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

[EvilCat Breath]

The left has declared a war o women. Keeping a woman off the Supreme bench is just a part of that war.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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.

Many people think she would be a good one, but I think there could be a better pick I have a some what she could be just a little to much Bible thumping in her decisions, but I might be able to except it., It requires me to do a little more looking before I could rule her out.

 

[Marion Morrison]

So no more Jews?

Depends, do they prioritize their fairy tale over the Constitution?

You have no issue with leftwingers who prioritize their personal politics over the Constitution?

Are they Judges? Are their personal politics based on instructions from sand people that lived thousands of years ago, hoping for special rewards after they’re dead? If not, the Constitution provides avenues for them to change things, and I’m perfectly fine with it.

Still can’t answer simple questions, can you? Leftwingers are the ones that let their personal beliefs dictate how they make decisions, not based on current law. That’s why no leftwinger should ever be allowed on the bench.

I answered the question, stupid. Geez you fools don’t even have the most basic functioning skills.

Could you possibly inject a little more venom, bias, and bullshit into a post?


Hardly.

 

[Nia88]

Quite frankly I think all Supreme Court judges should be atheist. It would be nice to have people who don't judge based on a book of mythology.

 

[Dale Smith]

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.

on

But bannedecea, Common Law was based Judeo-Biblical principles and with that came the Bill of Rights describing what we have as a birthright. It did not grant "rights", it simply explained that these unalienable rights were given to us by our Creator and no man-made construct can take them away.

I find it funny how leftard commies want to use it when it fits their purpose but rant against it when it doesn't. Being a Protestant Christian means unfit for the Supreme Court but Jesuit schooled jurists and their commie leftist cohorts? No fucking problem there.

 

[there4eyeM]

No one who truly believes that his/her religion represents 'God' can separate that faith from her/his actions. To do otherwise would be the definition of hypocrisy. To say otherwise would be to lie.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

This country that you loathe was founded by men who believed that "Fairy Tale"

Yeah, they also pooped in holes in the ground and believed their god supported slavery. We’ve come a long way since then, dipshit.

Apparently not in San Francisco

 

[sparky]

I can see why you think you behold to me
I never want to let you think, or let you see one thing for yourself
But now you’re looking like some Scalia clone
You see I thought that I might pick you for my own

Amy what you want to do?
I think Trump just might pick you
For a while, maybe longer if I do

Don't you think the right wants the christian kind
All the things we thought weren't proper could swing right in time
And can you see
Which way we should thump together not alone
Cuz’ them KKkristian values can’t be wrong
(will it take to long to see)

Amy what you want to do?
I think Trump just might pick you
For a while, maybe longer if I do

Amy what you want to do?
I think Trump just might pick you
For a while, maybe longer if I do

w/apologies to PP leauge

~S~

 

[Darkwind]

Good idea.

Lets get the progressives on record as being religious bigots.

 

[Lysistrata]

Good idea.

Lets get the progressives on record as being religious bigots.

The question is whether a prospective justice is capable of leaving his or her religious views outside of the courtroom and making legal determinations in an impartial manner. This barrett has made no secret of her religious views and could be placed in a position in which she could inflict them on all Americans. I live near D.C., and I can tell you that scalia made religious speeches all over town and allowed his religion to govern his decision making. He did not make any attempt to even appear to be impartial.

The other day, I posted a link to the transcript of the oral argument in the Texas Whole Women's Health case. The justices who are known to be "conservative" did not ask even one question of the person arguing on behalf of the law in question that dealt with the substance of the law, even though major medical groups like the AMA and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology had already filed amicus briefs that totally rejected and undermined the "medical" claims being asserted by the state. This is an example of people appointed to the high court who cannot do their jobs.

It is not religious bigotry to ask whether a judicial nominee is capable of being impartial rather than being an activist for his or her religion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Good idea.

Lets get the progressives on record as being religious bigots.

The question is whether a prospective justice is capable of leaving his or her religious views outside of the courtroom and making legal determinations in an impartial manner. This barrett has made no secret of her religious views and could be placed in a position in which she could inflict them on all Americans. I live near D.C., and I can tell you that scalia made religious speeches all over town and allowed his religion to govern his decision making. He did not make any attempt to even appear to be impartial.

The other day, I posted a link to the transcript of the oral argument in the Texas Whole Women's Health case. The justices who are known to be "conservative" did not ask even one question of the person arguing on behalf of the law in question that dealt with the substance of the law, even though major medical groups like the AMA and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology had already filed amicus briefs that totally rejected and undermined the "medical" claims being asserted by the state. This is an example of people appointed to the high court who cannot do their jobs.

