KRISTEN'S BOARD

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Justice Amy Coney Barrett  (Read 281 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Army of One
Total freak
*****

Fame 95
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 957



« Reply #15 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?
Logged

Extinguishing the Flame is available on Amazon and supports Australian Bush fire relief.
eater
Degenerate
***

Fame 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 193



« Reply #16 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!
Logged

"The era of Gaslighting"
joan1984
Burnt at the stake
*******

Fame 305
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 11,193


Co-POY 2011


« Reply #17 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
Logged

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much, but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.
Lois
Super Freak
Burnt at the stake
******

Fame 662
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,927



« Reply #18 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.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/eoVZWgWjVRo&rel=1" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/v/eoVZWgWjVRo&rel=1</a>

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?






Logged

eater
Degenerate
***

Fame 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 193



« Reply #19 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.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/eoVZWgWjVRo&rel=1" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/v/eoVZWgWjVRo&rel=1</a>

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.
Logged

"The era of Gaslighting"
MissBarbara
Burnt at the stake
Burnt at the stake
*******

Fame 2294
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15,111



« Reply #20 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."





Logged


"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."

joan1984
Burnt at the stake
*******

Fame 305
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 11,193


Co-POY 2011


« Reply #21 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.

Logged

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much, but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: