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

[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?

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.

 

[hadit]

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?

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.

Which of her decisions demonstrate a Catholic, non- institutional bias?

 

[Lysistrata]

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?

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.

Which of her decisions demonstrate a Catholic, non- institutional bias?

I already posted a link (No. 112) to her ideological activism. Why should we take the gamble that she will not continue her activism on the bench? There are many other qualified candidates who do not come with this amount of baggage. And I have already noted scalia's misconduct on the bench.

 

[Borillar]

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.

All the Justices are either Christian or Jewish. How is it we are supposed to be afraid of yet another one?

 

[Darkwind]

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.

This Barrett (it is petty to refuse to use proper capitalization and removes your credibility) has been serving with distinction on the bench for years. It only now becomes an issue because the left uses the court to circumvent the legislative process when their arguments fail to persuade.

I know of no complaints in which she placed her religion above the rule of law she is sworn to uphold.

It IS telling that the left made such a huge NOISE about the insult to a Hispanic judge when Trump called into question HIS professionalism, but now it seems to be perfectly acceptable to do so.

Barrett is fully qualified to sit the bench at the SCOTUS.

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

All the Justices are either Christian or Jewish. How is it we are supposed to be afraid of yet another one?

They did not come with disturbing records of ideologically-based activism that raised questions as to whether they were trustworthy. See my comment at #110 regarding the oral argument in the Whole Women's Health case and the disturbing lack of questioning by the male Catholic justices. Did they even read the amicus briefs filed by medical professional organizations? Sitting down on the job???

 

[BookShaka]

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.

Very strange that a so-called “misogynist” would nominate a woman to be a judge in the highest court in the land, hmm? What’s your take, Trump haters?

 

[MindWars]

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.

All the Justices are either Christian or Jewish. How is it we are supposed to be afraid of yet another one?

In todays world it's a difficult choice lol. ......

 

[Darkwind]

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?

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.

I see. You're a misandrist and a religious bigot.

 

[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.

This Barrett (it is petty to refuse to use proper capitalization and removes your credibility) has been serving with distinction on the bench for years. It only now becomes an issue because the left uses the court to circumvent the legislative process when their arguments fail to persuade.

I know of no complaints in which she placed her religion above the rule of law she is sworn to uphold.

It IS telling that the left made such a huge NOISE about the insult to a Hispanic judge when Trump called into question HIS professionalism, but now it seems to be perfectly acceptable to do so.

Barrett is fully qualified to sit the bench at the SCOTUS.

She is unqualified as a vocal ideological activist. Guess you can't comment on the performance, or lack thereof, of the male Catholic justices in the Texas case. Or on scalia's misconduct.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Which of her decisions demonstrate a Catholic, non- institutional bias?

I already posted a link (No. 112) to her ideological activism. Why should we take the gamble that she will not continue her activism on the bench? There are many other qualified candidates who do not come with this amount of baggage. And I have already noted scalia's misconduct on the bench.

You have no proof of her activism on the bench, yet have no problem with controversial activism by the left on the bench?

You are quickly making yourself into a joke.

If a judge held the activist position that abortion was okay, you'd have no problem with it.

Since abortion isn't even on the table for the foreseeable future, I find it easy to dismiss you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Which of her decisions demonstrate a Catholic, non- institutional bias?

I already posted a link (No. 112) to her ideological activism. Why should we take the gamble that she will not continue her activism on the bench? There are many other qualified candidates who do not come with this amount of baggage. And I have already noted scalia's misconduct on the bench.

Look dumb ass she is a sitting Judge now be specific and cite for us ANY decision she made AS A JUDGE that supports your ignorant biased anti religious claim.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

This Barrett (it is petty to refuse to use proper capitalization and removes your credibility) has been serving with distinction on the bench for years. It only now becomes an issue because the left uses the court to circumvent the legislative process when their arguments fail to persuade.

I know of no complaints in which she placed her religion above the rule of law she is sworn to uphold.

It IS telling that the left made such a huge NOISE about the insult to a Hispanic judge when Trump called into question HIS professionalism, but now it seems to be perfectly acceptable to do so.

Barrett is fully qualified to sit the bench at the SCOTUS.

She is unqualified as a vocal ideological activist. Guess you can't comment on the performance, or lack thereof, of the male Catholic justices in the Texas case. Or on scalia's misconduct.

I don't comment on biased, agenda-driven information. I just accept it for what its worth. Nothing.

She is NOT unqualified any more than RBG.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

All the Justices are either Christian or Jewish. How is it we are supposed to be afraid of yet another one?

They did not come with disturbing records of ideologically-based activism that raised questions as to whether they were trustworthy. See my comment at #110 regarding the oral argument in the Whole Women's Health case and the disturbing lack of questioning by the male Catholic justices. Did they even read the amicus briefs filed by medical professional organizations? Sitting down on the job???

Has NOTHING to do with this woman dumb ass. Further I dont recall you whining about Sotomyer said she was going to use her experience as a latino woman to make decisions.

 

[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.

This Barrett (it is petty to refuse to use proper capitalization and removes your credibility) has been serving with distinction on the bench for years. It only now becomes an issue because the left uses the court to circumvent the legislative process when their arguments fail to persuade.

I know of no complaints in which she placed her religion above the rule of law she is sworn to uphold.

It IS telling that the left made such a huge NOISE about the insult to a Hispanic judge when Trump called into question HIS professionalism, but now it seems to be perfectly acceptable to do so.

Barrett is fully qualified to sit the bench at the SCOTUS.

She is unqualified as a vocal ideological activist. Guess you can't comment on the performance, or lack thereof, of the male Catholic justices in the Texas case. Or on scalia's misconduct.

I REPEAT CITE FOR US any ruling she made as a Judge that backs your claim, and no Scalia is not her.

 

[toobfreak]

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

You heard it first right from the mouth of the Left!
A SCOTUS who values:

• Love and tolerance for others
• Fidelity in marriage
• Spiritual values
  
• Forgiveness
• Unconditional love
• Sexual modesty
• Preservation and value of all life
• A belief in the intelligent design of the universe, and
  
• Traditional morality and fair ethics for all

is not only in conflict with the Constitution, but would make a "terrible pick" for the Supreme Court!

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Unless they are Muslim, of course.


Tell you what, we win, you lose.

Suck it commie.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[Borillar]

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

Yeah, a war. That’s why liberals have put three women on the Supreme Court.