KRISTEN'S BOARD

1408 => Politics => Topic started by: joan1984 on October 11, 2020, 10:11:06 PM



Title: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: joan1984 on October 11, 2020, 10:11:06 PM
Justice Amy Coney Barrett begins Senate Hearing Testimony on Monday, October 12, 2020. Link is to her complete Opening Statement.

"...Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try..."


https://www.scribd.com/document/479592798/Read-Barrett-s-opening-remarks#from_embed


Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: ToeinH2O on October 11, 2020, 10:46:56 PM
Not much has been said about SCOTUS nominee Barrett’s membership in the “People of Praise” church, in which Pentecostal religious experiences such as baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues (babbling a personal spiritual language), and prophecy (literally speaking for God), are practiced.  She is being soft-pedaled as a Catholic.  She is not Roman Catholic.  People of Praise call themselves Charismatic Catholics, which is very different.  Self-described as an “intentional (closed) community,” former members have described People of Praise as “a cult,” in which women are totally subjugated by men.  See Boston Globe quotes below.

It’s hard to explain, if you haven’t lived in such a church before. I did, for six years. Judge Barrett literally believes that God can transcend her mind, and she can open her mouth, and channel God’s direct words to others (“Yeah my son I say unto you...”). She also believes that the Holy Spirit can overcome her body, and she will open her mouth and speak “glossolalia“ which sounds like babbling. But to her, it is a “spiritual language“ given by God.

I’m not condemning Pentecostalism. And I am a dedicated believer in religious freedom. But I really don’t want a person on the highest court who believes they get secret conversational messages directly from God on a daily basis. Other frequent characteristics of Pentecostalism include the belief in demonic possession, angels, laying on hands for healing, the rapture, and the 2nd coming of Christ in our lifetime. Of course to get to that last one, you must have Armageddon first... the end of the world, the Anti-Christ, 666, etc.  They are absolutely excited by these ideas, and welcome them.

Trump threw the religious right a bone to energize that political base.  She’ll only be one of 9 Justices, but given her religious extremism, and pronounced disregard for stare decisis (judicial precedent), Trump might as well have thrown a hand grenade at the bench.  He did.

The GOP doesn’t want a SCOTUS nominee being asked about speaking in tongues and casting out demons on TV.  But then again, it’s 2020...


Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: Jed_ on October 11, 2020, 11:03:23 PM
Sounds like excellent questions that decent senators should and will ask toe.  As in, ‘Are you still a cultist?’


Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: Jed_ on October 11, 2020, 11:20:57 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/p38nP1I.jpg)


Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: MissBarbara on October 12, 2020, 12:33:30 AM

Not much has been said about SCOTUS nominee Barrett’s membership in the “People of Praise” church, in which Pentecostal religious experiences such as baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues (babbling a personal spiritual language), and prophecy (literally speaking for God), are practiced.  She is being soft-pedaled as a Catholic.  She is not Roman Catholic.  People of Praise call themselves Charismatic Catholics, which is very different.  Self-described as an “intentional (closed) community,” former members have described People of Praise as “a cult,” in which women are totally subjugated by men.  See Boston Globe quotes below.

It’s hard to explain, if you haven’t lived in such a church before. I did, for six years. Judge Barrett literally believes that God can transcend her mind, and she can open her mouth, and channel God’s direct words to others (“Yeah my son I say unto you...”). She also believes that the Holy Spirit can overcome her body, and she will open her mouth and speak “glossolalia“ which sounds like babbling. But to her, it is a “spiritual language“ given by God.

I’m not condemning Pentecostalism. And I am a dedicated believer in religious freedom. But I really don’t want a person on the highest court who believes they get secret conversational messages directly from God on a daily basis. Other frequent characteristics of Pentecostalism include the belief in demonic possession, angels, laying on hands for healing, the rapture, and the 2nd coming of Christ in our lifetime. Of course to get to that last one, you must have Armageddon first... the end of the world, the Anti-Christ, 666, etc.  They are absolutely excited by these ideas, and welcome them.

Trump threw the religious right a bone to energize that political base.  She’ll only be one of 9 Justices, but given her religious extremism, and pronounced disregard for stare decisis (judicial precedent), Trump might as well have thrown a hand grenade at the bench.  He did.

The GOP doesn’t want a SCOTUS nominee being asked about speaking in tongues and casting out demons on TV.  But then again, it’s 2020...


