Amy Coney Barrett

Phoebe Ann said:

Why is anyone bringing up her religion? How does that disqualify a person? President John F. Kennedy was a Roman Catholic. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was Jewish. Is there a law that says a Supreme Court Justice has to be of a certain religion, political party or persuasion?

Click to expand...

I think those who bring up her religion are concerned about her anti-abortion stance.

She could worship seahorses and popcorn shrimp, it doesn't matter. They oppose her because she was nominated by Trump. Period.

Phoebe Ann said:

Why is anyone bringing up her religion? How does that disqualify a person? President John F. Kennedy was a Roman Catholic. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was Jewish. Is there a law that says a Supreme Court Justice has to be of a certain religion, political party or persuasion?

Click to expand...

No such law however, not sure exactly what "People of Praise" is and stands for. I think that is the question on many minds...haven't researched it much but perhaps someone can edify us all?

Wolseley said:

She could worship seahorses and popcorn shrimp, it doesn't matter. They oppose her because she was nominated by Trump. Period.

Click to expand...

...or perhaps some think that a balanced court best serves the country.

Jamsie said:

...or perhaps some think that a balanced court best serves the country.

Click to expand...

That is where I fall in this.

Phoebe Ann said:

Why is anyone bringing up her religion?

Click to expand...

Because key Democratic members of the Senate Committee that debated this judge's qualifications when she was up for confirmation to the lower court attacked her for being a Catholic.

Albion said:

Because key Democratic members of the Senate Committee that debated this judge's qualifications when she was up for confirmation to the lower court attacked her for being a Catholic.

Click to expand...

I think there is more to it than that... do you know anything about People of Praise? I would think that how one is informed by their beliefs has an impact of their judicial approach to the constitution, don't you? I just don't have time of late to do research on this except to jump in on occasional breaks ...busy time on the farm with Autumn knocking at the door.

Albion said:

Because key Democratic members of the Senate Committee that debated this judge's qualifications when she was up for confirmation to the lower court attacked her for being a Catholic.

Click to expand...

True. And iirc Barrett was grilled by a Jewish Senator who fervently believes in tikun olam. Nothing like hypocrisy with a judicial confirmation. But that's none of my business, I guess.

Jamsie said:

I think there is more to it than that... do you know anything about People of Praise? I would think that how one is informed by their beliefs has an impact of their judicial approach to the constitution, don't you?

Click to expand...

Of course I do. However, the question that was asked wondered why Amy Coney Barrett's religion matters to anyone.

That is because she was attacked by Senators before for being a Catholic. That's it, religious bigotry. No shadings of opinion or other garnish. It was disgraceful, but it happened and it's likely to happen again if she is nominated.

Jamsie said:

...or perhaps some think that a balanced court best serves the country.

Click to expand...

I don't know many people that actually think that. Republicans will say it when a Democrat President nominates a Justice and Democrats will say it when a Republican nominates a Justice but they never say that when it is their team getting to pull the court more toward their positions. What would a balanced Court actually entail? How does one define balance? Along party lines? along judicial philosophy? gender? race? If I could arrange it I would have a Court that stuck strictly to the written text of the Constitution and did not interpret it to fit a political POV. Unfortunately for me and IMO everyone else, that is never going to happen.

Jamsie said:

...or perhaps some think that a balanced court best serves the country.

Click to expand...

I don't. I want God to enact his rule over the country, and the rest of the world, if possible. Anyone that gets in the way of that isn't exactly my friend. "Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

Christians have acquired too much of a taste for democracy, as to be completely normalized to it. They should only want victory for their own side. There is nothing to be gained by entertaining anyone else. "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" - 2 Cor 6:14

It does seem to violate the "no religious test clause".

Phoebe Ann said:

Should we then not replace Justice Ginsberg? They could vote 4 against 4.

Click to expand...

How long did we go with just 8...not too many years ago?

Jamsie said:

I think there is more to it than that... do you know anything about People of Praise? I would think that how one is informed by their beliefs has an impact of their judicial approach to the constitution, don't you? I just don't have time of late to do research on this except to jump in on occasional breaks ...busy time on the farm with Autumn knocking at the door.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of legal reasons to oppose abortion on demand in this country that have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

Phoebe Ann said:

Should we then not replace Justice Ginsberg? They could vote 4 against 4.

Click to expand...

They could, and 4 years ago the left was screaming for a nomination to go forward, the only difference between then and now being that the sitting president wasn't up for election for a second term...

Thing is, RBG was a left wing extremist sitting on the bench, instead of someone who interprets law according to precedent and existing law and how those who wrote the constitution meant and understood the laws they were making.

And the left, wants another extremist and if Trump nominates someone they are far less likely to be an extremist, but rather just a jurist

Hazelelponi said:

There are plenty of legal reasons to oppose abortion on demand in this country that have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

Click to expand...

OK ...