Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs š
Well, actually they are .... if you don't believe our laws are steeped in the JudeoChristian culture, you are seriously deluded.Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air
"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than theyāre comfortable with. Thereāssomething in the Constitution about that, if Iām not mistaken.
Feinsteinās comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What sheās worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge whoāll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitionerās right to kill her unborn baby. Feinsteinās āconcernedā that Barrettās moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting itās āof concernā that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. āTry to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,ā says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. āA Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.ā The apology would have already been issued"
Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'
Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.
Our laws are steeped in many cultures. Bearing false witness, murder and stealing are universally condemned in every major culture, modern and ancient. If you are considering the 10 commandments as part of your argument, we don't use the other 7 and the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd are banned by the constitution. I know you always heard our laws are based on the bible. I heard the same thing, and believed it too, until I actually read it and studied what was said.
Which is why judges sometimes recuse thrmselves from cases...but again, you seem to feel that an Atheist can be a judge and let their beliefs influence thrir decisions....or a Muslim, or a Vegan, or a Climate Change fanatic, etc...Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air
"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than theyāre comfortable with. Thereāssomething in the Constitution about that, if Iām not mistaken.
Feinsteinās comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What sheās worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge whoāll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitionerās right to kill her unborn baby. Feinsteinās āconcernedā that Barrettās moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting itās āof concernā that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. āTry to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,ā says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. āA Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.ā The apology would have already been issued"
Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'
Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.
And the supreme law of the land precludes religious tests for holding office. Ain't that a bitch.
.
It also precludes a judge from basing his rulings on his religious beliefs instead of the law.
The entire reason Feinstein and Dens singled out this Catholic is because they threaten one of their prized issues - abortions, but when it's their turn to nominate judges they have no problem choosing liberal judges who are 'pro' to their prefered causes and who believe in legislating from the bench.
Which is why judges sometimes recuse thrmselves from cases...but again, you seem to feel that an Atheist can be a judge and let their beliefs influence thrir decisions....or a Muslim, or a Vegan, or a Climate Change fanatic, etc...Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air
"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than theyāre comfortable with. Thereāssomething in the Constitution about that, if Iām not mistaken.
Feinsteinās comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What sheās worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge whoāll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitionerās right to kill her unborn baby. Feinsteinās āconcernedā that Barrettās moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting itās āof concernā that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. āTry to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,ā says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. āA Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.ā The apology would have already been issued"
Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'
Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.
And the supreme law of the land precludes religious tests for holding office. Ain't that a bitch.
.
It also precludes a judge from basing his rulings on his religious beliefs instead of the law.
The entire reason Feinstein and Dens singled out this Catholic is because they threaten one of their prized issues - abortions, but when it's their turn to nominate judges they have no problem choosing liberal judges who are 'pro' to their prefered causes and who believe in legislating from the bench.
I'm still not seeing your problem. Republicans choose judges based on their record of the things they support or oppose. Is it somehow unethical or bad that a liberal might as well?
Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air
"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than theyāre comfortable with. Thereāssomething in the Constitution about that, if Iām not mistaken.
Feinsteinās comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What sheās worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge whoāll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitionerās right to kill her unborn baby. Feinsteinās āconcernedā that Barrettās moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting itās āof concernā that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. āTry to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,ā says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. āA Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.ā The apology would have already been issued"
Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'
Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.
And the supreme law of the land precludes religious tests for holding office. Ain't that a bitch.
.
It also precludes a judge from basing his rulings on his religious beliefs instead of the law.
Really, you have no problem when Ginsberg, Kagan or Sotomayor does it. Do you have any examples of this particular judge doing it in the past?
.
Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air
"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than theyāre comfortable with. Thereāssomething in the Constitution about that, if Iām not mistaken.
Feinsteinās comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What sheās worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge whoāll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitionerās right to kill her unborn baby. Feinsteinās āconcernedā that Barrettās moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting itās āof concernā that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. āTry to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,ā says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. āA Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.ā The apology would have already been issued"
Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'
Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.
