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

[Lysistrata]

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.

Then what is religion about? What good does it do for the people who are in the "out" class and have imposed on them the sort of undignified and ridiculous horseshit that I experienced, which involved a waste of my time and efforts and made me feel like a fool? My experiences made me realize what jackasses a group of males can be, and certainly have inspired me to look at many other alternatives in the realm of spirituality.

 

[Lysistrata]

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...

You're repeated use of terms "Stalinist" and "Communist" is indicative of your high level of ignorance. Moreover, I clearly stated in plain English that I have no objections to anyone sitting on the Court, of any particular religion.

You should know that many Christians have sat on the Supreme Court, and many other Christians have served in other national public offices. The question is not of imposing some kind of a religious test, it is guaranteeing to the American people that no one is put into a position such as Supreme Court justice who will abuse their position to impose specific religious beliefs on the nation. In other words, will the nominee be able to do her or his job in a neutral and honest fashion. The Court's decisions affect millions of people, so this assurance has to be there.

I seem to remember that JFK was questioned about whether he would be an honest president or one who took orders from the Catholic Church.

I seem to remember that Sessions very recently used bible verses to justify his official actions. Not good.

I think that your tune would change quickly if the nominee were Muslim.

 

[Sahba]

In addition to Collins we still have RINO McCain's seat to wonder about... I feel bad for this patriot, (& grateful for his military service) however, when it comes to our Nation's best interests I will never be PC about voicing my opinions on our public servants & their deleterious ideologies!

 

[Silhouette]

In addition to Collins we still have RINO McCain's seat to wonder about... I feel bad for this patriot, (& grateful for his military service) however, when it comes to our Nation's best interests I will never be PC about voicing my opinions on our public servants & their deleterious ideologies!

Ok. So how do you feel about Justice Gisburg doing an interview with the press just weeks before Obergefell saying she felt gay marriage was a thing the country was ready for? (All while she knew a majority objected to it and because of Windsor it would be a direct power grab from states' sovereignty)?

Would you consider Ginsburg's personal worship of the LGBT value system in that light a "deleterious ideology"? It certainly disqualifies her as a USSC Justice. But you don't see the left complaining about her ideology on the job

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Then what is religion about? What good does it do for the people who are in the "out" class and have imposed on them the sort of undignified and ridiculous horseshit that I experienced, which involved a waste of my time and efforts and made me feel like a fool? My experiences made me realize what jackasses a group of males can be, and certainly have inspired me to look at many other alternatives in the realm of spirituality.

the salvation of our immortal soul.

 

[Sahba]

In addition to Collins we still have RINO McCain's seat to wonder about... I feel bad for this patriot, (& grateful for his military service) however, when it comes to our Nation's best interests I will never be PC about voicing my opinions on our public servants & their deleterious ideologies!

Ok. So how do you feel about Justice Gisburg doing an interview with the press just weeks before Obergefell saying she felt gay marriage was a thing the country was ready for? (All while she knew a majority objected to it and because of Windsor it would be a direct power grab from states' sovereignty)?

Would you consider Ginsburg's personal worship of th LGBT value system in that light a "deleterious ideology"? It certainly disqualifies her as a USSC Justice. But you don't see the left complaining about her ideology on the job

Good question! First off there is quite a distinction between a SCJOTUS & a senator, with a constituancy. 2nd. (and no need for a long winded, in the weeds answer here) A SCJOTUS's personal ideologies are irrelevant! Their role is to hold up legislation to the Constitutional, denotative and (in some instances) connotative, letter of the law! (period)

 

[koshergrl]

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?

The law that maintains the right to life.

 

[Silhouette]

In addition to Collins we still have RINO McCain's seat to wonder about... I feel bad for this patriot, (& grateful for his military service) however, when it comes to our Nation's best interests I will never be PC about voicing my opinions on our public servants & their deleterious ideologies!

Ok. So how do you feel about Justice Gisburg doing an interview with the press just weeks before Obergefell saying she felt gay marriage was a thing the country was ready for? (All while she knew a majority objected to it and because of Windsor it would be a direct power grab from states' sovereignty)?