I'm not disagreeing with you, Toe, but I believe that a nominees religious beliefs should be a factor in one's suitability to sit on the Supreme Court only as they pertain to her ability to serve as an effective and objective jurist.

It's true that Justice Barrett's religious beliefs are, well, wacky. And as a Catholic, I leap to make it perfectly clear that Barrett is not a Catholic, and the People of Praise is not a Catholic organization, and by no means. Still, as you put it, our religious plurality, and our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion, should lead anyone who supports the First Amendment or believes in the Separation of Church and state, to ignore Barrett's religious beliefs, especially as a factor in determining her suitability to sit on the court. In other words, Jed, the guy in your meme has it exactly backward.

There is a wealth of information available on Barrett's previous decisions and opinions during her time on the federal bench, and even more information available from the things Barrett has written and said (and taught) during the previous 25 years. That's what should be examined, and that's what should be balanced.

And, to be honest, I'm having a hard time being serious, since I'm still thinking about that woman in the 42nd Street subway station...







Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: ToeinH2O on October 12, 2020, 12:48:51 AM
Having sat through an estimated 3,700 hours of “People of Praise” type services, it goes beyond separation of church and state.  They are cultists, and it is a form of mental illness.  I don’t expect you to understand, because it is unimaginable.  Just know that one of the nine on that bench will now look around wondering who in chamber is demon possessed, that what side she takes will be to promote the kingdom of Christ and the second coming, and she’ll see what her husband says, before issuing opinions.

Let’s meet in the subway... (https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/files/Kiss_Emoji_Icon_2_70x70.png?5077856381713981195)


Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: Jed_ on October 12, 2020, 02:43:50 AM


And, to be honest, I'm having a hard time being serious, since I'm still thinking about that woman in the 42nd Street subway station...




Yesterday on Imgur someone posted a truck with a trailer wrecking on a turn I know very well and used to travel a couple times a week.  I’m guessing my reaction was a little different.

I simultaneously respect all religions and have a deep distrust of anyone who takes their religion too seriously.  There isn’t any way this person can make judgments without her membership in what could only be called a cult clouding those judgements.


Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: MissBarbara on October 12, 2020, 06:53:07 PM

And, to be honest, I'm having a hard time being serious, since I'm still thinking about that woman in the 42nd Street subway station...


Yesterday on Imgur someone posted a truck with a trailer wrecking on a turn I know very well and used to travel a couple times a week.  I’m guessing my reaction was a little different.


I hope so. I mean, I assume you don't yearn to fuck that truck until it has a hard time walking.   ;)



I simultaneously respect all religions and have a deep distrust of anyone who takes their religion too seriously.  There isn’t any way this person can make judgments without her membership in what could only be called a cult clouding those judgements.


I don't respect all religions, but I respect the right of people to practice the reliigon of their choice, or to practice no religion whatsoever.

I, too, have a very "deep distrust of anyone who takes their religion too seriously." I have no argument with Toe's description of the People of Praise. And I agree with your description that they seem to be " a cult clouding those judgements."

But those are judgements that are, from a legal point of view, separate from the religious guarantees Americans enjoy. And if you truly believe in the First Amendment and the separation of church and state, then you must support their right to worship and believe as they do, even though they are wacky, dangerous, judgement-clouding, cult-like, or anything else.

My particular bane are Evangelical Christians, not only because they tend to be anti-Catholic, but also because of their Biblical literalism and corresponding science-denial, and because they seem unable to distinguish between sinful and illegal. If I were to launch into a rant about Evangelicals (which I won't), that would not be a violation of their First Amendment rights. But if I were to assert that an Evangelical should be unable to serve on the Supreme Court, that would be.





Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: Jed_ on October 12, 2020, 07:59:22 PM
Trump’s favorite congressman Adam Schiff was on Bill Maher this weekend.  One topic was about how RBG commented on how the constitution was antiquated in comparison to the constitutions in other developed countries, and Maher asked if he supported basically redoing the constitution from scratch.  His answer was essentially no, because who would write it; Republicans would never agree to anything the Democrats would want in it as a change and Democrats would never want any revision Republicans wanted.  So it becomes pointless and best to handle with amendments as we have been doing.

Amy Coney Barrett is considered an originalist in regards to the constitution, meaning it means what it did at the time and this original meaning is authoritative (as in not open to any modern interpretations), sort of like literal interpretations of the Bible.

