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, 12:51 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
Have either of them stated they would not be able to uphold the constitution based on some belief ?? Have they stated they could not or would not uphold the constitution or would have to recuse themselves because the law would be in direct conflict with some personal belief ?

OH and BTW, I keep a copy of the constitution laying right here on my desk. I am NOT a "living" document or as you put it "situational" document kind of person.

Your assumption is invalid.
Sorry, you like RNG are trying to super impose something into the conversation that she didn't say. If you knew your Constitution you'd know her beliefs are irrelevant to he qualifications to sit on the bench. What if's and yeah buts have no place in this conversation. The Constitution says what it says and you have no recourse other than to try and amend it. Good luck with that.
Quigley is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 01:04 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 6,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigley View Post
Sorry, you like RNG are trying to super impose something into the conversation that she didn't say. If you knew your Constitution you'd know her beliefs are irrelevant to he qualifications to sit on the bench. What if's and yeah buts have no place in this conversation. The Constitution says what it says and you have no recourse other than to try and amend it. Good luck with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigley View Post
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.”
I get what she says here. But my questions remain valid. If she can't do the job, she can't do the job. End of story. If constantly recusing herself from cases is going to have any sort of effect on those cases, the WHY is irrelevant. She can't do the job and should stay off the bench.

I don't know what you do for a living, but how many times could you take off, or not do your job, because of some religious, or ethical conflict ?? At some point would not your boss eventually send you packing ??
BubbaJones is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 01:06 PM   #33
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,906
This is hilarious. So someone who made an honest personnel examination and said that if their religious beliefs could possibly get in the way of them making an unbiased ruling they would step aside so that wouldn't happen is now getting shit?

Seriously.

Grasping at straws kids.
Sabcat is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 01:15 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Upside Down
Posts: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigley View Post
Read. That's not what she said. Your opinion means nothing.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see. That poster can have it presented to him a hundred times and he will still swallow the lying meme the smearing regressives have put out, facts need not apply.
Hashtag is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 01:19 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Upside Down
Posts: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
This is hilarious. So someone who made an honest personnel examination and said that if their religious beliefs could possibly get in the way of them making an unbiased ruling they would step aside so that wouldn't happen is now getting shit?

Seriously.

Grasping at straws kids.

The tolerant regressives at work. Anyway:

Quote:
Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber said that Barrett’s qualifications, in his view, become stronger because of her willingness to write candidly and intelligently about difficult ethical questions.

“Our universities, our judiciary, and our country will be the poorer if the Senate prefers nominees who remain silent on such topics,” Eisgruber wrote.
Catholic leaders criticize Democrat Senators over faith questions
Hashtag is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 01:33 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 21,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigley View Post

ha·tred.
.

[ˈhātrəd]

NOUN

intense dislike


You to a T Tris. Sorry
No need to be sorry.

That is not the English Oxford Dictionary definition.

For example: I have an intense dislike of and for YOU. But I don't HATE you.

I don't expect you to be able to make the distinction. That would require complex thought, and you are decidedly sophomoric in that avenue.
tristanrobin is online now  
Old September 13th, 2017, 02:19 PM   #37
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 25,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigley View Post
Sorry, you like RNG are trying to super impose something into the conversation that she didn't say. If you knew your Constitution you'd know her beliefs are irrelevant to he qualifications to sit on the bench. What if's and yeah buts have no place in this conversation. The Constitution says what it says and you have no recourse other than to try and amend it. Good luck with that.
So you are saying having part-time judges into what is supposed to be a full time position is just fine by you? And judges whose primary function is to protect and interpret the constitution are free to feel that other things override it and we are supposed to trust them that they will recognise when their belief in myths will influence their decisions?

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.l
RNG is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 02:21 PM   #38
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 25,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hashtag View Post
And catholic leaders wouldn't be at all biased in this matter, in your RW alternative fact world I suppose.
RNG is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 02:38 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Upside Down
Posts: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
And catholic leaders wouldn't be at all biased in this matter, in your RW alternative fact world I suppose.


The only alternative fact world is you believing the smear in the OP.

The statement, which she was the junior co-author, dealt with the death penalty (the Church does not promote the unqualified abolition of the death penalty in The Magisterium).

Judges do recuse themselves from time to time, for various reasons. This also shows the overreach of federal courts in meddling in state laws on the death penalty all the time.
Hashtag is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 02:46 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 18,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hashtag View Post
No where in the "law of the land", which is the Constitution, is the death penalty prohibited, that is judge made law. So much for leftists judges upholding their oath to the Constitution. They override that all the time.
LOL no where in the Constitution does it say that individual states CANNOT bar the death penalty.
Putting religion before the Constituent disqualifies this woman, Period.
We are NOT some damned theocracy!
Thanks from RNG
Hollywood is offline  
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 05:54 AM
trump will not be nominee hot dragon Politicians 10 August 10th, 2016 10:58 AM
GOP Concedes: Trump WILL BE The Nominee… “We’re Going After Hillary Clinton” Sabcat Political Talk 27 May 5th, 2016 06:13 AM
Trump warns of riots if he can't be Republican presidential nominee imaginethat Politicians 40 March 17th, 2016 06:33 PM
'Pathetic' — Trump, Bush Spar Over 9/11. Maybe Neither Will Be The Nominee Lyzza Politicians 0 October 17th, 2015 08:16 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



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