Would you consider Ginsburg's personal worship of th LGBT value system in that light a "deleterious ideology"? It certainly disqualifies her as a USSC Justice. But you don't see the left complaining about her ideology on the job

Good question! First off there is quite a distinction between a SCJOTUS & a senator, with a constituancy. 2nd. (and no need for a long winded, in the weeds answer here) A SCJOTUS's personal ideologies are irrelevant! Their role is to hold up legislation to the Constitutional, denotative and (in some instances) connotative, letter of the law! (period)

So you didn't say though what you think about what Justice Ginsburg did in 2015. Its odd. Every time I bring it up nobody seems to want to discuss it much. It's like Ginsburg blatantly raped the mandate of impartiality of her Office in order to steal power from the sovereign states. It's like when a powerful man rapes a woman & the entire community, including his rape victim, agree to never discuss the crime.

 

[Sahba]

In addition to Collins we still have RINO McCain's seat to wonder about... I feel bad for this patriot, (& grateful for his military service) however, when it comes to our Nation's best interests I will never be PC about voicing my opinions on our public servants & their deleterious ideologies!

Ok. So how do you feel about Justice Gisburg doing an interview with the press just weeks before Obergefell saying she felt gay marriage was a thing the country was ready for? (All while she knew a majority objected to it and because of Windsor it would be a direct power grab from states' sovereignty)?

Would you consider Ginsburg's personal worship of th LGBT value system in that light a "deleterious ideology"? It certainly disqualifies her as a USSC Justice. But you don't see the left complaining about her ideology on the job

Good question! First off there is quite a distinction between a SCJOTUS & a senator, with a constituancy. 2nd. (and no need for a long winded, in the weeds answer here) A SCJOTUS's personal ideologies are irrelevant! Their role is to hold up legislation to the Constitutional, denotative and (in some instances) connotative, letter of the law! (period)

So you didn't say though what you think about what Justice Ginsburg did in 2015. Its odd. Every time I bring it up nobody seems to want to discuss it much. It's like Ginsburg blatantly raped the mandate of impartiality of her Office in order to steal power from the sovereign states. It's like when a powerful man rapes a woman & the entire community, including his rape victim, agree to never discuss the crime.

It is a 'deplorable' overstep of her personal ideologies obfuscating & overshadowing her solemn role as an impartial jurist in the highest court of the land!

 

[Silhouette]

^^Agreed.

 

[Silhouette]

In addition to Collins we still have RINO McCain's seat to wonder about... I feel bad for this patriot, (& grateful for his military service) however, when it comes to our Nation's best interests I will never be PC about voicing my opinions on our public servants & their deleterious ideologies!

Ok. So how do you feel about Justice Gisburg doing an interview with the press just weeks before Obergefell saying she felt gay marriage was a thing the country was ready for? (All while she knew a majority objected to it and because of Windsor it would be a direct power grab from states' sovereignty)?

Would you consider Ginsburg's personal worship of th LGBT value system in that light a "deleterious ideology"? It certainly disqualifies her as a USSC Justice. But you don't see the left complaining about her ideology on the job

Good question! First off there is quite a distinction between a SCJOTUS & a senator, with a constituancy. 2nd. (and no need for a long winded, in the weeds answer here) A SCJOTUS's personal ideologies are irrelevant! Their role is to hold up legislation to the Constitutional, denotative and (in some instances) connotative, letter of the law! (period)

So you didn't say though what you think about what Justice Ginsburg did in 2015. Its odd. Every time I bring it up nobody seems to want to discuss it much. It's like Ginsburg blatantly raped the mandate of impartiality of her Office in order to steal power from the sovereign states. It's like when a powerful man rapes a woman & the entire community, including his rape victim, agree to never discuss the crime.

It is a 'deplorable' overstep of her personal ideologies obfuscating & overshadowing her solemn role as an impartial jurist in the highest court of the land!

Deserving of removal from office?

Let me explain the gravity of Ginsburg's crime. As the last stop of justice in our country, the one set of jurists we expect to be ABSOLUTELY SQUEAKY CLEAN with respect to bias, Ginsburg advertised to the general public, most of which who was opposed to her viewpoint, that 'America is ready for gay marriage'. She did so WEEKS BEFORE the Hearing.

