Progressives scrambles to block potential Supreme Court nominee Amy C. Barrett because she is a ...

[koshergrl]

Supreme Court candidates' views on abortion under scrutiny

She has spoken publicly about her conviction that life begins at conception, and in a 2003 law journal article, she argued that courts could be more flexible in overturning prior "errors" in precedent. She noted that courts have struggled over when to keep "an erroneous decision" on the books, citing as an example Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a major 1992 Supreme Court ruling that upheld Roe.

So which of her decisions were driven by her convictions over the Constitution? Be specific.

And since we already have justices wanting to use foreign law Instagram of our own, I'm not sure what your complaint really is.

What I am actually concerned about is a willingness to overturn established law.

Like when they outlawed slavery?

And overturned the established law that protected babies?

 

[hadit]

Supreme Court candidates' views on abortion under scrutiny

She has spoken publicly about her conviction that life begins at conception, and in a 2003 law journal article, she argued that courts could be more flexible in overturning prior "errors" in precedent. She noted that courts have struggled over when to keep "an erroneous decision" on the books, citing as an example Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a major 1992 Supreme Court ruling that upheld Roe.

So which of her decisions were driven by her convictions over the Constitution? Be specific.

And since we already have justices wanting to use foreign law Instagram of our own, I'm not sure what your complaint really is.

What I am actually concerned about is a willingness to overturn established law.

Be honest. You're afraid Roe is on the chopping block. If there's an aspect of it that's unconstitutional, it should be overturned.

 

[Dragonlady]

Progressives Scramble To Block Potential Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Because She Is A Committed Christian - The American Dream
There is a lot of buzz that Amy Coney Barrett is going to be President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, and that is causing many progressives to totally freak out. The reason that they are freaking out doesn’t have anything to do with her credentials. In fact, as you will see below, Barrett is exceptionally qualified to be on the Supreme Court. She is sharp, intelligent and has a sterling reputation. But the left is already throwing a massive temper tantrum even though she isn’t the nominee yet for one very simple reason. Amy Coney Barrett is a committed Christian, and progressives are deathly afraid that her Christian values will influence her decisions on social issues.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Oh no we can't have a Christian in there I mean God forbid getting someone in there who would actualy judge fairly, or might have compassion unlike these loser fks who want to make everything and anything unethical , ethical because they think their power to control is above everyone else.

Let's get someone in there who isn't an ANTIFA fk.

Well that’s because she puts the Bible before the Constitution and would overturn settled law. She’s a Trump appointee to the Appeals Court and she’s only had that position for a year so she’s lacking in the experience column. And she’s openly hostile to Roe v Wade, but then all of the names on the Federalist list are.

There are a number of potential cases headed to the SC that involve the President. Can the President be subpoenaed? Can he be indicted? Can he pardon himself? The President should not get to pick his judges. This pick should wait until after Mueller Giles his report. At the very least, both of Trump’s picks would have to recuse themselves.

The people have a right to a say. Isn’t that what McConnell said?

 

[hadit]

Progressives Scramble To Block Potential Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Because She Is A Committed Christian - The American Dream
There is a lot of buzz that Amy Coney Barrett is going to be President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, and that is causing many progressives to totally freak out. The reason that they are freaking out doesn’t have anything to do with her credentials. In fact, as you will see below, Barrett is exceptionally qualified to be on the Supreme Court. She is sharp, intelligent and has a sterling reputation. But the left is already throwing a massive temper tantrum even though she isn’t the nominee yet for one very simple reason. Amy Coney Barrett is a committed Christian, and progressives are deathly afraid that her Christian values will influence her decisions on social issues.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Oh no we can't have a Christian in there I mean God forbid getting someone in there who would actualy judge fairly, or might have compassion unlike these loser fks who want to make everything and anything unethical , ethical because they think their power to control is above everyone else.

Let's get someone in there who isn't an ANTIFA fk.

Well that’s because she puts the Bible before the Constitution and would overturn settled law. She’s a Trump appointee to the Appeals Court and she’s only had that position for a year so she’s lacking in the experience column. And she’s openly hostile to Roe v Wade, but then all of the names on the Federalist list are.

There are a number of potential cases headed to the SC that involve the President. Can the President be subpoenaed? Can he be indicted? Can he pardon himself? The President should not get to pick his judges. This pick should wait until after Mueller Giles his report. At the very least, both of Trump’s picks would have to recuse themselves.

