Kevin's Watch Forum Index
 HomeHome   MemberlistMemberlist   RegisterRegister   SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   FAQFAQ   StatisticsStatistics  SudokuSudoku   Phoogle MapPhoogle Map 
 AlbumAlbum StoresStores   StoresItems Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Upcoming Supreme Court Cases
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 42, 43, 44 ... 46, 47, 48  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Kevin's Watch Forum Index -> Hile Troy's Think-Tank
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Skyweir
Lord of Light


Joined: 16 Mar 2002
Posts: 21184

Thanks: 20
Thanked 83 Times in 83 Posts

Location: Australia
43651 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Lord's Staff1 Oath of Peace1 Furls Fire


PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zarathustra wrote:
I haven't been posting much lately (too busy). I'm astonished to learn that in my absence Skyweir has discovered the cure to cancer!


LOL

Theres little grit cant combat 😉
_________________
health and healing

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'

EZBoard SURVIVOR
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton


Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Posts: 60097

Thanks: 74
Thanked 193 Times in 189 Posts

Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
37495 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Pantheon Veteran1 Furls Fire


PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

peter wrote:
What do you guys think would happen if Trump looses - but not by a significant enough margin that Biden can be awarded a landslide - and then simply refuses to leave the Office?
Nah, not gonna happen. Or at least so improbable that it would take The Golden Heart to make it happen. Laughing

They said the same thing about Bush too. But the system is not nearly so badly damaged or degraded that that sort of thing would fly on either side of the aisle. Very Happy

--A
_________________
It's easy to judge. It's more difficult to understand.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Phoogle Map
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie

Male
Joined: 07 Feb 2015
Posts: 3775

Thanks: 19
Thanked 42 Times in 41 Posts


13633 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Member of Linden's Army


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

+JMJ+

Subject Header: Church–State Relations/ACB/The People of Praise
Inter-Thread Trackbacks:
"The Future of Abortion Law in the United States": pg 2



Is Judge Barrett’s ‘kingdom of God’ different from Obama’s? [In-Depth, Opinion]

Quote:

Judge Amy Coney Barrett appears at her nomination hearing to sit on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in September 2017. Video screengrab


(RNS) — The Washington Post’s headline on an assessment of Ruth Bader Ginsburg this weekend read: “Ruth Bader Ginsburg was passionate about Judaism’s concern for justice.” The article (by my Religion News Service colleague Yonat Shimron) noted that Justice Ginsburg hung Bible verses in her chambers signaling from where she took inspiration for her life’s work.

[…]

For President Barack Obama, the question of his religion was occasionally a sore point — as a candidate he had to disavow the inflammatory rhetoric of a pastor of a church he attended in Chicago — or the source of uninformed conjecture — he was often suspected of being an undeclared Muslim. But Obama’s Christian faith was central to his identity and goals as politician and statesman. One of the signal moments of his presidency was his halting baritone leading the crowd in “Amazing Grace” at the eulogy for the victims of a racist massacre at the Mother Emanuel AME church in Charleston, South Carolina.

Significantly, very few object to these religious approaches. Almost no one suggests today that Ginsburg, King and Obama were acting as theocrats trying to impose their religion on those who think differently. Almost no one says that it is “of concern” that these towering public figures were fundamentally guided by their faith in their attempts to change U.S. political realities.

When Notre Dame law professor Amy Coney Barrett appeared at her nomination hearing to sit on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, however, faith and public policy were suddenly at odds. Sen. Dianne Feinstein spoke for many when she told Barrett quite directly, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”

Feinstein was not wrong: The dogma clearly lives loudly within Judge Barrett. Barrett is a pro-life Catholic whose respect for human dignity is consistent across the board, from fertilization (she is anti-abortion) until natural death (she is anti-death penalty).

The problem Feinstein and others have with how Barrett’s Catholic faith influences her approach to the law appears to be the conclusions Barrett’s faith leads her to. In short, the critique is not about religion at all, but about disagreement over political views.

More recently, a tweet quotes Barrett saying she considers building the kingdom of God the goal of a legal career. While the mention of kingdoms and the deity may scare some secular minds, the phrase “the kingdom of God,” to most Christians, represents a restored world where justice and care for the other prevails — not so different from the Jewish concept of tikkun olam. The idea that Christians on the right, left and everywhere else should not pursue the kingdom of God in their lives is a misunderstanding of the religious concept and faith in general.


Ron Charles @RonCharles | Twitter



In 2007, Obama told an evangelical congregation in South Carolina: “We’re going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a kingdom right here on earth.” Though disagreeing on some important particulars, Barrett is similarly interested in praising God and working to help build the kingdom.

Neither is a dangerous theocrat.

