HOT MIC: Liberal Senator Feinstein Caught Ranting About Amy Coney Barrett’s Catholic Religion When S

Nothing. Religious people like to pretend they are persecuted. Everything she said (above) is absolutely true and is absolutely not disparaging. If she had said the "Handmaid" (she actually served as a handmaid) was a far right religious nutcase that would also be true, but it would be disparaging. Can't wait for the SCOTUS to strike laws protecting abortion and contraception and gay marriage. Society is going to go nuts and it is going to be entertaining.

Of course the first thing she will do is join the majority in striking the ACA during a pandemic because, um...you know, the party of life and all. LOL

 

You bet. And after the reelection they will get a chance to replace one or two more.

 

That WON'T happen.

Because, Everybody KNOWS that Trump is going to LOSE.

But, obviously, nothing can stop Barrett.

 

Psalm 5:9 advises, Not a word from their mouth can be trusted, their heart is filled with destruction. Their throat is an open grave, with their tongues they speak deceit.

 

Everybody knew Tom Dewey would stomp Harry Truman. And before that, it was FDR who in a radio address (26 October 1939) declared, "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."

 

The 9/11 attackers were all here on visas. A sign of American religious tolerance lies in the fact that mosques and other muslim-oriented institutions were not tossed out of the U.S., despite heated calls to do so. That same tolerance allows Israel the same right afforded to every other country --- the right to exist. Our left joins the global drive supporting those who want that nation obliterated.

 

One must first be nominated, mustn't one? ....Must-see TV!

 

It's interesting to see how Democrats get apoplectic because they're so CERTAIN that we Conservatives want to overturn 'Roe v Wade'.

It ain't necessarily so -- NOT AT ALL....

A large number of us in 'the Middle' accepted the concept decades ago that whatever a woman wants or does not want inside her own body is HER BUSINESS, and HER BUSINESS ALONE!

If she wants to kill the fetus, baby, blob-of-tissues, or whatever inside her, that is for HER to decide! And let the consequences, if any, be HERS ALONE, TOO!

Besides, a pragmatic Conservative could suggest that we've got WAY too many unwanted children and their stupid, careless mothers on welfare already! Better to 'nip the problem in the bud', and so I also suggest that if an indigent woman wants rid of her 'blob-of-tissue', the government should actually pay the cost -- rather than have 'Mama' and the unwanted children on welfare for decades....

So, take comfort from my suggestion, you who are liberal-Leftists -- If these women don't want their surplus baggage of 'tissues', NEITHER DO MOST OF THE REST OF US!

 

Murkowski has a very Liberal voting record, and frankly should switch parties because she really hasn't been a solid Republican vote for quite some time. I suspect she called herself a Republican in a Red State like Alaska because it's easier to win the seat that way. But that's besides the point, Dianne Feinstein said "the dogma lives loudly in you", yet they'd proclaim the dogma doesn't live loudly in the other justices?

This is religious bigotry, whether one wants to accept their bigotry or not, own it or not is not my problem. Why did Sasse have to write that measure in the Senate that no one can be questioned on their membership to the Knights of Columbus? Why was that even a thing?

Once they can acknowledge their religious bigotry(no different than racism), they can work on it. But they are religious bigots and it is they the Framers would say have no place in our federal government due to said religious bigotry.

 

it's a nonexistent pet issue, and has to be because it's basically a squirrel. They wouldn't want the voting masses, like Kimberly Stressel of the Federalist to critically look at their record in their inner cities and be like "Okay...what have you actually done for these people?" They use pet issues like this all of the time as an excuse to cover up the pitiful results of their programs.

Little do people connect the dots that these issues exist because the so called party of progress has yet to fix any of them.

 

And, in many cases, I would agree with them. But this is not one of those cases.

 

Jews hate Catholics. No surprise here.

 

I don't disagree with what you're saying about religious bigotry, it just doesn't seem likely to me that Feinstein is speaking out of religious bigotry considering that the supreme court is already made up mostly of Catholic judges, of which Feinstein herself voted for at least one of them. I don't want to rule out completely the notion of religious bigotry, but to me this whole thing seems to stem from Feinstein's disagreement with Barrett on the matter of legal restrictions on abortions.

 

Christians crying persecution in the United States is a joke. Other places, there is some persecution. In the United States, the churches pay no tax, the "evangelical" hucksters pay no tax on the millions they fleece from the gullible, and the only type of "persecution" a Christian faces in the United States is when they fail to force others to abide by their religious choices. For example, it is persecution when a baker is prevented from discriminating against a gay person, or it is persecution when Hobby Lobby is prevented from complying with the ACA because they think contraception is evil.

In the early 90's the SCOTUS decided the "Peyote" case. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."