That is akin to Ginsburg declaring herself a dictator on national radio. She completely defiled the sacred requirement that the US Supreme Court is the paragon of fairness in the public's eyes. Once your public gives up on the impartiality of the last stop of justice they have in their land, revolt is not far behind. Unless one isn't familiar with the story of nearly every single account of nations crumbling since time immemorial.

So, deserving of removal from Office?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Law like Roe V. Wade?

That would be one.

So then, the courts are a legislative body?

Or are you acknowledging they flagrantly violated the United States Constitution?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

What basis does the judicial branch have for crafting law to create a "right" to end the life of another?

What basis does the judicial branch have for creating law at all? Can you point to the article or amendment that grants this branch not only legislative power, but Super-legislative power than need no ratification as the inferior legislation of the congress does?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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 courts have annointed themselves a super-legislature vastly above the inferior legislative body of congress. No need for a mere president to sign the laws they craft, they are the power unto themselves. Dictators with unlimited authority. No checks or balances, unrestrained and unfettered power. The SCOTUS IS the law - the ONLY law is their utterance.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A SCOTUS who values millenia old fairy tales over the Constitution is a terrible puck

Obama claimed to be Christian. Did you have a problem with that?

I have more of a problem with the right ignoring an ounce of Prevention is capitally Worth, a pound of cure.

The cancer of America is liberal progressivism
We have a nice surgeon in the white house.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A SCOTUS who values millenia old fairy tales over the Constitution is a terrible pick

Why is it that some people just don't get that we are a nation of secular laws....not a theocracy.

Well kind of because obama picked and chosen what laws he wanted to enforce

 

[Uncensored2008]

]

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

You mean crafting law from whole cloth to further the aspirations of the homosexual lobby over the objections of the people.

You Stalinists LOVE dictatorship.

 

[bodecea]

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

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.

You demand a religious test to weed out Christians. Sotomayor is a Marxist from a Catholic background. Clearly you Marxist object to evangelicals holding office.

Why do you think that she is a ""marxist"? What do you think that being a "marxist" means? Why do you think that "evangelicals" are somehow better? They don't act qualified to lead this nation. Are you a member of the southern baptist religion? Are you a jeffress, graham, focus on the family? Are you?

Answer the question, why don't you oppose Sotomeyer for her STATED non legal BIAS?

Answer the question. yourself. Just who are you affiliated with? Sotomayor never flounced her religion around, scalia did.

Besides his conflicts of interest once a Justice.

 

[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...

You're repeated use of terms "Stalinist" and "Communist" is indicative of your high level of ignorance. Moreover, I clearly stated in plain English that I have no objections to anyone sitting on the Court, of any particular religion.

You should know that many Christians have sat on the Supreme Court, and many other Christians have served in other national public offices. The question is not of imposing some kind of a religious test, it is guaranteeing to the American people that no one is put into a position such as Supreme Court justice who will abuse their position to impose specific religious beliefs on the nation. In other words, will the nominee be able to do her or his job in a neutral and honest fashion. The Court's decisions affect millions of people, so this assurance has to be there.

I seem to remember that JFK was questioned about whether he would be an honest president or one who took orders from the Catholic Church.

I seem to remember that Sessions very recently used bible verses to justify his official actions. Not good.

I think that your tune would change quickly if the nominee were Muslim.

Ignoring your absurd and blatant lies, you Stalinists have thrown down a gauntlet to block Barrette who failed the religious test administered by Comrade Feinstein.

The PROBLEM you commie fucks have is that we don't give a shit. The person who Trump nominates will be seated.

Fuck off and die.

We don't give a shit that you treason monkeys will wail.

 

[Coyote]

Wha

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?

What basis does the judicial branch have for crafting law to create a "right" to end the life of another?

What basis does the judicial branch have for creating law at all? Can you point to the article or amendment that grants this branch not only legislative power, but Super-legislative power than need no ratification as the inferior legislation of the congress does?

What law did they create?