Trump intends to choose Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court

It's like asking a Muslim or Jew to eat pork. Her views on some issues are extreme. She is an active member of a cult which requires women to take a role subservient to men.

 

Ah - the Richard Dawkins thing it is with you mostly then?

I just posted a 10 minute interview with her that it seems you may not have seen yet.

She's a US Federal District Court Judge and a Notre Dame Law Professor.

He's a federal white-collar-crime criminal defense staff attorney at SouthBank Legal in South Bend, IN.

Post some links to backup your assertions, please.

She is certainly by no means subservient to Jesse, aside maybe from what they do in bed.

 

Been a lot of scrubbing of coney-barrett references on her cult's websites...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/27/politics/amy-coney-barrett-people-of-praise/index.html

Wonder why...

 

Check it out for yourself.

People of Praise.

 

Damning evidence indeed!

Opus Dei and the Illuminati!

 

This is a stupid lie, but even if she actually were in a cult, what part of "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" do you not understand?

 

Let's backup a bit.

You assert:

I countered with my response.

As much as I hate to use this term I see here from time to time, in this case, I've apparently no choice: try again.

How are her combined professional positions in any way shape form or fashion even remotely subservient to her husband's position, or much less to men in general?

You Sir have a steep hill to climb to support this opinion, regardless of whatever crap assertions People of Praise may publish about their group's philosophical and religious vision statements.

 

I am entitled to my view, no matter what the Constitution says. When she is before the Senate, even a first-year Lawyer there can ask her about principles, like these, without making any reference to religion.

https://www.newsweek.com/role-women...0LARXBUJDs_ZU1naUVdY4_vkQgq7TrbY0ZCknTU-cjSjs

 

The only grey area is whether she and her Husband are in fact Members. That she adopted two Haitian children would be consistent with Membership.

https://www.newsweek.com/role-women...0LARXBUJDs_ZU1naUVdY4_vkQgq7TrbY0ZCknTU-cjSjs

 

FFS, you deflect like a Trumpster.

You assert that she is subservient when clearly she is not.

Please acknowledge her non-conformance to your assertion and then we can discuss whatever other fringe ideologies you seem to think she may have, such as adoption.

 

If that is true, she cannot be a member of that cult.

 

Have you considered the possibility that you are just mistaken, that it's not a cult and that you don't understand their beliefs or culture accurately?

 

Do you not see the significant weasel room in this:

 

Democrats should turn their backs on this nominee and make it known she is unwanted.

 

Correction: she's unwanted by them. I'm confident a majority of the Senate does want her on the Supreme Court. The dems can turn their backs, scream at the sky, or pout in the corner. It doesn't matter. They don't matter.

 

I see someone who's determined to tarnish a religion he doesn't much understand and clearly has animus towards. You'd like a religious test for office, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but we're not going to do that here, at least for now.

 

Which part of who she is, is in question, y.d.c?

Is she not a US Federal Judge?

Is she not a Professor of Law at Notre Dame?

These are positions you consider subservient to men for a women to hold?

 

She is outstanding and should receive 100 votes.

Trump has made a great mistake with this nomination.

This gal is from NOLA and there are no more independent folk in the country than from Louisiana.

This Mom will be a great Supreme.

 

I had never heard of that cult until this SCOTUS nomination. Do you know more about it than I? Go ahead and tell me all about it.

I am confident that there are Senators who know how to question her on principles as opposed to religion.

 

I know enough to not call it a "cult". Why don't you start there.

From where does this confidence spring? Dem Senators got a crack at questioning her "on principles as opposed to religion" just three years ago and the most significant argument they came up with was "the dogma lives loudly within you". That Senator is still the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.

 

I'll call it a cult, thanks.

As for questions...simple stuff.

Do you have the view that *here insert principle?*

 

Oh look, you're still here.

#192 is a problem for you, isn't it....

 

Post #192 is just your opinion.

 

No, it has nothing to do with me or my opinion.

You assert that she is a member of a cult that demands subservience from women to men.

I assert that being a Federal Judge and Professor of Law at Notre Dame whilst her husband is a staff attorney at small South Bend Indiana law office hardly fits any possible definition of subservience.

So let's stick to which part of our competing assertions are a matter of my opinion, eh?

 

Yes I do.

Subservience to her Husband does not demand there be an examination of the relative merits of what job they have.

Sure. And for the record, I confused 192/3.