The people have a right to a say. Isn’t that what McConnell said?

Can you point to a decision she's made that "puts the Bible before the Constitution and would overturn settled law"?

 

[Coyote]

Supreme Court candidates' views on abortion under scrutiny

She has spoken publicly about her conviction that life begins at conception, and in a 2003 law journal article, she argued that courts could be more flexible in overturning prior "errors" in precedent. She noted that courts have struggled over when to keep "an erroneous decision" on the books, citing as an example Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a major 1992 Supreme Court ruling that upheld Roe.

So which of her decisions were driven by her convictions over the Constitution? Be specific.

And since we already have justices wanting to use foreign law Instagram of our own, I'm not sure what your complaint really is.

What I am actually concerned about is a willingness to overturn established law.

Be honest. You're afraid Roe is on the chopping block. If there's an aspect of it that's unconstitutional, it should be overturned.

I oppose overturning it yes. But I also oppose overturning laws that are considered established with a considerable caseload supporting that decision. You guys would term such a judge as activist. If someone starts down that road, where does it end? Every time there is a ideological shift in the courts they go back down the list and overturn prior rulings? Think. Roe v Wade this time...might be your precious gunrights next. There are decisions I would love to see reversed (citizens united) but picking a judge based upon a willingness to do that is dangerous imo.

 

[Coyote]

Supreme Court candidates' views on abortion under scrutiny

She has spoken publicly about her conviction that life begins at conception, and in a 2003 law journal article, she argued that courts could be more flexible in overturning prior "errors" in precedent. She noted that courts have struggled over when to keep "an erroneous decision" on the books, citing as an example Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a major 1992 Supreme Court ruling that upheld Roe.

So which of her decisions were driven by her convictions over the Constitution? Be specific.

And since we already have justices wanting to use foreign law Instagram of our own, I'm not sure what your complaint really is.

What I am actually concerned about is a willingness to overturn established law.

Like when they outlawed slavery?

What was the Supreme Courts role? What decisions did they overturn? They don’t make law.

 

[hadit]

Supreme Court candidates' views on abortion under scrutiny

She has spoken publicly about her conviction that life begins at conception, and in a 2003 law journal article, she argued that courts could be more flexible in overturning prior "errors" in precedent. She noted that courts have struggled over when to keep "an erroneous decision" on the books, citing as an example Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a major 1992 Supreme Court ruling that upheld Roe.

So which of her decisions were driven by her convictions over the Constitution? Be specific.

And since we already have justices wanting to use foreign law Instagram of our own, I'm not sure what your complaint really is.

What I am actually concerned about is a willingness to overturn established law.

Be honest. You're afraid Roe is on the chopping block. If there's an aspect of it that's unconstitutional, it should be overturned.

I oppose overturning it yes. But I also oppose overturning laws that are considered established with a considerable caseload supporting that decision. You guys would term such a judge as activist. If someone starts down that road, where does it end? Every time there is a ideological shift in the courts they go back down the list and overturn prior rulings? Think. Roe v Wade this time...might be your precious gunrights next. There are decisions I would love to see reversed (citizens united) but picking a judge based upon a willingness to do that is dangerous imo.

Actually, we prefer originalists, jurists who rule based on the Constitution's original meaning, not what's been cooked up between then and now to justify otherwise unconstitutional expansions of government power. If that means overruning something that is popular, so be it.

Within that are protections for the free exercise of religion. That means no religious tests for public office or running a business. The law applies equally to all, which means no protected classes. Either all are accommodated and protected or none are.

Speech is protected from government interference, and so is the reaction to that speech. That means Kathy Griffen is free to be obnoxious and the public is free to turn their backs on her. And on it goes. What is so scary about that?

 

[Silhouette]

Progressives Scramble To Block Potential Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Because She Is A Committed Christian - The American Dream
There is a lot of buzz that Amy Coney Barrett is going to be President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, and that is causing many progressives to totally freak out. The reason that they are freaking out doesn’t have anything to do with her credentials. In fact, as you will see below, Barrett is exceptionally qualified to be on the Supreme Court. She is sharp, intelligent and has a sterling reputation. But the left is already throwing a massive temper tantrum even though she isn’t the nominee yet for one very simple reason. Amy Coney Barrett is a committed Christian, and progressives are deathly afraid that her Christian values will influence her decisions on social issues.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Oh no we can't have a Christian in there I mean God forbid getting someone in there who would actualy judge fairly, or might have compassion unlike these loser fks who want to make everything and anything unethical , ethical because they think their power to control is above everyone else.