“Now hold up,” a critic might say at this point. “Everyone is permitted to judge based on their particular vision of the good, but only within reason. Judge Coney Barrett belongs to the ‘People of Praise’ Christian cult.” Is there more proof that she wants to rule as a theocrat and therefore has no place on the Supreme Court of the United States?

For people outside of church circles, small charismatic Christian groups like People of Praise may seem “of concern,” even cultish. But within large religious institutions like the Catholic Church, such groups are quite common and are particularly attractive at a time of loneliness and disconnection. That’s perhaps why praise groups are one of the important ways people of color and immigrants have changed and are changing American churches. Pope Francis is a big supporter of these groups and has encouraged them in their local efforts to work for justice.

[…]

A vote for Barrett would hardly be a vote for a dangerous theocrat. In many ways, it would be a vote for precisely the opposite.

_________________





Last edited by Wosbald on Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sgt.null
jack of odd trades; master of fun

MaleRanyhyn
Joined: 19 Jul 2005
Posts: 44922

Thanks: 49
Thanked 96 Times in 95 Posts

Location: texas
8604 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 2007 Watchies1 2005 Watchies1 2011 Watchies


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The nomination of Judge Barrett will be a time for voters to see the left's religious bigotry on display in the hearings.

Just remember the KKK, were founded by the Democrsts on their hatred of Blacks after the Democrats lost the Civil War and their slaves.

Catholics and Jews were added later with second wave of the KKK. The third wave of the Klan saw them expand the list if people they hate to include Gays, Communists, Feminists, Atheists, Muslims.

https://nypost.com/2020/09/25/trump-to-designate-kkk-antifa-as-terrorist-groups-in-black-empowerment-plan/

Not sure why no one has labeled the KKK a terrorist group before this.
_________________
life's not a paragraph
And death i think is no parenthesis”
― E.E. Cummings

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Phoogle Map
Brother ur-Nan
God Bless Uncle Joe


Joined: 07 Jan 2018
Posts: 2943

Thanks: 19
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts


12684 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Democrats didn't lose the Civil War. There were Democrats in the North as well.

The South lost the Civil War. Get your history straight because you don't know shit about Southern politics. The KKK was created in response to the Reconstruction.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sgt.null
jack of odd trades; master of fun

MaleRanyhyn
Joined: 19 Jul 2005
Posts: 44922

Thanks: 49
Thanked 96 Times in 95 Posts

Location: texas
8604 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 2007 Watchies1 2005 Watchies1 2011 Watchies


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ur - Democrats, formed by noted Indian killer Andrew Jackson. The party of slavery. The Republican party was formed in opposition to slavery.

The Democrats didn't want to givebup the slaves. Attempted to secede from the Union. Started a Civil War. Lost the Civil War.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17604991

"It appears a long-held estimate of the war's death toll could have undercounted the dead by as many as 130,000."

"For more than a century, it has been accepted with a grain of salt that about 620,000 Americans died in the conflict, with more than half of those dying off the battlefield from disease or festering wounds."

"That was until December, when historian J David Hacker published a paper that used demographic methods and sophisticated statistical software to study newly digitised US census records from 1850 to 1880."

"His finding: An estimated 750,000 soldiers died in the war - 21% higher than the 19th Century estimate."

In response to losing the War, the KKK was formed. This is the terrorist arm of the Democrats. They would engage in lynchings.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nearly-2000-black-americans-were-lynched-during-reconstruction-180975120/

"2,000 racial terror lynchings of black men, women and children during the Reconstruction era of 1865 to 1876."

"More than 4,400 lynchings that took place between 1877 and 1950. The new study, titled Reconstruction in America: Racial Violence After the Civil War, brings the overall death toll between 1865 and 1950 to nearly 6500."

Democrats would pass Jim Crow laws.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws.

And of course poll taxes had existed by became a popular way to deny blacks the right to vote. Along with literacy tests.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_taxes_in_the_United_States

Democrats enacted strict racisl segregation in the South.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States

Democrats fought several attempts to pass a Civil Rights act through the years. Unyil 1964.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Now I'll admit I mainly focused on Democrats and their history with blacks. So in the interest of fairness, here is some history of Andrew Jackson and his Indian Removal Act. Another term for Genocide.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act

This then led to the Trail of Tears.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

Hope that helps.
_________________
life's not a paragraph
And death i think is no parenthesis”
― E.E. Cummings

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Phoogle Map
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie

Male
Joined: 07 Feb 2015
Posts: 3775

Thanks: 19
Thanked 42 Times in 41 Posts


13633 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Member of Linden's Army


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

+JMJ+

Subject Header: Church–State Relations/ACB/The People of Praise
Intra-Thread Trackbacks: pg 43

Inter-Thread Trackbacks:
"The Future of Abortion Law in the United States": pg 2



Why Amy Coney Barrett’s Religious Beliefs Aren’t Off Limits [In-Depth, Opinion]

Quote:

Win McNamee/Getty Images


Putting a member of a “covenant” community on the high court would raise a whole new set of questions about religion and the Constitution.


================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

Massimo Faggioli is a professor of theology and religious studies at Villanova University. His books on the new Catholic communities have been published by Liturgical Press (2014) and Paulist Press (2016).

============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

Amy Coney Barrett has risen to the top of President Donald Trump’s short list to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the United States Supreme Court. A Roman Catholic, she is a life-long adherent of the People of Praise, a charismatic Christian group with a highly authoritarian internal structure.

Over the past several days, her backers have been arguing that public questions about her religious beliefs should be off limits — and that it’s anti-Catholic for Democrats even to raise questions about them, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein did in Barrett’s confirmation hearings the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in 2017. Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt has accused Democrats and the news media of expressing an “anti-Catholic bias” that is “deep and enduring.”

I’m a Catholic scholar, I’ve written two books on the type of religious community that Barrett is a member of, and I don’t think it’s anti-Catholic to ask questions about Barrett’s religious beliefs. On the contrary, as the president nears a decision on her potential nomination later this week, I’m convinced they need to be front and center.

[…]

The Catholic Church’s official stance toward these new Catholic movements and communities is instructive. Six years ago, in a speech to a world gathering of these new Catholic movements and communities, Pope Francis warned them directly against the temptation of “usurping individual freedom” of their members.

If the pope is raising some hard questions about the compatibility in the Catholic Church of individual freedom and the charisma of these communities, it will be entirely fair for the Senate to ask similar questions when considering the Supreme Court nomination of someone who belongs to such a community.

Let me be clear: This debate is also not about the “cultish” aspects of the People of Praise. Scholars of religion know that deploying the “cult” label is often a way of dismissing disfavored religious spiritual groups. Not all experiments in new models of community life are suspect.

At the same time, not all worries about these groups are unwarranted. Ironically, from a Catholic perspective, the two most pressing questions about the People of Praise may be the exact opposite of the ones raised so far in the discussion of Barrett’s potential nomination.

The first question from a Catholic perspective has to do with what Barrett actually believes about religion, political authority and constitutional interpretation. During Barrett’s 2017 confirmation hearing for her seat on the 7th Circuit, Sen. Dianne Feinstein infamously remarked that the “dogma lives loudly within you.” But the real question to ask members of Catholic charismatic communities isn’t whether dogma animates them, it’s whose dogma animates them.

The dogmatic dimension of the Catholic intellectual tradition is, literally, an open book — the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Its dogma not only binds its members, it also protects them. It guarantees believers freedom of conscience and safeguards the legitimate autonomy of the social-political community. In contrast, the moral and intellectual commitments of these new Catholic communities is often based more on the idiosyncratic charismatic authority of the founder and the leaders than on a robust commitment to the Catholic intellectual tradition.

The second question pertains to Barrett’s independence as a judge. To whom has Barrett made a vow of obedience? What is its nature and scope? What are the consequences of violating it? Groups like the People of Praise are a new form of lay Christian life. The members of these communities are (and see themselves as) different from ordinary nonordained Catholics, who do not take vows to obey their parish priests and bishops. But members of covenant communities do typically make broad vows of obedience to community leaders.

Vows of obedience, of course, are nothing new in the Catholic Church. Nor are they the exclusive province of conservative Catholics. Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans and lay Catholic members of “secular institutes” all take them. Some people might understandably balk at having a member of a religious order or Opus Dei sit on the Supreme Court. But at least in these communities, the vow of obedience or other commitment that such a person makes would be visible, formal and accountable. That is not the case with new Catholic charismatic communities, whose vows are often not public and whose leadership is not accountable under Church law.

Let’s leave aside questions of ideology and political perspective. The key point is this: The analogy drawn between members of new Catholic communities and other Catholics in public office is false. Amy Coney Barrett is not Catholic like John F. Kennedy was Catholic or Joe Biden or Paul Ryan or the late Antonin Scalia was Catholic. She has made solemn promises that go far beyond the baptismal promises every Catholic makes. Nor is Barrett like Robert Drinan, a Jesuit priest who served for many years in the U.S. House of Representatives. His vows of obedience as a Jesuit were open and public.

