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 12th, 2017, 11:32 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 22,358
Trump Appellate Nominee Says Her Religion Supersedes the Constitution

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
Thanks from Camelot and Clara007
tristanrobin is online now  
Old September 12th, 2017, 11:42 AM   #2
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 26,825
And if you ever wanted proof what a danger he is ...
Thanks from Camelot, Hollywood and Clara007
RNG is offline  
Old September 12th, 2017, 12:20 PM   #3
Banned
 
Hashtag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Upside Down
Posts: 714
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.
Hashtag is offline  
Old September 12th, 2017, 12:31 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: in that one house at that location over there
Posts: 2,090
Its almost as dangerous as a judge that believes the Constitution does not need amended. It is a living document that can be changed without amendments.
Thanks from Hashtag
guy39 is offline  
Old September 12th, 2017, 12:35 PM   #5
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 26,825
Pathetic attempts to minimize the extent of this transgression of the very basis of your country.
Thanks from Hollywood
RNG is offline  
Old September 12th, 2017, 12:36 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: in that one house at that location over there
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Pathetic attempts to minimize the extent of this transgression of the very basis of your country.
Well maybe we can check with our Queen. Oh, she got beat. Never mind.
guy39 is offline  
Old September 12th, 2017, 02:22 PM   #7
Banned
 
Hashtag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Upside Down
Posts: 714
The OP is nothing more than the usual regressive smear tactic again st a good person. And the Dims used a religious test, prohibited by the Constitution.

Anyway:

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
Hashtag is offline  
Old September 12th, 2017, 02:37 PM   #8
Banned
 
Hashtag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Upside Down
Posts: 714
This is succinct:

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 12th, 2017, 02:43 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 56,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
Its almost as dangerous as a judge that believes the Constitution does not need amended. It is a living document that can be changed without amendments.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hashtag View Post
The OP is nothing more than the usual regressive smear tactic again st a good person. And the Dims used a religious test, prohibited by the Constitution.

Anyway:



Amy Coney Barrett & Catholicism ? Democrats Religious Test | National Review
Anyway:
"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.
No religious test was applied by anyone. Barrett made clear that her religions's tenets are superior to constitutional law.
Thanks from tristanrobin, RNG and Clara007
imaginethat is offline  
Old September 12th, 2017, 02:48 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 22,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
No religious test was applied by anyone. Barrett made clear that her religions's tenets are superior to constitutional law.
I find it so hard anybody can defend this woman as a justice, considering her lack of respect for the law.

That some of them are DtT members is even more depressing.
tristanrobin 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.