Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court

[Anonymous]

She apparently doesn't believe in judicial precedent. Doesn't this bother anyone?

[Anonymous]

I was excited about this until 18:54.

Hell no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No thank you. Per Wikipedia...

The New York Times reported that Barrett was a member of a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise.[9] Members of this religious group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty to one another, and commit to be accountable to a personal advisor (either referred to as a "head" or a "handmaid").[9] The heads and handmaids instruct the member on important life decisions.[9] Legal scholars say that such an oath raises legitimate questions about the ability to serve as an independent and impartial judge.[9]

The People of Praise appear to be some kind of bizarre charasmatic renewal group whose beliefs are rooted in the Pentacostal movement. We do not need another hyper religious Justice on the Supreme Court, especially with Roe v. Wade and LGBT rights hanging by a thread. Trump will probably pick a woman to persuade liberals to back down, but this woman sounds extremely problematic.

Fortunately, we live in a country where religious beliefs cannot preclude someone from holding public office. It’s illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No thank you. Per Wikipedia...

The New York Times reported that Barrett was a member of a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise.[9] Members of this religious group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty to one another, and commit to be accountable to a personal advisor (either referred to as a "head" or a "handmaid").[9] The heads and handmaids instruct the member on important life decisions.[9] Legal scholars say that such an oath raises legitimate questions about the ability to serve as an independent and impartial judge.[9]

The People of Praise appear to be some kind of bizarre charasmatic renewal group whose beliefs are rooted in the Pentacostal movement. We do not need another hyper religious Justice on the Supreme Court, especially with Roe v. Wade and LGBT rights hanging by a thread. Trump will probably pick a woman to persuade liberals to back down, but this woman sounds extremely problematic.

Fortunately, we live in a country where religious beliefs cannot preclude someone from holding public office. It’s illegal.

No, it is illegal only if it is said about a religion other than Christianity.

[Anonymous]

Non-ivy League? Strike One
Catholic? Strike Two
Female? You’re out!


White Protestant Evagelical Male it is!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is on the final 5 according to today's news. Trump needs to expand his list a little bit. Too few Ivy leaguers.

Huh?? That’s a good thing.

That’s a hallmark of this administration. They spurn such places, as they view them as bastions of liberal indoctrination.

[Anonymous]

Mansfield of Iowa Supreme CT. Today he dissented on Iowa's 72-hour waiting period for abortion. He is on list and has already passed GOP litmus test on abortion.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/27/anthony-kennedy-retiring-us-supreme-court-iowans-edward-mansfield-steve-colloton-bader-ginsburg/739139002/

[Anonymous]

We need diversity of thought on the court. Right now, all are Ivy Leaguers. We do need someone from another school. And, by the way, I know of two well known female Ivy Leaguers who failed the bar exam. Both lived in the White House. So, that does not necessarily make you a great legal mind.

[Anonymous]

Laura Ingraham also has special needs children adopted from other countries, and I have heard really awful, not empathetic things coming out of her mouth about immigrants.
I think some people adopt because they want to look like they care, not because they actually care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No thank you. Per Wikipedia...

The New York Times reported that Barrett was a member of a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise.[9] Members of this religious group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty to one another, and commit to be accountable to a personal advisor (either referred to as a "head" or a "handmaid").[9] The heads and handmaids instruct the member on important life decisions.[9] Legal scholars say that such an oath raises legitimate questions about the ability to serve as an independent and impartial judge.[9]

The People of Praise appear to be some kind of bizarre charasmatic renewal group whose beliefs are rooted in the Pentacostal movement. We do not need another hyper religious Justice on the Supreme Court, especially with Roe v. Wade and LGBT rights hanging by a thread. Trump will probably pick a woman to persuade liberals to back down, but this woman sounds extremely problematic.

Fortunately, we live in a country where religious beliefs cannot preclude someone from holding public office. It’s illegal.

Being a crackpot does preclude you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Laura Ingraham also has special needs children adopted from other countries, and I have heard really awful, not empathetic things coming out of her mouth about immigrants.
I think some people adopt because they want to look like they care, not because they actually care.

Right wingers love accessorizing.

[Anonymous]

She doesn’t feel the need to follow percent when she believes it was wrongly decided. So much for the doctrine of state decisis. It’s the Wild West for her strict textuslist nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She doesn’t feel the need to follow percent when she believes it was wrongly decided. So much for the doctrine of state decisis. It’s the Wild West for her strict textuslist nonsense.

^^^ precedent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She apparently doesn't believe in judicial precedent. Doesn't this bother anyone?

Link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She doesn’t feel the need to follow percent when she believes it was wrongly decided. So much for the doctrine of state decisis. It’s the Wild West for her strict textuslist nonsense.

^^^ precedent

^^^ stare decisis

Losing the spell check battle.