[…]

_________________





Last edited by Wosbald on Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wayfriend
whilom witling

Male
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Posts: 20189

Thanks: 11
Thanked 246 Times in 225 Posts

Location: In reality once again
49166 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
3 Member of Linden's Army


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You have to expect that concern for SC basing cases on religion and not law would be mischaracterized as an attack on religion. That's as old as the War on Christmas!
_________________
* I occasionally post things on KevinsWatch because I am a fan of Stephen R. Donaldson; this should not be considered as condonation of the white nationalist propaganda which is posted far too frequently on this website.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
sgt.null
jack of odd trades; master of fun

MaleRanyhyn
Joined: 19 Jul 2005
Posts: 44922

Thanks: 49
Thanked 96 Times in 95 Posts

Location: texas
8604 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 2007 Watchies1 2005 Watchies1 2011 Watchies


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Article Six of the United States Constitution establishes the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land, forbids a religious test as a requirement for holding a governmental position.
_________________
life's not a paragraph
And death i think is no parenthesis”
― E.E. Cummings

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Phoogle Map
Hashi Lebwohl
Director of Data Acquisition

Male
Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Posts: 16433

Thanks: 29
Thanked 139 Times in 135 Posts

Location: UMCPHQ
94286 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Caesure1 Insequent1 UMCPHQ


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sarge's assessment of the KKK and Jim Cow is accurate. Reconstruction led to "yellow dog Democrats"--they would vote for a yellow dog before voting Republican and Jim Crow was designed to keep newly-freed blacks in their place. Meanwhile, the Republican Party in Texas was formed by free and educated black men--look it up for yourself if you don't believe me.

Anyway...yes, we will see attacks on Barrett's religious beliefs and those will be met by silence from Joe Biden, a fellow catholic and one of the two Senators who invented borking (again, look it up).

_________________
No matter how thinly you slice it, it's still bologna.

What is the secret of Zen? Burn all your Zen books.

If you can't handle losing then you don't deserve to win.

Don Exnihilote wrote:
Hashi, if you thought you were wrong at times, evidently you were mistaken.


Mensa and Intertel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sgt.null
jack of odd trades; master of fun

MaleRanyhyn
Joined: 19 Jul 2005
Posts: 44922

Thanks: 49
Thanked 96 Times in 95 Posts

Location: texas
8604 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 2007 Watchies1 2005 Watchies1 2011 Watchies


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you Hashi.

Biden also stood by while they tried to assassinate the character of Clarence Thomas.
_________________
life's not a paragraph
And death i think is no parenthesis”
― E.E. Cummings

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Phoogle Map
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie

Male
Joined: 07 Feb 2015
Posts: 3775

Thanks: 19
Thanked 42 Times in 41 Posts


13633 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Member of Linden's Army


PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2020 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

+JMJ+

Subject Header: Church–State Relations/ACB/The People of Praise
Intra-Thread Trackbacks: pg 43 / pg 43

Inter-Thread Trackbacks:
"The Future of Abortion Law in the United States": pg 2



Barrett hearings will play into Trump’s hopes to claim Catholic high ground [Opinion]

Quote:

President Donald Trump walks with Judge Amy Coney Barrett to a news conference to announce Barrett as his nominee to the Supreme Court, in the Rose Garden at the White House, Saturday, Sept. 26, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)


Democrats will walk right into a trap set for them by conservatives if they make her faith the centerpiece of these hearings.


(RNS) — The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative Catholic woman, to the Supreme Court has sparked fresh debates over a centuries-old American obsession with Catholic identity and democratic values. As the Senate opens confirmation hearings on Monday (Oct. 12), a noisy public battle includes accusations of anti-Catholicism and wrestling over how the justice’s religious commitments might impact her judicial decisions.

But the Barrett hearings are only one skirmish in a broader fight for the Catholic political soul.

Since Joe Biden became the Democratic nominee, President Trump’s religious cheerleaders have tried to depict Biden as a “fake Catholic” because of his support for abortion rights. Other members of the administration are taking on the global church. After Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned the Vatican would lose “moral authority” if it went forward with an agreement with the Chinese government on internal church policies, Pope Francis refused to meet with him during a religious freedom conference organized by the U.S. embassy to Rome. Pompeo then held meetings with clergy who have publicly opposed the pope.



U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivers his speech during the “Advancing and Defending International Religious Freedom Through Diplomacy” symposium, in Rome, Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2020. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)


The Trump administration is in no position to claim any high ground when it comes to Catholic values. The administration’s policies on immigration, taxes, expanding health care to the poor, climate change, the death penalty, and international agreements clash with positions taken by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso, Texas, wrote last week that President Trump has “tainted the pro-life cause with the individualism and cult of wealth, greed and celebrity that very quickly erode solidarity and cheapen life.”

Yet a president who once called Pope Francis “disgraceful” after being challenged for his anti-immigrant rhetoric is now positioning himself as a defender of the Catholic Church.

