Amy Coney Barrett

Pathfinder627 said:

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

Click to expand...

Our country was not set-up as a theocracy... I personally do not subscribe to Domionism. What does "victory for our side" entail? Why didn't Jesus openly oppose Rome/Caesar?

Albion said:

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.

Click to expand...

I would agree, except to the extreme, which can be gained without admitting religion to the conversation ... So what is people of praise?

and if you have only 8 and they tie, the lower court's decision holds up. We do not want any court other than SCOTUS making the decision on matters of great importance (such as one relating to the elections coming up, for example).

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...

Bringing up her religion is kind of weird, considering both Biden and Pelosi claim to be devout Catholics.

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...

Her religion should not be an issue....(our constitution prohibits a religious test). A Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Agnostic, Atheist, etc can all serve. A potential USSC judge should be evaluated based on his/her ability, experience and historical rulings.

Searching1God said:

Bringing up her religion is kind of weird, considering both Biden and Pelosi claim to be devout Catholics.

Click to expand...

Neither of them is on the Senate committee that presumably will cross-examine the nominee.

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...

As Christians we should be troubled when people say they are willing to separate their Christian faith and morality from the discharge of their office. For believers this is not really possible and yet atheists expect it of us. We should reject such a view as it is impossible for our faith to not guide every aspect of our lives.

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...

Your post makes me hungry for seafood.

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...

It's because the people who bring up her religion.... are anti semetic... and.. racist.

Look, there is no "fair" in hyperbole... There is no "logic" in radicals.. There is no "integrity" among those in a rage.

People today are given full on right to lose their minds... if something doesn't go the way they want.. or if people don't do as they say.

People no longer respect the authority of their parents, their teachers, their police, their courts or.. their God.

Albion said:

Neither of them is on the Senate committee that presumably will cross-examine the nominee.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you are trying to say...

I haven't read all of the comments. Perhaps it has already been stated. It should not matter at all what personal beliefs an appointee holds as long as they vow to uphold the constitution and the law. Isn't that how the entire justice system is supposed to work? You will never, ever find anyone who doesn't have opinions on the right or left.

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...

She is not Pro-Life and many consider that the only issue there is. I don't recall any similar complaints about Ginsburg living too long though.

- Before Ginsburg, state-funded schools didn't have to admit women
- Some banks did not allow women to sign a mortgage or have a bank account without a male co-signer
- Ginsburg helped women make strides toward equal pay
- She pushed to protect pregnant women in the workplace
- Ginsburg argued women should serve on juries

Jamsie said:

Our country was not set-up as a theocracy... I personally do not subscribe to Domionism. What does "victory for our side" entail? Why didn't Jesus openly oppose Rome/Caesar?

Click to expand...

I'm not a Dominionist, if you mean the specific charismatic cult with self-proclaimed apostles. I'm just a citizen of the kingdom of God.

Jesus did oppose the entire world order - and conquered it. "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me." He just didn't do it by violence or coercion. Nor do I. Just because I want a government to stop murdering innocents - and to care about the social contract that insures everyone's freedom (and not just the mothers') doesn't mean I'm the violent or coercive one. Rather, they're the violent ones. They are the ones putting their own desires over the lives of other people.

And what he said was to give Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Not to obey Caesar in everything. If Caesar wants his coins with his face on them, then give them to him. It doesn't mean that serving Christ is the same as serving the Antichrist.

SkyWriting said:

- Before Ginsburg, state-funded schools didn't have to admit women
- Women couldn't sign a mortgage or have a bank account without a male co-signer
- Ginsburg helped women make strides toward equal pay
- She pushed to protect pregnant women in the workplace
- Ginsburg argued women should serve on juries

Click to expand...

Are you kidding?
My mother when she moved to this country had bank accounts without male co-signers before 1974.

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act made it ILLEGAL to discriminate against women in those areas, but it does NOT mean that women couldn't sign a mortgage or have bank accounts without male co-signers.

It never fails to amaze me how the left is rewriting history.

SkyWriting said:

She is not Pro-Life...

Click to expand...

Sure she is. You shouldn't just run around lying about things.

...

Searching1God said:

Are you kidding?
My mother when she moved to this country had bank accounts without male co-signers before 1974.

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act made it ILLEGAL to discriminate against women in those areas, but it does NOT mean that women couldn't sign a mortgage or have bank accounts without male co-signers.

It never fails to amaze me how the left is rewriting history.

Click to expand...

The only area where women specifically needed a male co-signer to my knowledge was when obtaining a business loan...

That was done away with via congressional legislation in 1988 and had nothing to do with the ACLU whatsoever.

I was actually a recipient of that legislation in 1992, but again, nothing to do with Ginsberg.

The problem is that scotus as been treated as a second legislative branch. A super legislative branch. Congress shirked their constitutional right and duty to pass laws that are controversial and so they defer to 9 unelected justices to solve problems that are rightfully in the arena of congress. That’s what happens when you treat a text as a “living document” instead of having specific meaning. It’s tacit agreement that the only limiting factor that matters are words on a page. Weird.

Regarding a 2012 ruling upholding the law’s individual mandate by a 5-to-4 margin, Barrett also criticized Chief Justice John Roberts, saying he had “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.”

Click to expand...

Amy Coney Barrett’s past critiques on Obamacare face scrutiny
I have no patience with Republican justices wanting to turn our country into a banana republic, the ONLY industrialized country in the world without universal health care. ACA did not provide universal health care, but it was a first step towards that ambitious goal, which has saved the lives of many people since it was enacted.
Our constitution was written by idealists who envisioned a country that would exert moral leadership encoded in its constitution--not a nation that has fallen far behind the rest of the developed world.

Fantine said:

Regarding a 2012 ruling upholding the law’s individual mandate by a 5-to-4 margin, Barrett also criticized Chief Justice John Roberts, saying he had “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.”

Click to expand...

Amy Coney Barrett’s past critiques on Obamacare face scrutiny
I have no patience with Republican justices wanting to turn our country into a banana republic, the ONLY industrialized country in the world without universal health care. ACA did not provide universal health care, but it was a first step towards that ambitious goal, which has saved the lives of many people since it was enacted.
Our constitution was written by idealists who envisioned a country that would exert moral leadership encoded in its constitution--not a nation that has fallen far behind the rest of the developed world.

Click to expand...

In context, that quote came from when she was summarizing the opinion of the author of the book she was reviewing. She did imply agreement, but it is silly to say she "criticized Justice John Roberts" with that remark when she was actually saying what the book she was reviewing.

I believe I pointed this out to you before when you pulled out that quote; did you not see my post then?

Democrats don't want their power in the court to wane. A dedicated Catholic woman who embodies the faith in her career and life are not what the left desires out of religion. They want more a Joe Biden like Catholicism, where it has no impact on policy and abortion is never challenged.