The Next Supreme Court Justice

Oh Good, Dianne Feinstein Concluded the Barrett Hearings by Giving a Maskless Lindsey Graham a Hug

They have an endless supply of fuel for their outrage machine. Dee-licious 🙂

Originally posted by snowdragon
It would probably just be better if we didn't appoint them for a life seating 😉

Or that, yes.

Originally posted by Surtur
I see this like I see the electoral college. Certain people cried like little wittle babies over it. Yet if Trump had won the popular vote, but Hillary won cuz of the EC? Most of those same people would be praising it, extolling its virtues. Saying it did its job.

So what I'm saying is I 100% do not believe you'd say shit about this if it was a democrat doing it. It's very similar to how it's only bad when republicans say sexual preference and not democrats.

Blah, blah, blah from you as usual.

The main point is that no Supreme Court Justice should be a religious fundamentalist weirdo. You know, separation of Church and State: a thing we're supposed to have.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Blah, blah, blah from you as usual.

The main point is that no Supreme Court Justice should be a religious fundamentalist weirdo. You know, separation of Church and State: a thing we're supposed to have.

Point to a ruling she made you disagree with, do not just spout democrat talking points it is lazy as f*ck. Do better than spouting their bullshit propaganda.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Blah, blah, blah from you as usual.

The main point is that no Supreme Court Justice should be a religious fundamentalist weirdo. You know, separation of Church and State: a thing we're supposed to have.

Are you saying that ACB is a "religious fundamentalist weirdo"?

Even if she was, we would need proof she lets her beliefs impact her decisions.

I still haven't seen someone bring something up to suggest she won't be able to set her personal beliefs aside. She has admitted she'd make rulings that go against her own personal values if the law called for it.

Being Religious does not mean you can't do your job properly.

To say otherwise is discriminatory.

Who here thinks if she was a muslim her religion would still be a problem?

Is anyone on the left here willing to embarrass themselves and say leftists would be just as suspicious? Go for it 🙂

Of course if you guys lack the courage to say so, it's okay too. Do you lack that courage?

I wish she's get sworn in, and then say "Ok, time LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH!"

And when everyone calls her on it, say "Yeah so I lied. Whaddya gonna do about it? I'm set for life baby".

Seriously, if a judge did exactly that, I bet we'd be stuck with them. The system, it just works.

Hirono legit asked her if she'd ever raped anyone.

Democrats are pieces of shit mostly.

If she was Muslim no one would be questioning her job capabilities.

Democrats are anti-Christian bigots.

I'm just wondering if anyone will step up to say she'd be treated the same.

If nobody does I will assume the usual suspects have admitted she wouldn't.

Originally posted by Surtur
Who here thinks if she was a muslim her religion would still be a problem?

Is anyone on the left here willing to embarrass themselves and say leftists would be just as suspicious? Go for it 🙂

Of course if you guys lack the courage to say so, it's okay too. Do you lack that courage?

I would've thought as an atheist, you would.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I would've thought as an atheist, you would.

If you want some honesty, I don't even know what I'd call myself. I don't believe some single entity created everything.

I do believe in certain aspects of spirituality though. I despise the catholic church.

If a musim were put up for the SC I'd have to look at past rulings. If they didn't let it interfere, meh. They can worship the flying spaghetti monster for all I care. As long as it didn't marry a 6 yr. old. Zing!

"If they didn't let it interfere" is the part which seems up to the interpreter's own bias.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
"If they didn't let it interfere" is the part which seems up to the interpreter's own bias.

Yeah. If this woman can make decisions and 100% divorce herself from her faith when doing so then good for her. I have doubts she will do that though. She seems extremely religious and from my experience the more religious a person is the more entrenched in religion their decisions about other aspects of life will be.

If they are on the Supreme Court the constitution should be their only religion.

What rulings make you doubt it

And if she was Muslim would feel the same?

Originally posted by Surtur
What rulings make you doubt it

And if she was Muslim would feel the same?

No rulings in particular that I’m familiar with but she’s obviously very serious about her Catholic faith and so until shown otherwise I am skeptical about her not allowing that faith to persuade her decisions.

As far as Islam, Yes I would. I’ve criticized Islam plenty on here in the past. You can go look at various posts I’ve made in the religion forum. I’m no fan of that religion.

Can you acknowledge a person could be serious about their faith and also be able to set it aside for their job? And that, with someone that has been doing this for as long as she has, we should look to rulings she made to denounce her instead of feelings?

Sure it’s possible. Unlikely though imo. I’m just skeptical is all I’m saying.