“Seriously, they’re going after her Catholicism,” Trump said recently about his Supreme Court nominee. Speaking to a high-profile charity dinner for the Archdiocese of New York last week, Trump denounced “attacks against Judge Barrett’s faith,” accusing the Democratic Party of “anti-Catholic bigotry.”

Most Americans are likely to be surprised to hear breathless charges of anti-Catholicism raised today. More than four decades have passed since John F. Kennedy convinced most voters that he would not take his marching orders from the Vatican, an ugly trope that Protestant leaders had peddled at least since New York Mayor Al Smith became the first Catholic presidential nominee in 1928.

It is not 1928 or even 1960. Catholics in powerful positions in law and politics include the current Democratic presidential nominee, the speaker of the House, more than a third of congressional representatives and five current Supreme Court justices. There are no institutional hurdles stopping Catholics, regardless of political leanings, from ascending to power in the way that there still are for LGBTQ Americans and people of color. Barrett herself is proof of this fact.



Judge Amy Coney Barrett appears at her nomination hearing to sit on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in September 2017. (Video screengrab)


[…]

Feinstein’s ill-considered remark [in 2017, about "the dogma" living "loudly" in Barrett] and backlash should serve as a cautionary tale for liberal opponents of Barrett and to Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who will question her next week.

It’s not “anti-Catholic” to respectfully probe how a justice’s religious commitment might impact her judicial philosophy. Barrett herself once wrote a law review article that argued a Catholic justice might need to recuse herself in death penalty cases given church teaching against executions. But Democrats will walk right into a trap set for them by conservatives if they make her faith the centerpiece of these hearings.

The “anti-Catholic” mantra is a manufactured myth to distract from a crass power grab less than a month before the election, a victim narrative that serves as a convenient brand if you’re losing the culture war. Those who remake a radical faith that challenges power, pride and greed into a transactional strategy for seating a supposed “pro-life” judge have distorted the prophetic essence of Christianity.

The problem isn’t that Amy Coney Barrett is a Catholic. The cause for alarm is the court’s extreme lurch to the right and how that threatens health care, voting rights and other moral issues at stake in this election.

_________________





Last edited by Wosbald on Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orlion
Clairvoyant

MaleRanyhyn
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 6636

Thanks: 17
Thanked 58 Times in 57 Posts

Location: Getting there...
8280 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Dalek1 Member of Linden's Army1 SRD's Green Rock


PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Republicans generally use bad-faith equivalencies.

"So much for tolerance!" they often and famously deride. This is another case.

People would like Supreme Court Judges to uphold the Spirit of the Constitution, not be political instruments that bring about a side's ideology into supremacy. Accordingly, it is important to assess if candidates have a healthy respect for pluralism.

This means that the judges will make rulings they can, in good faith, believe others can accept reasonably. This was a strength of Scalia, whatever you might have thought of his legal reasonings, you could see the US population "reasonably" accept them. In other words, one need only be convinced by the reason of the argument instead of all ready accept dogmatic ideologies (Catholic, Islam, Mormon, etc.)

It is important to try to assess if Barrett, like Scalia, will have that same general respect (her reasonings can certainly be different, that's the beauty of pluralism, multiple different positions can be arrived at through logic and reason.)

Now, I am speaking of a Rawlsian rational pluralism, of course. Just stating that for those of you who prefer to be right instead of see context.
_________________
'Tis dream to think that Reason can
Govern the reasoning creature, man.
- Herman Melville

I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all!

"All creation is a huge, ornate, imaginary, and unintended fiction; if it could be deciphered it would yield a single shocking word."
-John Crowley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Phoogle Map
Hashi Lebwohl
Director of Data Acquisition

Male
Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Posts: 16433

Thanks: 29
Thanked 139 Times in 135 Posts

Location: UMCPHQ
94286 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Caesure1 Insequent1 UMCPHQ


PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Upholding the spirit of the Constitution" naturally places one in opposition to Democrat ideology, which ultimately seeks to give the Federal Government far more authority than it was meant to have. The way the United States is supposed to work is like this: States > Federal Government but Democrats have been trying to invert that formula for decades, because they want Federal Government > States.

The Senate needs to fast-track the Judiciary Committee hearings, not allow external witnesses, give each Senator one hour to question Ms. Barrett, then vote to move the confirmation to the main floor. Once there, each individual Senator may take up to one hour to question her, not allowing any external witnesses, then hold an up-or-down vote. Any Senator who leaves in an attempt to prevent a quorum is to be detained by Federal Marshals and brought back to perform their duty. Ms. Barrett need not be confirmed before the election, but she needs to be confirmed before the next Senate convenes on 4 January.

_________________
No matter how thinly you slice it, it's still bologna.

What is the secret of Zen? Burn all your Zen books.

If you can't handle losing then you don't deserve to win.

Don Exnihilote wrote:
Hashi, if you thought you were wrong at times, evidently you were mistaken.


