|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Sept 11, 2017 18:36:10 GMT
www.apnews.com/6ec40a2dc4e1445da2b15974d8a1e0d5/Catholic-leaders-decry-Dems'-questioning-of-judicial-pick I have to agree, here - this same group would scream bloody murder were an atheist candidate (hold your breath) raked over the questioning coals about their lack of religious faith. And that's concocted BS - presupposing a dire hidden inner monologue in order to lambaste.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 11, 2017 18:56:12 GMT
Sorry, I've never been a Feinstein fan, and judging by some of the tweets I just read, I'm not alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 11, 2017 18:59:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 11, 2017 19:14:06 GMT
www.apnews.com/6ec40a2dc4e1445da2b15974d8a1e0d5/Catholic-leaders-decry-Dems'-questioning-of-judicial-pick I have to agree, here - this same group would scream bloody murder were an atheist candidate (hold your breath) raked over the questioning coals about their lack of religious faith. And that's concocted BS - presupposing a dire hidden inner monologue in order to lambaste. JFK popped into my mind before I ever clicked on the link to read the story. I was a 7 year old Southern Baptist girl at the time, and my parents were frantic at the thought of a CATHOLIC being the President!!! WHAT was this world coming to... END TIMES, END TIMES!!! One doesn't have to be a Catholic to be against abortion, and I would bet that most of Trump's picks are pro-lifers. And the Constitution specifies that there can be no test of religious faith in connection to political office. What irritates me most about the pro-lifers is that they are really only pro-birthers - once the kid exits the uterus, nobody cares if that mother can emotionally or financially take care of that child, if the child will be neglected or abused, and none of those pro-lifers want to pay more taxes for social programs for the poor. I think that any professing 'pro-lifer' must be willing to adopt the child whose abortion they are trying to stop. I myself am pro-choice: every woman should have that choice of whether or not to bring that pregnancy to term. However, if I were in the position of having an unwanted pregnancy, I would choose to bring it to term and give the child up for adoption. But that is my choice, not something to be legislated. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 11, 2017 19:19:15 GMT
The AP article doesn't reveal enough about the senator's questioning. If she was suggesting that strongly held religious views were a disqualifying factor, then she was wrong. But if she was trying to determine if the nominee's religious views will influence her judicial decisions, then she was acting properly.
However, the article also said "Barrett made it clear that she would 'follow unflinchingly' all court precedent and, in rare cases in which her conscience would not allow her to do so, she would recuse herself". That's unacceptable in a nominee. If a judge concludes that a certain decision is legally correct, she must vote accordingly, and not recuse herself. Otherwise she has no business being a judge. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 11, 2017 19:19:19 GMT
I just love YouTube videos, but hey, doesn't everybody?  The ungodly globalists had probably the best chance they were every going to get to wipe out Christianity during the first two years of Obama's first term, and they didn't do it. They couldn't do it then, and they have even less chance of doing it now, but they never give up, and eventually they'll do it, by any means necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 11, 2017 19:48:25 GMT
There's no reason to ask questions about religious views of the judge.
It's not even Feinstein's place to question her personal secular views.
If the law and dogma are separate things then why would Feinstein think the candidate isn't aware of that too?
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 11, 2017 19:50:24 GMT
tpfkar The ungodly globalists had probably the best chance they were every going to get to wipe out Christianity during the first two years of Obama's first term, and they didn't do it. They couldn't do it then, and they have even less chance of doing it now, but they never give up, and eventually they'll do it, by any means necessary. oh so dramatic
By the same token, I'll never understand the people who deny that she is a transgender. Joan Rivers blabbed it on TV two months before her death. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 11, 2017 19:58:42 GMT
There's no reason to ask questions about religious views of the judge. It's not even Feinstein's place to question her personal secular views. If the law and dogma are separate things then why would Feinstein think the candidate isn't aware of that too?Because it would be naïve to make such an assumption, and Feinstein would be derelict not to check.
