Jump to content


The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

I don't think anyone said she couldn't have a career and had to stay at home. From what I read Woman are encouraged to have careers. The roles are in reference to the home/family/community dynamic. Men = Head, Woman = Handmaid - these groups are separated and tackle different goals within their community. I don't think any of this would be an issue, if it wasn't obvious it would bleed into her position as a supreme court justice.  Hell she said so herself, “legal career is but a means to an end. . . and that end is building the kingdom of God." 

 

For someone who's job it is to uphold the constitution, I have little confidence she will be able to separate church and state.

 

Well, that's how I took your first post on the subject.  

 

Just looking at the bolded quote.  I'm not sure what the problem is with this.  Even though many don't live this way, Christians are encouraged that making money and a big career isn't what's most important.  Following what Christ taught us and living a life that benefits others is what's important.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Well, that's how I took your first post on the subject.  

 

Just looking at the bolded quote.  I'm not sure what the problem is with this.  Even though many don't live this way, Christians are encouraged that making money and a big career isn't what's most important.  Following what Christ taught us and living a life that benefits others is what's important.

 

 

 

I took it as her using her legal career to promote her religion. Being on a influential court is the means, a society influenced by her religion is end. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Well, that's how I took your first post on the subject.  

 

Just looking at the bolded quote.  I'm not sure what the problem is with this.  Even though many don't live this way, Christians are encouraged that making money and a big career isn't what's most important.  Following what Christ taught us and living a life that benefits others is what's important.

 

 

 

I don't necessarily disagree with what you typed.  But if she plans to use a government position to promote a religion, that is very much a problem.  If she plans to use a seat on the Supreme Court to "create a kingdom of God" rather than "uphold the Constitution" she isn't qualified.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I don't necessarily disagree with what you typed.  But if she plans to use a government position to promote a religion, that is very much a problem.  If she plans to use a seat on the Supreme Court to "create a kingdom of God" rather than "uphold the Constitution" she isn't qualified.

Absolutely. I'm guessing the same people okay with a judge promoting christian values, would have an aneurysm if a muslim judge was pushing sharia law.  

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I don't necessarily disagree with what you typed.  But if she plans to use a government position to promote a religion, that is very much a problem.  If she plans to use a seat on the Supreme Court to "create a kingdom of God" rather than "uphold the Constitution" she isn't qualified.

 

1 minute ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

Absolutely. I'm guessing the same people okay with a judge promoting christian values, would have an aneurysm if a muslim judge was pushing sharia law.  

It all depends on what she means by that.  I try to do my live my life how my Christian beliefs say I should. That includes how I do my job.

 

The Dems just nominated a strong Catholic as President.  I'm sure he lives his life (along with doing his job) the way his beliefs say he should.  That doesn't mean he's some radical that's going to come in and dictate everything needs to be all Christian...bla bla bla....

 

I don't have a problem with a Muslim in government that says he lives his life the way his faith dictates.

 

What I'm saying is that this particular quote doesn't bother me.  How she has proven to do her job over a career is much more important.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The Dems just nominated a strong Catholic as President.  I'm sure he lives his life (along with doing his job) the way his beliefs say he should.  That doesn't mean he's some radical that's going to come in and dictate everything needs to be all Christian...bla bla bla....

Joe has shown he can separate his personal religion from his duty to serve ALL citizens regardless of beliefs, Can Amy? If you have LBTGQ or female friends/family, this is something that has to be taken very seriously. 

 

In 2012, she signed a letter entitled “Unacceptable” that protested the Obama administration’s good faith effort to create a compromise in carrying out the contraception mandate under the Affordable Care Act.  Professor Barrett’s letter stated: “This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.  It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.”[10]  This strident letter is a skewed and misleading representation of a careful compromise that would have ensured women’s access to contraception as well as accommodated religious liberty interests by requiring insurance companies, rather than religious employers, to provide the contraceptive coverage.  As a signatory to this letter, Professor Barrett demonstrated a strong bias against women making their own healthcare decisions.

 

Professor Barrett has also expressed deeply held opposition to marriage equality, signing on to an October 2015 letter that stated: “We give witness that the Church’s teachings – on the dignity of the human person and the value of human life from conception to natural death; on the meaning of human sexuality, the significance of sexual difference and the complementarity of men and women; on openness to life and the gift of motherhood; and on marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman – provide a sure guide to the Christian life.”[11]  This language, embraced by Professor Barrett, is in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s June 2015 decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), which established a constitutional right to marriage equality in America.  Professor Barrett’s bias on LGBT issues would require her to recuse in all cases involving LGBT equality and must be explored at her hearing.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

It comes down to Barrett or Lagoa.    Social conservatives trend towards Barrett and the political operatives tend towards Lagoa per this article.  Barrett gives the president a solid conservative jurist who won't turn into a David Souter  once seated on the bench.  Lagoa, is Cuban American and is from the battleground state of Florida which could help Trump in the immediate election and with Hispanics nationwide.

 

This article lists the pros and cons of both

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/22/trump-barrett-lagoa-supreme-court-420045

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...