Mensa and Intertel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orlion
Clairvoyant

MaleRanyhyn
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 6636

Thanks: 17
Thanked 58 Times in 57 Posts

Location: Getting there...
8280 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Dalek1 Member of Linden's Army1 SRD's Green Rock


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
"Upholding the spirit of the Constitution" naturally places one in opposition to Democrat ideology, which ultimately seeks to give the Federal Government far more authority than it was meant to have. The way the United States is supposed to work is like this: States > Federal Government but Democrats have been trying to invert that formula for decades, because they want Federal Government > States.

The Senate needs to fast-track the Judiciary Committee hearings, not allow external witnesses, give each Senator one hour to question Ms. Barrett, then vote to move the confirmation to the main floor. Once there, each individual Senator may take up to one hour to question her, not allowing any external witnesses, then hold an up-or-down vote. Any Senator who leaves in an attempt to prevent a quorum is to be detained by Federal Marshals and brought back to perform their duty. Ms. Barrett need not be confirmed before the election, but she needs to be confirmed before the next Senate convenes on 4 January.


Would you want your doctor to practice solely medical science from the 18th centruy? Do you think it's a good idea for upcoming mechanics to focus on maintaining model T's?

Situations change, improvements are discovered and issues with previous methods are exposed. Instead of sticking dogmatically with outmoded systems (which might not have been the original intent, anyway) the system should be updated and adapted to today's environment. There are certainly plenty of arenas where the individual states should hold sway: it just leads to a better functioning society.

However, the Federal government also plays pivotal roles, particularly if you want a unified country and not 50 separate ones. It can insure that basic human rights are held across the board (this also includes US specific rights such as, say, gun ownership), it creates a unified economic block (50 different currencies? No thank you!), it can deal better with foreign deals, military, and so forth.

You can disagree with Democrat ideology, but to write it off as wholesale anathema to "the spirit of the Constitution" is just lazy partisanship.
_________________
'Tis dream to think that Reason can
Govern the reasoning creature, man.
- Herman Melville

I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all!

"All creation is a huge, ornate, imaginary, and unintended fiction; if it could be deciphered it would yield a single shocking word."
-John Crowley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Phoogle Map
Hashi Lebwohl
Director of Data Acquisition

Male
Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Posts: 16433

Thanks: 29
Thanked 139 Times in 135 Posts

Location: UMCPHQ
94286 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Caesure1 Insequent1 UMCPHQ


PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orlion wrote:
However, the Federal government also plays pivotal roles, particularly if you want a unified country and not 50 separate ones. It can insure that basic human rights are held across the board (this also includes US specific rights such as, say, gun ownership), it creates a unified economic block (50 different currencies? No thank you!), it can deal better with foreign deals, military, and so forth.


I do not want a single unified country. I do want 50 separate and equally independent mini-nations as was intended. I do agree with some Federal oversight: only one currency, "full faith and credit" so that my driver's license here is legal in every other State--of course, this also means that my conceal carry license must also be legal in every other State, managing the military, dealing with foreign nations, etc. Incidentally, gun rights is clearly spelled out by the Second Amendment--Congress is expressly forbidden from enacting any law which prohibits a citizen's right to own a gun....but States may enact whatever law suits them, which is why "gun rights" should always have been a State issue as opposed to a Federal one.

I agree that situations and technology change, but the fundamental premises of the Constitution persist despite those changes. People who say "the Constitution needs to be updated" really mean "we want to change it so that it complies with our political beliefs". If a person's political beliefs are in opposition to the Constitution then that person needs to reconsider living in the United States--if you don't like the rules of the game here then go play the game somewhere else where the rules are more to your liking. No one is forcing anyone to continue living here if they dislike it that much.

*************

Barrett's hearings before the Judiciary Committee begin tomorrow.

Meanwhile, Democrats are trying to redefine "court-packing" as "Republicans get to choose nominees with beliefs similar to theirs". *sigh* That is not what "court-packing" is. The actual definition of "court-packing" is "increasing the number of Justices on the SCOUTS in an effort to begin receiving favorable rulings". Incidentally, court-packing is how totalitarian governments gets started--if you want to take over a country then you begin by controlling the courts. Once you control the courts, you can get an official "stamp of approval" for anything you want, then you start changing the laws, cracking down on citizens, and rolling tanks down Main Street.

Having a conservative majority of 6-3 on the SCOTUS is most definitely not "court-packing" nor will it give conservatives an automatic "stamp of approval". As I said, no one is going to overturn Roe v Wade, so all those overly-dramatic "Handmaid's Tale" cosplayers can take their protest elsewhere.

_________________
No matter how thinly you slice it, it's still bologna.

What is the secret of Zen? Burn all your Zen books.