And secondly, the nominee's declaration that she would recuse herself if her judicial judgment went contrary to her church informed conscience shows that she has trouble regarding law and dogma as separate things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Sept 11, 2017 20:05:37 GMT
tpfkar The ungodly globalists had probably the best chance they were every going to get to wipe out Christianity during the first two years of Obama's first term, and they didn't do it. They couldn't do it then, and they have even less chance of doing it now, but they never give up, and eventually they'll do it, by any means necessary. oh so dramatic
By the same token, I'll never understand the people who deny that she is a transgender. Joan Rivers blabbed it on TV two months before her death.And quite special. Look at all the martyrdom. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 11, 2017 20:11:56 GMT
tpfkar oh so dramatic
By the same token, I'll never understand the people who deny that she is a transgender. Joan Rivers blabbed it on TV two months before her death.And quite special. Look at all the martyrdom. Want to prove me wrong? Make your own board, and then you and your scurvy crew can post your propaganda there from now on. I recommend calling it the SJW board. |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Sept 11, 2017 20:27:52 GMT
You can't prove conspiracies wrong. Hell, the failure of a single FEMA/Jade Helm/etc. conspiracy to actually occur didn't even make a dent in the claims. Actually being wrong didn't prove it wrong.  Besides which, you've got a whole lot riding on this whole "Awakened combating globalism via Yewtewb shorts and counterpoints are DOGMA and TELLING ME WHAT TO THINK!" fantasy thing and I don't know what else you've got going on, so I wouldn't want to pop the bubble. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 11, 2017 22:02:53 GMT
You can't prove conspiracies wrong. Hell, the failure of a single FEMA/Jade Helm/etc. conspiracy to actually occur didn't even make a dent in the claims. Actually being wrong didn't prove it wrong. Besides which, you've got a whole lot riding on this whole "Awakened combating globalism via Yewtewb shorts and counterpoints are DOGMA and TELLING ME WHAT TO THINK!" fantasy thing and I don't know what else you've got going on, so I wouldn't want to pop the bubble. Why would I want to prove them wrong? Oh, wait a minute. Did you mean me, Erjen, when you said, "you?" Or did you mean the general you? No, I can't prove it wrong, but you could prove it wrong if you and your fellows would simply find another place to dump your trash, instead of bringing it here. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 11, 2017 22:23:31 GMT
There's no reason to ask questions about religious views of the judge. It's not even Feinstein's place to question her personal secular views. If the law and dogma are separate things then why would Feinstein think the candidate isn't aware of that too?Because it would be naïve to make such an assumption, and Feinstein would be derelict not to check.
And secondly, the nominee's declaration that she would recuse herself if her judicial judgment went contrary to her church informed conscience shows that she has trouble regarding law and dogma as separate things.
It's not naïve to follow what should be assumed. If Feinstein couldn't find any information on the lady addressing her issues mixing religion and politics, the very thing she is now guilty of, then there literally weren't any issues to discuss.
Now if the lady had blown up an abortion clinic or something, then there would be an opening.
Feinstein should just say she doesn't trust Catholics to make distinctions between their faith and law and thus admit to be a bonafide Trump level idiot.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Sept 12, 2017 0:04:36 GMT
as once again the courts are being loaded with the 'spiritually enlightened'.
when do we see the construction of the water dunking chairs alongside the potomac?
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Sept 12, 2017 0:11:25 GMT
since we can't do the puritan water torture any more
the resiliency of dogmatic principalities
is
truly breath taking
when
you consider
that it wasn't so long ago
you could strap
your
neighborhood ho
to a wooden seat and dunk her
as the water would flow
in and around the very same orofice
you were just dying to
plow
from the get go
all the while screaming
she's a witch
because
my mommy told me so.
sjw 09/11/17 inspired at this very moment in time by the weasel in the corn field just dying for the sun to go down.
from the 'blasphemy series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Sept 12, 2017 16:54:34 GMT
Nope. By definition. Re-read the "FEMA and Jade Helm" portion above.
Even arguing the likelihood of the conspiracy simply places the one speaking inside the conspiracy itself. For instance, you and Molar were so enamored at the idea of masons controlling your lives in secret that my dubbing it unlikely immediately elevated me to a lvl something-or-other mason. Like magic!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 12, 2017 18:17:06 GMT
tpfkar oh so dramatic
By the same token, I'll never understand the people who deny that she is a transgender. Joan Rivers blabbed it on TV two months before her death.And quite special. Look at all the martyrdom. Hey, if that's the way you want to see it, I certainly can't stop you, and I wouldn't care enough to try. |
|
