Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree19Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 13th, 2017, 12:06 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
Trump Appellate Nominee Says Her Religion Supersedes the Constitution


Anyone serving in the U.S. Government has to abide by the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land, but that is not the ardent belief of Trump's nominee to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The idea that the Constitution is secondary to a judge's religious belief has been a growing threat for a decade or so, but now that threat is becoming reality as America lurches toward an evangelical theocracy. For far too long politicians have looked the other way as theocracy-minded evangelicals have infected the government hoping to spread their bastardized version of Christianity like a virulent plague.

At least now some members of the Senate realize the danger of a religious fanatic serving as an appeals court judge, but it is likely far too late to stop a serious threat to the rule of law by a Trump nominee who said judges have a duty to put their faith above the Constitution.

Amy Coney Barrett is a practicing conservative Catholic, and is an extraordinarily enthusiastic opponent of a woman’s right to choose. She has written extensively on the Catholic Church's need to dismantle an American long-standing legal medical procedure adjudicated as constitutional in Roe v. Wade.

Barrett also does not subscribe to the idea of adhering to long-established legal precedents if they conflict with her religious belief that laws, or High Court rulings "were gross mistakes" because they are not founded on her Christian religion.

Barrett is a law professor at the Catholic Notre Dame University and except for serving as a "law clerk" for dead SCOTUS justice Antonin Scalia and appellate Judge Laurence H. Silberman, she has not served as a judge; and she damn well never should for good reason.

According to a recent report from the Alliance for Justice (AFJ):

"As a judge, Barrett could be expected to put her personal beliefs ahead of the law. She wrote specifically about the duty of judges to put their faith above the law in an article entitled “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases.” Among other things, she strongly criticized Justice William Brennan’s statement about faith, in which he said that he took an oath to uphold the law, and that “there isn’t any obligation of our faith superior” to that oath. In response, Barrett wrote: “We do not defend this position as the proper response for a Catholic judge to take with respect to abortion or the death penalty.” (author bold)

If that is Barrett’s position, and she has written extensively that it is what she believes, it automatically disqualifies her for any position in America’s judicial system. No judge, federal or otherwise, can blatantly disregard the only basis for law in the United States, the U.S. Constitution. Barrett claims the law of the land is secondary to a judge’s religious belief.

And, regarding Barrett’s nomination to a life-long position on a federal Circuit Court of Appeals, AFJ's president Nan Aron said In a statement:

"Amy Coney Barrett is a judicial nominee the likes of which we have rarely seen: a person who believes and has stated that judges can and should put their personal beliefs ahead of the law and Constitution when carrying out their duties. Specifically, Barrett has written that judges should put their religious faith ahead of the law in certain cases. She also has written that judges should not have to abide by precedent if they disagree with how past cases were decided. These views are so contrary to our system of democracy and justice that, in our view, they clearly disqualify her for the federal bench." (author bold)

That AJF report elicited concerns in the Senate leading Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch to ask about her "questionable record" while quoting directly from the AJF report. But Barrett, a self-admitted "conservative Catholic" did what is becoming natural for so-called "conservative Christian" adherents; she violated her own Christian bible's Ninth Commandment and lied by denying the AJF's accusations. She responded to Senator Hatch saying:

"That is not true. I totally reject and have rejected throughout my entire career the proposition that the end justifies the means or that a judge should decide cases based on a desire to reach a certain outcome."

Barrett’s assertion was quickly called what it was, a dirty lie. The legal director for Alliance for Justice, Daniel Goldberg, asserted that Barrett’s testimony is “a point-blank lie.” He said:

“Look at our report. It quotes Coney Barrett directly."


California Senator Dianne Feinstein joined Senator Hatch in expressing her deep reservations about Barrett’s religious extremism. She noted:

"When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country."

Minnesota Senator Al Franken actually did the right thing and questioned Barrett's "fitness to serve" when she claims a judge's religious beliefs trump the U.S. Constitution. He also rightly chastised "the conservative Catholic's close ties and communication with the anti-gay Christian hate group Alliance Defending Freedom."

It isn't immediately clear who in the Trump administration directed Trump to nominate Barrett as an Appellate Court judge, but it was almost certainly either Mike "preacher" Pence or Jeff “bible” Sessions. It may have even been the Christian hate group Alliance Defending Freedom; they all believe the Christian bible supersedes the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land and the idea of a conservative Catholic panting to overturn Roe on the federal bench almost certainly gave those impotent religious old men a 19-year-old’s erection.

