Trump intends to choose Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court

That’s cool, bro. Have fun asking questions then.

 

Well, for starters, it's not a "mob". Here, try reading this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-truth-about-people-of-praise-11600990129

or https://www.forbes.com/sites/karenr...up-amy-coney-barrett-belongs-to/#4418197cf753

or https://peopleofpraise.org/about/faq/

 

It will stop in services people consider non essentials.
If you are really concerned about America's security, you would pay for US army yourself without government force.
If you are really concerned about crime, you would pay for police yourself without government force.
If you are really concerned about disasters like fire, hurricanes or earthquakes, you would pay for it yourself without government force.
If you are really concerned pandemics, you would pay for CDC and other agencies yourself without government force.
Etc...

 

Okay. I read all that...even though your second link crashed my desktop. That looks like a cult to me. A break-a-way from mainstream religion taking it to extremity.

This is bizarre. The Lady says she will never allow her extreme religious views to over-ride her views on Law. That is an inbuilt contradiction, a non-sequitur. Basically it means she will sell out her religious covenant to follow the law. Nah. I don't buy that cheap whitewash. Is she a person of faithful conviction or just selling snake oil.

It is aking to arguing that you support the Brits against the Continental Army and at the same time holding to a view that you want the Poms pissed off.

Nah.

I don't buy it. She has no place anywhere near a Bench. A pulpit, sure.

 

You are a very prejudiced person. It is possible for one to separate their faith from their duty. Soldiers do it all the time, for example. Here is another example: Georges Lemaitre. A good friend of Albert Einstein’s. Look him up. Lemaitre was a Roman Catholic priest who also came up with the theory of the Big Bang.

 

Nah. You are a Lady of personal conviction or you are confected. This Lady is the ultimate of the contrast. Current settled Law is Roe -v-Wade. That case is a direct confrontation with her declared religious belief. So...what do you predict? Has the Law changed, or have the SCOTUS numbers changed?

 

No such thing as "settled law".

 

I do wonder though - is she qualified for SCOTUS given that she's only been a judge for five minutes after an academic career? Perhaps the least experienced justice ever if she is confirmed?

 

There is no such thing as “settled law”.

 

There have been Supreme Court Justices that were not lawyers.

Robert Bork was the most qualified nominee in modern times and he was stonewalled by the Democrats because he was a conservative. This is the result.

Remember, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was as far left as they come and was approved 98-2. It's only conservative justices that have to fight to get on the Court. Yes, Garland was an exception but that was pure revenge.

 

“Settled law” is like “settled science”; both only exist in the minds of leftists. Do you believe that this woman is going to singlehandedly turn over Roe Vs Wade when Barrett has said so herself that she doesn’t believe that it would be overturned and that abortions would not go away?

https://apnews.com/article/ruth-bad...s-laws-texas-0565aa9c19f4f28e3bc793646180d5b5

 

well one the law has changed. Planned Parenthood v Casey is the law

with that said the law can say one thing and my faith something else...ie that adulterous affairs aren’t illegal, or booze is ok...but my faith says something else. that doesn’t mean i want to make those things a crime.

 

A majority of the Senate disagrees with you. And FWIW, religious tests for office are expressly forbidden by our Constitution.

 

These are interesting questions and good food for thought. What things should be paid for collectively through taxation, and what should be paid for by each individual himself? Self reliance versus dependence on government.

The issue of just what should be paid for collectively, and what should be paid for individually is in general a dividing line between progressives and conservatives. For me, there is a difference between "promoting general welfare" and "promoting individual welfare." The government promotes general welfare, like police, military, roads. The individual promotes his own welfare, like food, housing, healthcare.

Back to the topic at hand - Supreme Court Appointments. That different opinions exist concerning these legal issues of just what should be paid for through taxation, it is a good thing when conservatives are elected or appointed to the various positions that have influence on the decisions. Another conservative viewpoint on the Supreme court is welcomed. We'll see how things go.

 

How do you equate an ever-growing, towering welfare debt squandered on the least-productive, most-parasitic segments of society with NECESSARY functions of a nation, like "army, police, firefighters, custom officers, NASA, CIA/FBI and other services"...?

Suggestion: convince us who are Conservatives that we need leeches, slackers, and bums as much as we need organizations that keep enemies, criminals, arsonists, and anarchists from kicking in our front doors and burning our houses down....

And while you're at it, remember -- it was the Roberts-led Supreme Court that deliberately and ILLEGALLY re-wrote Obamacare so that it could just barely be considered 'legal'. THAT is part of why it's so important to us on the Right to keep revisionist, 'activist' judges OFF the Supreme Court!

 

Very simple – I think the least-productive, most-parasitic segments of society like poorly educated, people with disabilities, old people or disabled war veterans deserved to be helped, specially in a very rich society. Because our experience shows that the individual help is not working – we need the government to tax everyone to help less lucky Americans, which you call “the least-productive, most-parasitic segments of society”.

I don’t think I can convince anyone that poorly educated, people with disabilities, old people or disabled war veterans are not leeches, slackers, and bums, but I hope the majority of Americans think different. As matter of fact most of the young generation don’t think so – so it looks that you will need to accept to live in such society.

 

That is not my point of criticism of her.

 

Yet there is nothing else that you really can criticize her on. Do you have any evidence of her alleged “extreme religious beliefs” affecting her court decisions in the past?

 

That is not my point of criticism of her.

 

then what is? what do you even know? have you read any of her opinions? she’s been on the bench three years

 

Well the Obama administration wasn't going to take it there and the cases are making their way through court. The fact is it's unconstitutional on it's face because the Senate passed it first and it is a bill that raises revenues. The Constitution is quite clear that all bills which raised revenue must originate in the House.

 

I asked you to EQUATE the relative worth of parasites versus productive and/or protective citizens. Without being pejorative about it, I must say that not only did you fail to do that, you didn't even attempt to defend that position.

You say that "our experience shows that individual help is not working", but, again, you fail to explain why that is, in your opinion. Thus, your position is that although doling out welfare to individuals does nothing that solves any problems, you imagine that levying more taxation on everyone and setting up yet another government bureaucracy to run some other welfare program would provide the needed 'panacea'...?

To put it mildly (and with sincerity), you may profit immensely by reading the works of Abraham Maslow... particularly, "A Theory of Human Motivation".

Afterword: very few Americans would object to 'safety-net' programs to provide subsistence welfare (shelter, food, clothing, necessary services) for those who are truly (TRULY) "disabled" because of tragedies like birth defects, horrible diseases, devastating physical injuries, etc. But, people laying around endlessly on their asses, supposedly 'unable' to support themselves because of 'issues' that they brought on themselves because of laziness, irresponsibility, negligence, having too much fun on drugs, etc., are not those who deserve a penny from taxpayers....

 

They're melting down on Twitter:

 

Sure there is.

Come try and break into my house here in Texas.

 

What is your basis for this opinion?

An hour of browsing?

There are literally a few hours of video on YouTube with her.

Here is a short 10 minute interview.



She is already on the bench and also a lecturer at ND.

I kinda have to wonder if maybe you are just going pure anti-Trump or the Richard Dawkins route....

She'll be the second Mom on the court, the first since Sandra O'Conner.

She more than likely considers abortion to be horrid and personally antithetical to her values.

The likelihood she'll vote to overturn RvW is a completely separate matter.

Texas legal abortion providers are so few and far between already that it is effectively legally banned for lots of women in this state.

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-texas



Note also that the Ds wouldn't be in this bind if RGB had resigned 6 years ago thereby giving Obama/Reid control over her replacement.