RBG Politcal Discussion

[Anonymous]

Obama appointed a Catholic, and nobody complained. Objections to ACB are not anti-Catholic, but based on how she is expected to vote on Roe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats should be very careful not to make attacks against ACB that could be perceived as anti-religious bigotry or misogynist. That could hurt in the election with Catholics in PA and in the Main Line suburbs. ACB is going to be much more difficult for Democrats to try to destroy with personal attacks. Focus on her limited experience as a judge (only around 3 years) and see if you can pick off a few Republican senators reluctant to cast a vote to so close to an election.

This is funny- yes, be careful to hide your anti Catholic bigotry. You are so subtle, we Catholics have no idea! No clue!

It’s not that she’s a practicing Catholic, it’s just her inexperience!

Remind which party’s nominee is a practicing catholic?

Lmao - most Catholics prefer a non- Catholic to a willful apostate like Joe Biden. Maybe be can intern at the local abortion clinic after he loses the race.

Only 11% of US Catholics subscribe to the church’s view on abortion (illegal under all circumstances). If republicans want to spend the next month calling the other 89% of us apostates, have it at it.

[Anonymous]

I would like to see an atheist SCOTUS. Americans are oppressed by religious freaks of all denominations. We need pure intellectual thought untainted by dogma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would like to see an atheist SCOTUS. Americans are oppressed by religious freaks of all denominations. We need pure intellectual thought untainted by dogma.

Agreed. Religion is a political football. We need a person who doesn't have a religion that the press or dcum will make an issue out of

How about a Muslim or a hindu

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would like to see an atheist SCOTUS. Americans are oppressed by religious freaks of all denominations. We need pure intellectual thought untainted by dogma.

Ugh, fck your both sides bullcrap. Biden, both Clinton’s, Obama, Carter - how have you been oppressed by their religious beliefs? How were you oppressed by RBG’s Judaism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats should be very careful not to make attacks against ACB that could be perceived as anti-religious bigotry or misogynist. That could hurt in the election with Catholics in PA and in the Main Line suburbs. ACB is going to be much more difficult for Democrats to try to destroy with personal attacks. Focus on her limited experience as a judge (only around 3 years) and see if you can pick off a few Republican senators reluctant to cast a vote to so close to an election.

This is funny- yes, be careful to hide your anti Catholic bigotry. You are so subtle, we Catholics have no idea! No clue!

It’s not that she’s a practicing Catholic, it’s just her inexperience!

Remind which party’s nominee is a practicing catholic?

Lmao - most Catholics prefer a non- Catholic to a willful apostate like Joe Biden. Maybe be can intern at the local abortion clinic after he loses the race.

Only 11% of US Catholics subscribe to the church’s view on abortion (illegal under all circumstances). If republicans want to spend the next month calling the other 89% of us apostates, have it at it.

+1
I’ll go you one better, PP. Trump didn’t actually win the Catholic vote.
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/04/06/new-data-suggest-clinton-not-trump-won-catholic-vote

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a critical ACA case on the docket this fall. Amy Barrett is on record that she believes the ACA is unconstitutional. She would be the swing vote to make it 5-4 to strike it down. The ACA is extreme popular and it’s protection was key to the Ds win in the house in 2018. Ds need to make this about protecting the ACA.

Arguments in the ACA case start Nov. 10 -- is it likely a new SCOTUS justice would be confirmed by then? And if not, she wouldn't have a vote in that case, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a critical ACA case on the docket this fall. Amy Barrett is on record that she believes the ACA is unconstitutional. She would be the swing vote to make it 5-4 to strike it down. The ACA is extreme popular and it’s protection was key to the Ds win in the house in 2018. Ds need to make this about protecting the ACA.

Arguments in the ACA case start Nov. 10 -- is it likely a new SCOTUS justice would be confirmed by then? And if not, she wouldn't have a vote in that case, right?

Correct. But the ACA might be gone anyway because if there’s a 4-4 tie the lower court’s ruling to kill it stands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama appointed a Catholic, and nobody complained. Objections to ACB are not anti-Catholic, but based on how she is expected to vote on Roe.

Right, but the personal attacks on her reflect anti-religious bigotry. Obama's nominees did not face these kinds of attacks and were approved by huge numbers in both parties.

[Anonymous]

I am pro choice but would love to see the end of roe. Sick of hypocrites on the right pretending it is why they vote for republicans. Clear the issue from the table. Let’s watch the entire country shift further and further left. We’ve already killed 200k innocent Americans. What’s another few thousand women every year due to botched back alley abortions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a critical ACA case on the docket this fall. Amy Barrett is on record that she believes the ACA is unconstitutional. She would be the swing vote to make it 5-4 to strike it down. The ACA is extreme popular and it’s protection was key to the Ds win in the house in 2018. Ds need to make this about protecting the ACA.

Arguments in the ACA case start Nov. 10 -- is it likely a new SCOTUS justice would be confirmed by then? And if not, she wouldn't have a vote in that case, right?

Right now it looks like republicans will try to confirm before the election on Nov. 3. Certainly no guarantee they will get it done by then, but it’s enough of a possibility to make it a clear election issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama appointed a Catholic, and nobody complained. Objections to ACB are not anti-Catholic, but based on how she is expected to vote on Roe.

Right, but the personal attacks on her reflect anti-religious bigotry. Obama's nominees did not face these kinds of attacks and were approved by huge numbers in both parties.

Were they associated with splinter sects championing zealotry?
Also, Mitch doesn’t GAF about abortion. Amy is a shill for corporatists. It’s all about money money money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am pro choice but would love to see the end of roe. Sick of hypocrites on the right pretending it is why they vote for republicans. Clear the issue from the table. Let’s watch the entire country shift further and further left. We’ve already killed 200k innocent Americans. What’s another few thousand women every year due to botched back alley abortions?

I’ve thought about this before, but the fight would just shift to the states. Abortion would be illegal in a handful of very conservative states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a critical ACA case on the docket this fall. Amy Barrett is on record that she believes the ACA is unconstitutional. She would be the swing vote to make it 5-4 to strike it down. The ACA is extreme popular and it’s protection was key to the Ds win in the house in 2018. Ds need to make this about protecting the ACA.

Arguments in the ACA case start Nov. 10 -- is it likely a new SCOTUS justice would be confirmed by then? And if not, she wouldn't have a vote in that case, right?

Right now it looks like republicans will try to confirm before the election on Nov. 3. Certainly no guarantee they will get it done by then, but it’s enough of a possibility to make it a clear election issue.

Nah, it's happening during the lame duck. They're just going to try and run on th Court and Democratic "obstruction". But it's a double edged sword. If everyone knows that they ar doing it during the lame duck then it doesn't matter who wins the election. People can safely vote against Trump's incompetence and not have to worry about the seat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama appointed a Catholic, and nobody complained. Objections to ACB are not anti-Catholic, but based on how she is expected to vote on Roe.

Right, but the personal attacks on her reflect anti-religious bigotry. Obama's nominees did not face these kinds of attacks and were approved by huge numbers in both parties.

no they, don't. it's not anti-religious bigotry to not want to live in a theocracy where her religious views will be imposed on me. i don't want to live under Sharia law either. a religious extremist of any kind is not a good choice for SCOTUS.