Barrett has no right serving in any capacity as a judge. And no, her religion is not the issue. Nobody has any shit to give about what Psalms she sings, how she worships, who she prays to, or to which Christian denomination she subscribes. However, every American alive should shudder that Trump is nominating Christian extremists who fervently believe that judges have "a duty to put their faith above the law of the land;" because it is a direct line to an oppressive theocracy which is exactly what whoever nominated an Christian extremist like Barrett intended.

... and the right wing says they don't like Sharia law LOL
You should have actually read the true source and not just the article, you look stupid here. Here is how it ends....

However, when considering cases of guilt and not capital sentences, Catholic judges can sit on such cases if their “objective is to deal justly with the defendant.” They would be finding if someone is guilty of murder, not whether the person should receive a death sentence. In appeals-court cases, however, “if one cannot in conscience affirm a death sentence the proper response is to recuse oneself,” they wrote.

In conclusion, they wrote, “Judges cannot — nor should they try to — align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard.”


Your hatred and biases make you look quite bad for someone who purports to be a "tolerant" Progressive.
Thanks from webguy4 and Sabcat
Quigley is online now  
Old September 13th, 2017, 12:09 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 22,306
your over use of the word 'hatred' (or however you spell it) is as silly as the over use of the word socialist. Since it's untrue - and used so often - you render it ineffective and meaningless with no emotional clout at all.
tristanrobin is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 12:14 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
your over use of the word 'hatred' (or however you spell it) is as silly as the over use of the word socialist. Since it's untrue - and used so often - you render it ineffective and meaningless with no emotional clout at all.
It applies to you in every sense of the word. You hate everything that doesn't conform to your worldview. It is however cute that you had the (balls?) to post that in view of your commitment to the word "Nazi". Sorry Tris, you are nothing more than another garden variety bigot and hypocrite.
Thanks from Sabcat and Hashtag
Quigley is online now  
Old September 13th, 2017, 12:16 PM   #14
Banned
 
Hashtag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Upside Down
Posts: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Anyway: ...

Wrong.


Quote:
After all, in the law-review article that spurred all this supposed trepidation among Senate Democrats, Barrett argued that Catholic judges should recuse themselves from cases in which their faith might prohibit them from carrying out law they disagree with, specifically on the death penalty.
Amy Coney Barrett & Catholicism ? Democrats Religious Test | National Review


Just more regressive smear tactics on display.

Last edited by Hashtag; September 13th, 2017 at 12:22 PM.
Hashtag is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 12:19 PM   #15
Banned
 
Hashtag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Upside Down
Posts: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigley View Post
It applies to you in every sense of the word. You hate everything that doesn't conform to your worldview. It is however cute that you had the (balls?) to post that in view of your commitment to the word "Nazi". Sorry Tris, you are nothing more than another garden variety bigot and hypocrite.


He is a poster child of a useful idiot.
Hashtag is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 12:19 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,523
Quigley, does this statement apply to presidents and lawmakers as well as judges??

In conclusion, they wrote, “Judges cannot — nor should they try to — align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard.”
Clara007 is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 12:19 PM   #17
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 26,774
And what did Breitbart say about it?
RNG is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 12:22 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
Quigley, does this statement apply to presidents and lawmakers as well as judges??

In conclusion, they wrote, “Judges cannot — nor should they try to — align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard.”
Interesting question, I would ask whether or not you agree that Presidents are accountable to the Constitution?
Quigley is online now  
Old September 13th, 2017, 12:27 PM   #19
Banned
 
Hashtag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Upside Down
Posts: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
And what did Breitbart say about it?


I have no idea and I could care less.

The fact is the lady is being smeared by regressives. She said what she said about recusing if a judge cannot impose the death penalty as an appellate judge. Can you wrap you mind around the actual facts of what she wrote?
Hashtag is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 12:31 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,310

ha·tred.
.

[ˈhātrəd]

NOUN

intense dislike


You to a T Tris. Sorry
Quigley is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
appellate, constitution, nominee, religion, supersedes, trump



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sen. Mike Lee: Trump’s Supreme Court nominee will be confirmed johnwk Current Events 20 February 1st, 2017 06:54 AM
trump will not be nominee hot dragon Politicians 10 August 10th, 2016 11:58 AM
GOP Concedes: Trump WILL BE The Nominee… “We’re Going After Hillary Clinton” Sabcat Political Talk 27 May 5th, 2016 07:13 AM
Trump warns of riots if he can't be Republican presidential nominee imaginethat Politicians 40 March 17th, 2016 07:33 PM
'Pathetic' — Trump, Bush Spar Over 9/11. Maybe Neither Will Be The Nominee Lyzza Politicians 0 October 17th, 2015 09:16 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.