Let's get someone in there who isn't an ANTIFA fk.

Well that’s because she puts the Bible before the Constitution and would overturn settled law. She’s a Trump appointee to the Appeals Court and she’s only had that position for a year so she’s lacking in the experience column. And she’s openly hostile to Roe v Wade, but then all of the names on the Federalist list are.

There are a number of potential cases headed to the SC that involve the President. Can the President be subpoenaed? Can he be indicted? Can he pardon himself? The President should not get to pick his judges. This pick should wait until after Mueller Giles his report. At the very least, both of Trump’s picks would have to recuse themselves.

The people have a right to a say. Isn’t that what McConnell said?

Can you point to a decision she's made that "puts the Bible before the Constitution and would overturn settled law"?

I can point to a public interview in 2015 that Justice Ginsburg did that put the LGBT cult before the Constitutional mandate on unbiased tribunals.

 

[danielpalos]

Again I ask where is the record of her doing any such thing, she is a sitting Judge surely sine you claim it you can back it up with examples of her decisions from the bench?

Amy Coney Barrett & Roe v. Wade: Her Position on Abortion | Heavy.com

You know that this person is highly controversial. You are stoking the fires. Why is this person in contention rather than someone who has not stood out as an ideological activist?

Americans have a right to have our cases decided by an impartial judiciary.

BTW: exactly why was it that a group of justices did not question the Texas solicitor general defending the Texas law, particularly in view of all of the briefs submitted?

Should women be denied the vote as well?

What does your comment mean except to be misogynist? I was born a Catholic. It is truly a religion that devalues the female half of humanity and has rules enshrining penis-worship. It even bans anyone who does not have a penis from its leadership ranks. I remember having to pin a tissue to my head just to enter a church. I even ended up in St. Peter's with my Holy Mommy This woman apparently has been brainwashed in a joke of a religion.

Lousy female intuition, does that. We are all talk here. Where are your wonderful arguments? Damsels in distress really are worthless when there is no porn involved.

So you will reject all of the evidence that this woman is an ideological activist?

Figures. Personally, I can attest that I experienced what I wrote. All the shit, even down to the person who stopped me from entering St. Peter's until I arranged covering for my shoulders, and walking the catacombs. Where are your arguments that justify what I, personally, have experienced? I actually went through this shit, moron. Are you calling me a liar? Do you have any rational explanation as to what happened to myself as a teenager, in Rome with Holy Mommy?

Religion is not about, "equality". That is the whole and entire flaw, in your argument.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This person has BAGGAGE, like it or not. Why nominate someone who has such controversial baggage when there are so many qualified people out there who have none and have not been open ideological activists?

I keep asking you to cite any decisions she made that show bias, that you can't and keep spouting off anti Religious dogma is all I need to know.

You still shirk the question of why a documented ideological activist is in contention for the Supreme Court. I certainly never said anything that can be construed as anti-religious. I'm perfectly content with a learned Jewish person, a learned Episcopalian, etc. from the Christian faith, a learned Wiccan, a learned Muslim, a learned Hindu, a learned Sikh, et al.

So then, what you demand is a religious test to weed out the Christians that you and the rest of the Stalinists hate .

Are you really going to lie that Elena Kagan was not a documented ideological activist when Obama appointed her? I mean, of course you will, you're a Communist, you lie.

But do you REALLY think rational people won't look at your reeking hypocrisy and laugh at you?

Comrade, we have considered the demand you and your fellow Stalinists have made for a religious test...

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
What I am actually concerned about is a willingness to overturn established law.

Law like Roe V. Wade?

 

[Uncensored2008]

And overturned the established law that protected babies?

Is the SCOTUS a legislative branch superior to Congress, as Coyote claims?

What is this "established law?" Laws created by courts in direct violation of the Constitution?

 

[Silhouette]

[
What I am actually concerned about is a willingness to overturn established law.

Law like Roe V. Wade?