I’m in agreement we shouldn’t try a rewrite of the constitution, but I disagree we can’t account for nearly 250 years of change when we interpret it.

For myself, ‘a well regulated militia’ sounds more like the National Guard than it does a bunch of nutjobs planning to kidnap a state governor.


Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: Lois on October 12, 2020, 08:06:22 PM
My biggest concern is that Trump, who lost the popular vote, is poised to appoint three justices in his first term that do not reflect the values of the nation.

Furthermore, these Justices will upset the balance of the court and may take actions that lead to outrage among the populace who will demand a change, and lead to adding two more justices to the court to retain the  balance.

But I guess we will have to wait and see how this actually plays out.


Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: Jed_ on October 12, 2020, 08:12:15 PM
A political party when finding their views are in the minority used to adjust their views to try and get in the majority again.  No more with Republicans, now it’s cheat and force your flawed ideology on the majority.


Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: joan1984 on October 12, 2020, 11:26:54 PM
How is expecting the U.S. Constitution be adhered to, in law and life in the United States of America, a flawed ideology? Changes to the U.S. Constitution are possible, clearly, and the process laid out, wait for it, in the U.S. Constitution.

Unconstitutional Law has no place in the United States, no matter who found reason to create the law, or to enforce that law, and the Justice system is the place to address such injustice, when our Legislators will not do the job. Adhere to the Constitution, or Ammend the Constitution is the choice.

A political party when finding their views are in the minority used to adjust their views to try and get in the majority again.  No more with Republicans, now it’s cheat and force your flawed ideology on the majority.


Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: Jed_ on October 13, 2020, 01:15:26 AM
Dumbass.  If Republicans adhered to the Constitution, Trump would already be an ex-President.


Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: joan1984 on October 13, 2020, 01:47:38 AM
And how is his being our President "unconstitutional" in your mind?
Dumbass.  If Republicans adhered to the Constitution, Trump would already be an ex-President.


Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: Jed_ on October 13, 2020, 02:12:23 AM
And how is me saying Republican ideology is flawed confused by you as an attack on the Constitution?

Look who I’m talking to, never mind.


Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: Army of One on October 13, 2020, 04:13:34 AM
Amy Coney Barrett is considered an originalist in regards to the constitution, meaning it means what it did at the time and this original meaning is authoritative (as in not open to any modern interpretations), sort of like literal interpretations of the Bible.
Now this is an interesting thing to read. Where does her interpretation of the amendments, especially the ever-controversial Second Amendment, lie?


Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: eater on October 17, 2020, 02:16:51 AM
she was very impressive, not a note or cheat-sheet and she was a wiz on details of historic cases out of her head...amazing woman!


Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: joan1984 on October 17, 2020, 11:11:54 AM
And how is his being our President "unconstitutional" in your mind?
Dumbass.  If Republicans adhered to the Constitution, Trump would already be an ex-President.

Quote
And how is me saying Republican ideology is flawed confused by you as an attack on the Constitution?

My question had nothing to do with "an attack on the Constitution", as you noted, and everything to do with the statement you made, re:
  "If Republicans adhered to the Constitution, Trump would already be an ex-President."

They change what you say, then attack you for saying what you did not say at all. Answer the question, Jed_, or do you no longer stand behind what you had to say?

How is President Trump being our President "unconstitutional" in your mind?

TY


Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: Lois on October 18, 2020, 01:39:13 AM
I think it's dumb that Democrats are being warned not to attack Barrett because of her religion.  I say they should when her particular sect of Catholicism, that's not Catholic at all, is bat-shit crazy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoVZWgWjVRo

Furthemore, we already have five Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court, while Catholics only represent 20% of the US population.  Maybe we need more diversity on the court?

Curently we have on the court:

John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice  - Roman Catholic
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice,   - Roman Catholic
Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice, Judaism
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice,   - Roman Catholic
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice,   - Roman Catholic
Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, Judaism
Neil Gosuch, raised Roman Catholic, but now Episcopalian
Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice,   - Roman Catholic

So where are the Unitarians and Methodists?  Or maybe even a Muslim or Hindu? And what about the 26% of Americans who describe their religion as none?








Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: eater on October 26, 2020, 03:08:21 PM
I think it's dumb that Democrats are being warned not to attack Barrett because of her religion.  I say they should when her particular sect of Catholicism, that's not Catholic at all, is bat-shit crazy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoVZWgWjVRo

Furthemore, we already have five Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court, while Catholics only represent 20% of the US population.  Maybe we need more diversity on the court?

Curently we have on the court:

John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice  - Roman Catholic
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice,   - Roman Catholic
Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice, Judaism
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice,   - Roman Catholic
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice,   - Roman Catholic
Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, Judaism
Neil Gosuch, raised Roman Catholic, but now Episcopalian
Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice,   - Roman Catholic

So where are the Unitarians and Methodists?  Or maybe even a Muslim or Hindu? And what about the 26% of Americans who describe their religion as none?








i have to agree here, it would be nice to see a southern baptist or a nondenominational christian in there, i wouldn't mind an atheist.. for some reason i have a hard time with a muslim, i suppose if they were born and raised in the USA and were moderate in their beliefs,American in their cultural background and life experience i could deal with it.. provided they knew the laws as well as the rest and interpreted the constitution in its original intent.
maybe its just that some families keep the strict old school thing in their house so much they may as well have grown up in their grandparents home country, i'm scared we couldn't make political cartoons of  them without someone getting killed or something. or what if some loose cannon muslim got pissed we joked about the muslim justice.or a decision the court made didn't reflect their faith properly,hell she may be in danger then, at any rate they would most likely be very anti abortion.
i know someone will jump all over me for being biased or call me racist for saying that.
i'm just being honest.
a buddhist would be cool..
i myself don't like religion,like jesus, i see religion as a way people/organization try control what is between you and God. the church is 2 or more gathered together and and the kingdom is within.
so from my point of view catholics are something jesus would have issues with,but as long as i felt sure the person could keep their personal ideas separate from the constitution and decide based solely on law i would be down with them.

a more well rounded court would be nice tho.


Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: MissBarbara on October 26, 2020, 06:30:40 PM

I think it's dumb that Democrats are being warned not to attack Barrett because of her religion.  I say they should when her particular sect of Catholicism, that's not Catholic at all, is bat-shit crazy.

Furthermore, we already have five Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court, while Catholics only represent 20% of the US population.  Maybe we need more diversity on the court?

Currently we have on the court:

John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice  - Roman Catholic
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice,   - Roman Catholic
Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice, Judaism
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice,   - Roman Catholic
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice,   - Roman Catholic
Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, Judaism
Neil Gosuch, raised Roman Catholic, but now Episcopalian
Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice,   - Roman Catholic

So where are the Unitarians and Methodists?  Or maybe even a Muslim or Hindu? And what about the 26% of Americans who describe their religion as none?


The Supreme Court has never been strictly reflective of American demographics, nor should it be. The Court does not represent the American people, it represents the American constitution and American law.

When Barrett takes her seat on the court, this would be hardly the first time that Catholics have held a large majority of Court seats. In 2012, the Supreme Court also contained six Catholics: Alito, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Sotomayor, and Kennedy. And all those Catholics were nominated by Protestant presidents, and all were confirmed by Senates comprised of a majority of Protestants.

Along with the six Catholics, the other members of that Court were Jewish. That's right: 33% of the Justices were Jewish, while Jews represent less than 3% of the U.S. population. On top of that, there were zero Protestants on that Court, while Protestants represent at least 44% of the U.S.population. Where was the outrage?

Discussions like this seem to miss one small but vitally important line in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution:

"No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

On top of that, these discussions smack of the creeping anti-Catholicism that was prominent in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I am not exaggerating, chiefly because these justices are being viewed by the fact they are Catholic, and based on stereotypes of Catholics, and not by their qualifications for office as jurists. Every American should find that highly disturbing and very objectionable.

Most to the point, even a very cursory knowledge of the decisions and opinions made by these Catholic Supreme Court justices shows that they in no way base their decisions on the dictates of their faith, and Catholics sit on both “wings” of the court, and they are (or were) neither all "conservative” or all “liberal."







Title: Re: Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Post by: joan1984 on October 27, 2020, 02:11:11 AM
Yeas 52, Neas 48 Final Senate Vote, 806pm, October 26, 2020
Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed as Associate Justice, SCOTUS.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas will attend her Swearing In
  tonight at the White House.

And then there were NINE Supreme Court Justices once again.