It is not religious bigotry to ask whether a judicial nominee is capable of being impartial rather than being an activist for his or her religion.

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?

 

[Lysistrata]

Good idea.

Lets get the progressives on record as being religious bigots.

The question is whether a prospective justice is capable of leaving his or her religious views outside of the courtroom and making legal determinations in an impartial manner. This barrett has made no secret of her religious views and could be placed in a position in which she could inflict them on all Americans. I live near D.C., and I can tell you that scalia made religious speeches all over town and allowed his religion to govern his decision making. He did not make any attempt to even appear to be impartial.

The other day, I posted a link to the transcript of the oral argument in the Texas Whole Women's Health case. The justices who are known to be "conservative" did not ask even one question of the person arguing on behalf of the law in question that dealt with the substance of the law, even though major medical groups like the AMA and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology had already filed amicus briefs that totally rejected and undermined the "medical" claims being asserted by the state. This is an example of people appointed to the high court who cannot do their jobs.

It is not religious bigotry to ask whether a judicial nominee is capable of being impartial rather than being an activist for his or her religion.

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?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

on

But bannedecea, Common Law was based Judeo-Biblical principles and with that came the Bill of Rights describing what we have as a birthright. It did not grant "rights", it simply explained that these unalienable rights were given to us by our Creator and no man-made construct can take them away.

I find it funny how leftard commies want to use it when it fits their purpose but rant against it when it doesn't. Being a Protestant Christian means unfit for the Supreme Court but Jesuit schooled jurists and their commie leftist cohorts? No fucking problem there.

The right wing usually has nothing but fallacy.

And,

Trade wars are easy to win.

 

[danielpalos]

Good idea.

Lets get the progressives on record as being religious bigots.

the right wing are just plain bigots with nothing but fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

Good idea.

Lets get the progressives on record as being religious bigots.

The question is whether a prospective justice is capable of leaving his or her religious views outside of the courtroom and making legal determinations in an impartial manner. This barrett has made no secret of her religious views and could be placed in a position in which she could inflict them on all Americans. I live near D.C., and I can tell you that scalia made religious speeches all over town and allowed his religion to govern his decision making. He did not make any attempt to even appear to be impartial.

The other day, I posted a link to the transcript of the oral argument in the Texas Whole Women's Health case. The justices who are known to be "conservative" did not ask even one question of the person arguing on behalf of the law in question that dealt with the substance of the law, even though major medical groups like the AMA and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology had already filed amicus briefs that totally rejected and undermined the "medical" claims being asserted by the state. This is an example of people appointed to the high court who cannot do their jobs.

It is not religious bigotry to ask whether a judicial nominee is capable of being impartial rather than being an activist for his or her religion.

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?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Good idea.

Lets get the progressives on record as being religious bigots.

The question is whether a prospective justice is capable of leaving his or her religious views outside of the courtroom and making legal determinations in an impartial manner. This barrett has made no secret of her religious views and could be placed in a position in which she could inflict them on all Americans. I live near D.C., and I can tell you that scalia made religious speeches all over town and allowed his religion to govern his decision making. He did not make any attempt to even appear to be impartial.

The other day, I posted a link to the transcript of the oral argument in the Texas Whole Women's Health case. The justices who are known to be "conservative" did not ask even one question of the person arguing on behalf of the law in question that dealt with the substance of the law, even though major medical groups like the AMA and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology had already filed amicus briefs that totally rejected and undermined the "medical" claims being asserted by the state. This is an example of people appointed to the high court who cannot do their jobs.

It is not religious bigotry to ask whether a judicial nominee is capable of being impartial rather than being an activist for his or her religion.

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?

If she is white and has children, yes.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Democrats think it's suspicious when an 81 year old man retires after 31 years of service. Same folks did not bat an eye when a Supreme Court Judge died face down in a pillow and was quickly cremated with no autopsy. Brutalist

 

[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.

So who is opposing her because she is a Christian?

And why didn't they oppose all of the other Christians on the court?

Those opposing her don't really care about her faith. That's just an excuse. Their real problem is that she's a Republican appointed by Trump.

 

[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.

 

[hadit]

No one who truly believes that his/her religion represents 'God' can separate that faith from her/his actions. To do otherwise would be the definition of hypocrisy. To say otherwise would be to lie.

As we see from most politicians.