Wait...previous USSC Decisions can be overturned? Some would have us believe that's not the case. Could they overturn say, a case where one of the Justices openly advertised to the press just weeks before the Hearing that she was biased in favor of one set of the litigants? Say, around 2015?

Sorry it's not Roe v. Wade. I'm pretty sure that even Mrs. Barrett wouldn't want her John Hancock on something that would result in back-alley abortions killing women again.

 

[Uncensored2008]

we have a First Amendment.

We wouldn't if Hillary had been elected and installed another Kagan type Marxist.

We don't take our representatives to Government seriously about morals, once they enter public office, only politics and the law.

Your fellow Communists demand that a religious test be administered so that no Christian may serve on the court.

Such bullshit. There is no "religious test", just a search for assurances that a justice will not bring his or her religion into the court room and decisions that affect all Americans. Justice Sotomayor is a Christian, even graduating from Cardinal Spellman High School.

Please get off of this false idea that all Christians are the same. The Christian faith comes in many different forms and varieties. Not everyone is a Roman Catholic or a member of the Southern Baptist religion.

Did you complain about bias when Sotomayor said she would make decisions based on her female latino experiences?

This attempt to foreshadow a possible nomination actually reveals the depth of their understanding that they are helpless in stopping any nomination Trump makes and they hope to gin up a large enough 'outrage' that he'll have to back down like he did with the border noncrisis.

I find it somewhat comforting that they fear it so much that they'll even expose their bigotry to try and prevent it.

Border non crisis? Here beats a hard, cruel heart that sees nothing wrong with separating thousands of children from their parents who weren't committing any serious crimes.

Funny how it was never wrong when Obama was doing it - as the 2014 photos that the lying fucks of the Communist press claimed were Trump prove.

Now it's just the worst.

How does that work? Hypocrisy is something I don't really understand...

 

[Coyote]

[
What I am actually concerned about is a willingness to overturn established law.

Law like Roe V. Wade?

That would be one.

 

[Coyote]

Supreme Court candidates' views on abortion under scrutiny

She has spoken publicly about her conviction that life begins at conception, and in a 2003 law journal article, she argued that courts could be more flexible in overturning prior "errors" in precedent. She noted that courts have struggled over when to keep "an erroneous decision" on the books, citing as an example Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a major 1992 Supreme Court ruling that upheld Roe.

So which of her decisions were driven by her convictions over the Constitution? Be specific.

And since we already have justices wanting to use foreign law Instagram of our own, I'm not sure what your complaint really is.

What I am actually concerned about is a willingness to overturn established law.

Be honest. You're afraid Roe is on the chopping block. If there's an aspect of it that's unconstitutional, it should be overturned.

I oppose overturning it yes. But I also oppose overturning laws that are considered established with a considerable caseload supporting that decision. You guys would term such a judge as activist. If someone starts down that road, where does it end? Every time there is a ideological shift in the courts they go back down the list and overturn prior rulings? Think. Roe v Wade this time...might be your precious gunrights next. There are decisions I would love to see reversed (citizens united) but picking a judge based upon a willingness to do that is dangerous imo.

Actually, we prefer originalists, jurists who rule based on the Constitution's original meaning, not what's been cooked up between then and now to justify otherwise unconstitutional expansions of government power. If that means overruning something that is popular, so be it.

Within that are protections for the free exercise of religion. That means no religious tests for public office or running a business. The law applies equally to all, which means no protected classes. Either all are accommodated and protected or none are.

Speech is protected from government interference, and so is the reaction to that speech. That means Kathy Griffen is free to be obnoxious and the public is free to turn their backs on her. And on it goes. What is so scary about that?

So, do you think that rights, once given, can be overturned and taken away?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So which of her decisions were driven by her convictions over the Constitution? Be specific.

And since we already have justices wanting to use foreign law Instagram of our own, I'm not sure what your complaint really is.

What I am actually concerned about is a willingness to overturn established law.

Be honest. You're afraid Roe is on the chopping block. If there's an aspect of it that's unconstitutional, it should be overturned.

I oppose overturning it yes. But I also oppose overturning laws that are considered established with a considerable caseload supporting that decision. You guys would term such a judge as activist. If someone starts down that road, where does it end? Every time there is a ideological shift in the courts they go back down the list and overturn prior rulings? Think. Roe v Wade this time...might be your precious gunrights next. There are decisions I would love to see reversed (citizens united) but picking a judge based upon a willingness to do that is dangerous imo.

