Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If there are no sham hearings, what’s Alyssa Milano supposed to do? Fake having Covid some more?

Posted Images

The left will try to characterize her as some sort of religious zealot who is incapable of making an informed decision without the cloud of "dogma" blurring her view. I expect a half-assed attempt at Kavanaugh hearings 2.0 but the dems can't stop this. She'll be the next Supreme Court justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A hearing on Barrett's nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee was held on September 6, 2017.[20] During the hearing, Senator Dianne Feinstein questioned Barrett about a law review article Barrett co-wrote in 1998 with Professor John H. Garvey in which she argued that Catholic judges should in some cases recuse themselves from death penalty cases due to their moral objections to the death penalty. The article concluded that the trial judge should recuse herself instead of entering the order. Asked to "elaborate on the statements and discuss how you view the issue of faith versus fulfilling the responsibility as a judge today," Barrett said that she had participated in many death-penalty appeals while serving as law clerk to Scalia, adding, "My personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge"[21][22] and "It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law."[23] Worried that Barrett would not uphold Roe v. Wade given her Catholic beliefs, Feinstein followed Barrett's response by saying, "the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern."[24][25][26] The hearing made Barrett popular with religious conservatives,[11] and in response, the conservative Judicial Crisis Network began to sell mugs with Barrett's photo and Feinstein's "dogma" remark.[27] Feinstein's and other senators' questioning was criticized by some Republicans and other observers, such as university presidents John I. Jenkins and Christopher Eisgruber, as improper inquiry into a nominee's religious belief that employed an unconstitutional "religious test" for office;[23][28][29] others, such as Nan Aron, defended Feinstein's line of questioning.[29]

Lambda Legal, an LGBT civil rights organization, co-signed a letter with 26 other gay rights organizations opposing Barrett's nomination. The letter expressed doubts about her ability to separate faith from her rulings on LGBT matters.[30][31] During her Senate confirmation hearing, Barrett was questioned about landmark LGBTQ legal precedents such as Obergefell v. Hodges, United States v. Windsor, and Lawrence v. Texas. Barrett said these cases are "binding precedents" that she intended to "faithfully follow if confirmed" to the appeals court, as required by law.[30] The letter co-signed by Lambda Legal said "Simply repeating that she would be bound by Supreme Court precedent does not illuminate—indeed, it obfuscates—how Professor Barrett would interpret and apply precedent when faced with the sorts of dilemmas that, in her view, 'put Catholic judges in a bind.'"[30] Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network later said that warnings from LGBT advocacy groups about shortlisted nominees to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, including Barrett, were "very much overblown" and called them "mostly scare tactics."[30]

In 2015, Barrett signed a letter in support of the Ordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family that endorsed the Catholic Church's teachings on human sexuality and its definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. When asked about the letter, she testified that the Church's definition of marriage is legally irrelevant

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lhalo said:

The left will try to characterize her as some sort of religious zealot who is incapable of making an informed decision without the cloud of "dogma" blurring her view. I expect a half-assed attempt at Kavanaugh hearings 2.0 but the dems can't stop this. She'll be the next Supreme Court justice.

They’ll make the process very messy once again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lhalo said:

The left will try to characterize her as some sort of religious zealot who is incapable of making an informed decision without the cloud of "dogma" blurring her view. I expect a half-assed attempt at Kavanaugh hearings 2.0 but the dems can't stop this. She'll be the next Supreme Court justice.

Apparently she’s a monster for adopting two kids from Haiti. I honestly didn’t see this as point of attack. c*nts 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jason said:

Apparently she’s a monster for adopting two kids from Haiti. I honestly didn’t see this as point of attack. c*nts 

Good. More of this. I hope by the time they are done she will have 3rd cousins that won't be able to share their face in public.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Jason said:

Apparently she’s a monster for adopting two kids from Haiti. I honestly didn’t see this as point of attack. c*nts 

Let’s not kid ourselves.  People who adopt minority kids have a white savior complex and are looking for attention.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, st1ckboy said:

Mitch McConnell wouldn't even take up Merrick Garland for a vote. So why should I care if it gets messy?

Because the growing amount of divisiveness we’re going through is destroying all of us. I don’t understand why anyone would willingly root for more of that, unless you enjoy chaos, looting, and growing amounts of hatred and distrust.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tank said:

Sounds like you need to have a snickers bar.

Sounds like you should make your 100th consecutive post about Pelosi going to a hair salon while continuing to ignore just this week that we find out Trump is even trying to undermine states electoral votes by having governors override them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, st1ckboy said:

Sounds like you should make your 100th consecutive post about Pelosi going to a hair salon while continuing to ignore just this week that we find out Trump is even trying to undermine states electoral votes by having governors override them.

Does this mean you're not going to want that Snickers bar?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tank said:

Because the growing amount of divisiveness we’re going through is destroying all of us. I don’t understand why anyone would willingly root for more of that, unless you enjoy chaos, looting, and growing amounts of hatred and distrust.

Because Trump continues to throw gasoline on those flames and his Republican counter parts in the House and Senate enable it. So why should I care?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...