If you can't handle losing then you don't deserve to win.

Don Exnihilote wrote:
Hashi, if you thought you were wrong at times, evidently you were mistaken.


Mensa and Intertel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hashi Lebwohl
Director of Data Acquisition

Male
Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Posts: 16433

Thanks: 29
Thanked 139 Times in 135 Posts

Location: UMCPHQ
94286 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Caesure1 Insequent1 UMCPHQ


PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Democrats in 1960: Catholics are awesome and we look forward to electing one to the Oval Office.

Democrats in 2020: Catholics are weird, perverted, and should never ascend to the Supreme Court.

*************

Schumer is floating the idea of preventing a quorum on the Judiciary Committee to stall the nomination. This won't work--the Chair could move to close the committee proceedings and send the measure to the Floor, whereupon Senators could hold the confirmation vote.

On the main floor, the rules of the Senate presume that a quorum actually exists unless a Senator specifically makes a "quorum call", forcing the clerk to call roll. I suspect Democrats will run and hide, with Schumer remaining behind to make the quorum call.

In my opinion, any Senator who flees should be presumed to have resigned their office effective immediately and the Governor from that State then gets to appoint a replacement.z

_________________
No matter how thinly you slice it, it's still bologna.

What is the secret of Zen? Burn all your Zen books.

If you can't handle losing then you don't deserve to win.

Don Exnihilote wrote:
Hashi, if you thought you were wrong at times, evidently you were mistaken.


Mensa and Intertel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wayfriend
whilom witling

Male
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Posts: 20189

Thanks: 11
Thanked 246 Times in 225 Posts

Location: In reality once again
49166 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
3 Member of Linden's Army


PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
Democrats in 2020: Catholics are weird, perverted, and should never ascend to the Supreme Court.

Republicans in 2020: The more they point out that this nominee admitted to not ruling based on the law, the more we will call it Hating Catholics.

She wrote a whole paper about how judges should, when the law conflicts with their religion, follow their religion rather than the law.

What can disqualify you more than that?

It's like a SC nominee saying "I will rule based on what the voices in my head say."
_________________
* I occasionally post things on KevinsWatch because I am a fan of Stephen R. Donaldson; this should not be considered as condonation of the white nationalist propaganda which is posted far too frequently on this website.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie

Male
Joined: 07 Feb 2015
Posts: 3775

Thanks: 19
Thanked 42 Times in 41 Posts


13633 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Member of Linden's Army


PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

+JMJ+

Subject Header: Church–State Relations/ACB/The People of Praise
Intra-Thread Trackbacks: pg 43 / pg 43 / pg 43

Inter-Thread Trackbacks:
"The Future of Abortion Law in the United States": pg 2



The changing face of US Catholicism: Taking the long view on Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination [In-Depth, Opinion]

Quote:

This rise of conservative Catholic justices over the last four decades — like the nominee to the US Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett — is the result of an ideological convergence between conservative Catholicism and the Republican Party. (Olivier Douliery / AFP via Getty Images)


[…]

No one wants to turn a Senate confirmation hearing into a theological debate, not when religion has played such a divisive role in this extreme phase of America’s “culture wars.” But the nomination of judge Amy Coney Barrett to the US Supreme Court deserves to be studied, if not with overt political intent, then in the interest of understanding this particular moment in political and religious history: what in French is called l’histoire du temps présent, and in German Zeitgeschichte. I tried to do precisely this a few weeks ago in an op-ed that appeared in Politico.

Catholicism and the Supreme Court

There is a short-term perspective that makes this judicial nomination relevant. Amy Coney Barrett is a conservative Catholic, and has been picked to replace a liberal Jewish woman, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to serve as one of the nine justices who sit on the US Supreme Court — an institution which has acquired even greater legislative significance in an era of partisan gridlock.

[…]

The fact that a majority of justices on the US Supreme Court are Catholic is no accident. Beginning with the nomination of Antonin Scalia in 1986, Republican presidents have nominated, and the Senate confirmed, a succession of conservative justices who were practicing and/or baptised Catholics. (It is interesting to note that conservative Judge Robert Bork, whose 1987 nomination to the Supreme Court was unsuccessful, converted to Catholicism in 2003.) This rise of conservative Catholic justices to the US Supreme Court over the last four decades is the result of an ideological convergence between conservative Catholicism and the Republican Party, and facilitated by the powerful legal network available to conservative Catholics (compared to evangelical Protestants).

The big picture is that post-liberal or anti-liberal Catholicism in the United States has become the reserve from which the Republican Party draws — especially when it comes to the nomination of judges to the US Supreme Court. This is an important chapter in the developing story of the influence of the Catholic intellectual tradition and the role of conservative Catholic jurists within the legal conservative movement in the United States.