Actually, we prefer originalists, jurists who rule based on the Constitution's original meaning, not what's been cooked up between then and now to justify otherwise unconstitutional expansions of government power. If that means overruning something that is popular, so be it.

Within that are protections for the free exercise of religion. That means no religious tests for public office or running a business. The law applies equally to all, which means no protected classes. Either all are accommodated and protected or none are.

Speech is protected from government interference, and so is the reaction to that speech. That means Kathy Griffen is free to be obnoxious and the public is free to turn their backs on her. And on it goes. What is so scary about that?

So, do you think that rights, once given, can be overturned and taken away?

Rights are not given by courts. The law is created by legislature not Courts.

 

[Coyote]

What I am actually concerned about is a willingness to overturn established law.

Be honest. You're afraid Roe is on the chopping block. If there's an aspect of it that's unconstitutional, it should be overturned.

I oppose overturning it yes. But I also oppose overturning laws that are considered established with a considerable caseload supporting that decision. You guys would term such a judge as activist. If someone starts down that road, where does it end? Every time there is a ideological shift in the courts they go back down the list and overturn prior rulings? Think. Roe v Wade this time...might be your precious gunrights next. There are decisions I would love to see reversed (citizens united) but picking a judge based upon a willingness to do that is dangerous imo.

Actually, we prefer originalists, jurists who rule based on the Constitution's original meaning, not what's been cooked up between then and now to justify otherwise unconstitutional expansions of government power. If that means overruning something that is popular, so be it.

Within that are protections for the free exercise of religion. That means no religious tests for public office or running a business. The law applies equally to all, which means no protected classes. Either all are accommodated and protected or none are.

Speech is protected from government interference, and so is the reaction to that speech. That means Kathy Griffen is free to be obnoxious and the public is free to turn their backs on her. And on it goes. What is so scary about that?

So, do you think that rights, once given, can be overturned and taken away?

Rights are not given by courts. The law is created by legislature not Courts.

The court rules on it. For example striking down same sex marriage bans.

 

[hadit]

So which of her decisions were driven by her convictions over the Constitution? Be specific.

And since we already have justices wanting to use foreign law Instagram of our own, I'm not sure what your complaint really is.

What I am actually concerned about is a willingness to overturn established law.

Be honest. You're afraid Roe is on the chopping block. If there's an aspect of it that's unconstitutional, it should be overturned.

I oppose overturning it yes. But I also oppose overturning laws that are considered established with a considerable caseload supporting that decision. You guys would term such a judge as activist. If someone starts down that road, where does it end? Every time there is a ideological shift in the courts they go back down the list and overturn prior rulings? Think. Roe v Wade this time...might be your precious gunrights next. There are decisions I would love to see reversed (citizens united) but picking a judge based upon a willingness to do that is dangerous imo.

Actually, we prefer originalists, jurists who rule based on the Constitution's original meaning, not what's been cooked up between then and now to justify otherwise unconstitutional expansions of government power. If that means overruning something that is popular, so be it.

Within that are protections for the free exercise of religion. That means no religious tests for public office or running a business. The law applies equally to all, which means no protected classes. Either all are accommodated and protected or none are.

Speech is protected from government interference, and so is the reaction to that speech. That means Kathy Griffen is free to be obnoxious and the public is free to turn their backs on her. And on it goes. What is so scary about that?

So, do you think that rights, once given, can be overturned and taken away?

I think that government rarely moves in the direction of granting more freedoms, more rights. Government hand the tendency to move toward restricting and eliminating rights.

 

[Silhouette]

So, do you think that rights, once given, can be overturned and taken away?

Yes, if it was found they were granted on a false premise. Like mistaking innate things that can't be helped for, say, a lifestyle that was adopted long after birth. I'm not aware of lifestyles having "rights". Especially if the majority rejects them. Because if one of those minority lifestyles got special immunity from majority-rule, then the 14th Amendment says that all minority lifestyles repugnant to the majority must also have immunity from democratic rule. The 14th doesn't allow to pick and choose favorites as you well know.

So if that unworkable premise was allowed to slip through, it would have to be overturned because the alternative is unthinkable. It would unravel State's rights to govern themselves at all at the end of the day. Where would you draw the line? You couldn't.