And the supreme law of the land precludes religious tests for holding office. Ain't that a bitch.
.
It also precludes a judge from basing his rulings on his religious beliefs instead of the law.
Really, you have no problem when Ginsberg, Kagan or Sotomayor does it. Do you have any examples of this particular judge doing it in the past?
.
Link? When did Ginsburg, Kagan, or Sotomayor let their religion override the law?
Well, actually they are .... if you don't believe our laws are steeped in the JudeoChristian culture, you are seriously deluded.Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air
"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than theyāre comfortable with. Thereāssomething in the Constitution about that, if Iām not mistaken.
Feinsteinās comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What sheās worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge whoāll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitionerās right to kill her unborn baby. Feinsteinās āconcernedā that Barrettās moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting itās āof concernā that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. āTry to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,ā says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. āA Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.ā The apology would have already been issued"
Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'
Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.
Our laws are steeped in many cultures. Bearing false witness, murder and stealing are universally condemned in every major culture, modern and ancient. If you are considering the 10 commandments as part of your argument, we don't use the other 7 and the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd are banned by the constitution. I know you always heard our laws are based on the bible. I heard the same thing, and believed it too, until I actually read it and studied what was said.
Your commentary about the bible on this site has been rife with inaccuracies, misinterpretations, and intentional distortion. I don't consider you qualified to comment on its contents one way or the other.
Which is why judges sometimes recuse thrmselves from cases...but again, you seem to feel that an Atheist can be a judge and let their beliefs influence thrir decisions....or a Muslim, or a Vegan, or a Climate Change fanatic, etc...Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.
And the supreme law of the land precludes religious tests for holding office. Ain't that a bitch.
.
It also precludes a judge from basing his rulings on his religious beliefs instead of the law.
The entire reason Feinstein and Dens singled out this Catholic is because they threaten one of their prized issues - abortions, but when it's their turn to nominate judges they have no problem choosing liberal judges who are 'pro' to their prefered causes and who believe in legislating from the bench.
I'm still not seeing your problem. Republicans choose judges based on their record of the things they support or oppose. Is it somehow unethical or bad that a liberal might as well?
Actually, I don't give two shits about what they support or oppose... that isn't supposed to factor into how they rule. THAT is the difference between conservatives and libs.
Which is why judges sometimes recuse thrmselves from cases...but again, you seem to feel that an Atheist can be a judge and let their beliefs influence thrir decisions....or a Muslim, or a Vegan, or a Climate Change fanatic, etc...And the supreme law of the land precludes religious tests for holding office. Ain't that a bitch.
.
It also precludes a judge from basing his rulings on his religious beliefs instead of the law.
The entire reason Feinstein and Dens singled out this Catholic is because they threaten one of their prized issues - abortions, but when it's their turn to nominate judges they have no problem choosing liberal judges who are 'pro' to their prefered causes and who believe in legislating from the bench.
I'm still not seeing your problem. Republicans choose judges based on their record of the things they support or oppose. Is it somehow unethical or bad that a liberal might as well?
Actually, I don't give two shits about what they support or oppose... that isn't supposed to factor into how they rule. THAT is the difference between conservatives and libs.
Perhaps you don't, but the entire right wing does. Why else would they block Merrick Garland's nomination for 293 days?
Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.
And the supreme law of the land precludes religious tests for holding office. Ain't that a bitch.
.
It also precludes a judge from basing his rulings on his religious beliefs instead of the law.
Really, you have no problem when Ginsberg, Kagan or Sotomayor does it. Do you have any examples of this particular judge doing it in the past?
.
Link? When did Ginsburg, Kagan, or Sotomayor let their religion override the law?
They are solid votes for the regressivism religion. They think the are the sole arbitrators of all things social and can replace congress on legislation. BTW you didn't answer my question.
.
And the supreme law of the land precludes religious tests for holding office. Ain't that a bitch.
.
It also precludes a judge from basing his rulings on his religious beliefs instead of the law.