Catholicism and the public square

Some Catholics grow worried when they see the Catholic faith of judges on trial in the halls of the US constitutional system, but it is political liberalism itself that is on trial in the court of post-liberal and illiberal Catholicism — after all, some of its most daring minds are legal theorists. This is particularly relevant in the current context.

While it is fair to draw a distinction between the religious views and beliefs of a judge and their judicial record, it is also somewhat artificial. There is undoubtedly a nexus between religious beliefs and social policy, which becomes salient in view of the disparity between the religious makeup of the Supreme Court, on the one hand, and the increasingly secular and religiously diverse makeup of the nation, on the other. The largely anti-government, communitarian culture of some of post-Vatican II movements is clear not only from their stance on bioethical and biopolitical issues, but also on the governments’ role in the economy, on workers’ rights, and on universal access to health care, for example.

[…]

Catholicism and the non-autonomy of the secular

The revanche de Dieu (“the revenge of God”), the comeback of religion in politics began globally in the 1970s. And while this phenomenon has usually been applied to the resurgence of political Islam, it must include Catholicism.

There is thus a long-term perspective that helps understand the importance of this moment, which signals a notable change from the first half of the twentieth century. One of the most important achievements of Catholicism in modernity was its acceptance of constitutional democracy. Part of the price of this acceptance was the acknowledgment by the hierarchical Church of the independence and autonomy of the secular realm, cautiously stated in magisterial texts but more visibly signified by the impossibility of Catholic clerics and members of religious orders to serve in public offices: parliaments and local legislatures, mayors, and judges. Between the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, relations between Church and state in the West settled on the principle that it was not a good thing for clergy to be elected to public office because of the conflict that could arise between their being hierarchically part of the Catholic community and their vocation as public representatives in the secular realm. Now, this established principle is showing some cracks — like in Africa recently, for example.

Is not something similar happening in the case of those who hold public office while being members of Catholic communities whose theology and conception of culture rejects the very notion of the separation between Church and state, and between religion and politics? Indeed, an important aspect of the revanche de Dieu is the rise of new Christian and Catholic movements whose understanding of the role of “strong religions” has to do with the rejection of the prevailing liberal arrangement between religion and politics.

This is not just a component of the “religious right” or of fundamentalist Christianity, but also — albeit in a different way — of the Catholic Church in the Anglosphere (what can be called “Anglobalised” Catholicism). The wall of separation between clerical or religious life and life of lay Catholics in the saeculum started to collapse in the 1960s, thanks primarily to the theology of the Second Vatican Council. But the emergence of new Catholic movements and charismatic communities (like People of Praise) is also an important part of this picture. As a result, the secular sphere (whatever that means today in different local contexts) is no longer reserved for the duties and activities of the Catholic lay people that Vatican II had in mind, but is open to the involvement of a new kind of Catholic whose religious commitments put them in a third category, somewhere between the laity and the members of a religious order. Regardless of whether Catholics in this third category are “conservative” or “liberal,” their very pursuit of public office cannot help but have profound consequences on the polity and public policies.

This also has ecclesial consequences — which is to say, on the shape of the Catholic Church. The ties between Catholic elites and the Republican Party and its operatives are longer and deeper than between the Catholic Church and European Christian-Democratic parties in the twentieth century, at a time when the hierarchical Church was concerned with respecting the boundaries between the religious and the secular, mindful of what had happened in the first half of the twentieth century in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

The politicisation of religion means, among other things, that Catholic hierarchical authorities, especially the bishops, have been reduced to the status of followers of politicians — though this is truer for “Trump Catholics” than for progressive Catholics. The US president and the political party supporting him are trying to steer relations between church and state in an illiberal direction. It’s not clear if they will succeed. But they have already succeeded in their effort to change the public face of US Catholicism.

_________________



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brother ur-Nan
God Bless Uncle Joe


Joined: 07 Jan 2018
Posts: 2943

Thanks: 19
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts


12684 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:


PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

wayfriend wrote:
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
Democrats in 2020: Catholics are weird, perverted, and should never ascend to the Supreme Court.

Republicans in 2020: The more they point out that this nominee admitted to not ruling based on the law, the more we will call it Hating Catholics.

She wrote a whole paper about how judges should, when the law conflicts with their religion, follow their religion rather than the law.

What can disqualify you more than that?

It's like a SC nominee saying "I will rule based on what the voices in my head say."


If a Muslim SCOTUS justice ruled in favor of death by stoning, Republicans would lose their shit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Kevin's Watch Forum Index -> Hile Troy's Think-Tank All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 42, 43, 44 ... 46, 47, 48  Next
Page 43 of 48

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by Earthpower © Kevin's Watch