consider whether you'd support a supreme court nominee who has stated she believes the Bible supersedes the US Constitution. Her job is to interpret the US Constitution and make rulings based on the writings in the Constitution and their context.
If she's using the Bible, instead of the Constitution, it's not bigotry to say that person is inappropriate to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.
Just as if she said well, the US Constitution has its place, but I'm going to refer to the Magna Carta when I make my rulings from the bench.
On the other hand, I'll repeat myself and note that I was expecting a MUCH worse choice to be put forth by Trump. And I think we all know it. If we take a pass on this one, he'll put in someone absolutely abhorrent like Ted Cruz and then we'll all be sorry.
I don't think it's religious "bigotry" when you consider whether you'd support a supreme court nominee who has stated she believes the Bible supersedes the US Constitution. Her job is to interpret the US Constitution and make rulings based on the writings in the Constitution and their context.
If she's using the Bible, instead of the Constitution, it's not bigotry to say that person is inappropriate to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.
Just as if she said well, the US Constitution has its place, but I'm going to refer to the Magna Carta when I make my rulings from the bench.
On the other hand, I'll repeat myself and note that I was expecting a MUCH worse choice to be put forth by Trump. And I think we all know it. If we take a pass on this one, he'll put in someone absolutely abhorrent like Ted Cruz and then we'll all be sorry.
I agree with all this. There could have been far worse selections and I actually don't think this one is going to have much drama surrounding it. The big (appropriate) questions will be whether or not her religious convictions as a Christian supersede the Constitution. This is a big country full of many types of people and religious dogma has no place is deciding law. If you cannot leave that behind, then you don't belong in a position such as this. Many religious people, of all faiths, have as much as said that their religion is such a part of them that it colors everything they do and their judgments of others. Hell, I remember when I first moved overseas to a non-Christian country and a man I know (Christian) told me that it was my job as a fellow Christian to go over there and convert people and stop those heathens--that Christianity was a part of me and I could not allow people to "live and let live."
Not all Christians behave this way of course and it's important to determine if this particular nominee can separate that part of her life from the her law. Honestly, we'll never really know through the nomination process, but I still think it is fair to assess this.
That's my point -- a lot has changed indeed -- we have regressed and are now once again into religious bigotry in an attempt to smear someone, this time a Supreme Court nominee.
As proven by Feinstein's questions when Barrett was up for the Appellate Court.
I don't think it's religious "bigotry" when you consider whether you'd support a supreme court nominee who has stated she believes the Bible supersedes the US Constitution. Her job is to interpret the US Constitution and make rulings based on the writings in the Constitution and their context.
If she's using the Bible, instead of the Constitution, it's not bigotry to say that person is inappropriate to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.
Just as if she said well, the US Constitution has its place, but I'm going to refer to the Magna Carta when I make my rulings from the bench.
On the other hand, I'll repeat myself and note that I was expecting a MUCH worse choice to be put forth by Trump. And I think we all know it. If we take a pass on this one, he'll put in someone absolutely abhorrent like Ted Cruz and then we'll all be sorry.
"But when Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked when it would be “proper for a judge to put their religious views above applying the law,†Barrett answered, “Never.â€
“It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law,†she added. You can verify this with a simple internet search.
Her record of decisions indicates that in practice she indeed adheres to this strict separation, even though in a paper she hypothesized that, in theory, religious views could be the highest authority.
My guess that it all comes down to one issue -- abortion. Remember the outcry that Roe-v-Wade would be overturned immediately with the appointment of Justice Kavanaugh? It was not. The spirit of reversing res judicata is a serious matter at the level of the Supreme Court, which both Kavanaugh and Barrett understand quite well, as do all the Justices, I'm sure.
Our Constitution gives the President the right to nominate Justices, with the approval of the Senate. Giving Trump a "pass" is not a matter for you or me to decide. We don't have a direct democracy, and never have. It is the President's right and his duty, and we will see whether the approval of the Senate is forthcoming. As Obama said, "elections have consequences."
As for Cruz -- this assumes that Trump will win reelection, which I doubt (even though I plan to vote against the radical Democrats that surround Biden). I don't like Cruz's personality, but I believe that he is a brilliant man, and I seriously doubt that he would be 'abhorrent.'
BTW -- Have you read RBG's views on the Constitution? She thought that we should embrace the South African constitution instead of our own.
"But when Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked when it would be “proper for a judge to put their religious views above applying the law,†Barrett answered, “Never.â€
“It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law,†she added. You can verify this with a simple internet search.
Her record of decisions indicates that in practice she indeed adheres to this strict separation, even though in a paper she hypothesized that, in theory, religious views could be the highest authority.
My guess that it all comes down to one issue -- abortion. Remember the outcry that Roe-v-Wade would be overturned immediately with the appointment of Justice Kavanaugh? It was not. The spirit of reversing res judicata is a serious matter at the level of the Supreme Court, which both Kavanaugh and Barrett understand quite well, as do all the Justices, I'm sure.
Our Constitution gives the President the right to nominate Justices, with the approval of the Senate. Giving Trump a "pass" is not a matter for you or me to decide. We don't have a direct democracy, and never have. It is the President's right and his duty, and we will see whether the approval of the Senate is forthcoming. As Obama said, "elections have consequences."
As for Cruz -- this assumes that Trump will win reelection, which I doubt (even though I plan to vote against the radical Democrats that surround Biden). I don't like Cruz's personality, but I believe that he is a brilliant man, and I seriously doubt that he would be 'abhorrent.'
BTW -- Have you read RBG's views on the Constitution? She thought that we should embrace the South African constitution instead of our own.
Yes, but her point in hypothesizing that religious views could be the highest authority for a judge was not that the judge should impose those views on a ruling, but that in that instance they should recuse themselves from a case.
Yes, but her point in hypothesizing that religious views could be the highest authority for a judge was not that the judge should impose those views on a ruling, but that in that instance they should recuse themselves from a case.
Well, look at her record. Also I ask: What case would she be hearing where this became an issue, other than abortion? Death penalty? I dunno. Most everyone is guided on this question by his or her interpretation of morality, and I don't believe that Barrett's interpretation would be out of accepted, mainstream thinking.
Here's the same issue raising its ugly head: Political opponents of the present administration are trying to play us by regressing to our instincts of religious bigotry: Essentially, "You can't trust her because she is a Catholic." Another way to look at the matter: "Jihad against anyone who, however dimly, might be perceived to threaten my right to an abortion." That's what the argument comes down to. In reality, it's a political trick. People who hate the President hate him so intensely that they will go to any length to weaken him. Look what they did to Justice Kavanaugh.
Well, look at her record. Also I ask: What case would she be hearing where this became an issue, other than abortion? Death penalty? I dunno. Most everyone is guided on this question by his or her interpretation of morality, and I don't believe that Barrett's interpretation would be out of accepted, mainstream thinking.
Here's the same issue raising its ugly head: Political opponents of the present administration are trying to play us by regressing to our instincts of religious bigotry: Essentially, "You can't trust her because she is a Catholic." Another way to look at the matter: "Jihad against anyone who, however dimly, might be perceived to threaten my right to an abortion." That's what the argument comes down to. In reality, it's a political trick. People who hate the President hate him so intensely that they will go to any length to weaken him. Look what they did to Justice Kavanaugh.
Yes you are correct, especially when they are spreading propaganda taken out of context to totally misrepresent what she actually said.
The article driving this nonsense was about the death penalty.
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.