Really, you have no problem when Ginsberg, Kagan or Sotomayor does it. Do you have any examples of this particular judge doing it in the past?
.
Link? When did Ginsburg, Kagan, or Sotomayor let their religion override the law?
They are solid votes for the regressivism religion. They think the are the sole arbitrators of all things social and can replace congress on legislation. BTW you didn't answer my question.
.
Regressivism religion? I think you're just making stuff up, because I've never seen a Regressivism church. Are they tax exempt like all the other churches? You at least gotta prove that is a religion that exists before you can blame people for following it.
It also precludes a judge from basing his rulings on his religious beliefs instead of the law.
Really, you have no problem when Ginsberg, Kagan or Sotomayor does it. Do you have any examples of this particular judge doing it in the past?
.
Link? When did Ginsburg, Kagan, or Sotomayor let their religion override the law?
They are solid votes for the regressivism religion. They think the are the sole arbitrators of all things social and can replace congress on legislation. BTW you didn't answer my question.
.
Regressivism religion? I think you're just making stuff up, because I've never seen a Regressivism church. Are they tax exempt like all the other churches? You at least gotta prove that is a religion that exists before you can blame people for following it.
You and your ilk prove it with every post. You think government is God and the people must submit to your ideas of morality and your version of the truth, which ain't truth in reality, just regressivism dogma.
.
Her goal is a country where Christians can't influence laws. Cultural genocide. Her group was responsible for dismantling laws passed by the people of a Christian nation and now she has to make sure they don't regain a position to fix that.
Circular.
And they were right!
āDo you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?ā is an unusual and inappropriate question for a senator to ask a judicial nominee. In fact, the Constitution forbids it.
But that didnāt stop Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., from probing Notre Dame Law professor Amy Coney Barrett about her faith. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. D-Calif., also chided Barrett for being a practicing Catholic, proclaiming, āThe dogma lives loudly within you, and thatās of concern.ā
Both senators appear to have forgotten Article VIās admonition that āno religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Officer or public Trust under the United States.ā
Who said religious tests would begin if you voted Trump?And they were right!
āDo you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?ā is an unusual and inappropriate question for a senator to ask a judicial nominee. In fact, the Constitution forbids it.
But that didnāt stop Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., from probing Notre Dame Law professor Amy Coney Barrett about her faith. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. D-Calif., also chided Barrett for being a practicing Catholic, proclaiming, āThe dogma lives loudly within you, and thatās of concern.ā
Both senators appear to have forgotten Article VIās admonition that āno religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Officer or public Trust under the United States.ā
The senatorsā hostility to religion was loudly on display as Barrett and Michigan Supreme Court Justice Joan Larsen appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, having been nominated by the president to fill two federal appellate vacancies.
President Donald Trump nominated Larsen for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Michigan and Barrett for the 7th Circuit in Indiana. Both women have faced bitter scrutiny from the left. This makes sense, as both are brilliant, young, conservative, and female, making them serious contenders for a future Supreme Court vacancy.
After a delay, Democratic senators from both Michigan and Indiana have returned the nomineesā blue slips, allowing their nominations to move forward.
Keep readingā¦
UnConstitutional to even bring the issue into discussion.And they were right!
āDo you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?ā is an unusual and inappropriate question for a senator to ask a judicial nominee. In fact, the Constitution forbids it.
But that didnāt stop Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., from probing Notre Dame Law professor Amy Coney Barrett about her faith. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. D-Calif., also chided Barrett for being a practicing Catholic, proclaiming, āThe dogma lives loudly within you, and thatās of concern.ā
Both senators appear to have forgotten Article VIās admonition that āno religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Officer or public Trust under the United States.ā
Can a Catholic be prohibited from becoming a judge?
Anyone who believes in traditional marriage is a terrorist to you loonsThe reason for this questioning is because of Barrett's ties to Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which is considered to be an anti-gay hate group. Al Franked has asked about her ties to hate groups. However, it is relevant to ask judges whether they put their faith above the law.
