Should Amy Coney Barrett be appointed to the SCOTUS?

joseph33

Yes

I will not hold anybodys religion against them. If she's qualified,why not? But at the same time,she needs to be properly vetted in. People don't have say in such matters,thats up to the Senate. And its a disgrace for Trump to rush into appointing a SCOTUS nominee so soon after the passing of a judge.I want the high Court of the land to be balanced,and not so far sided.

Gern Blansten

No

https://twitter.com/josh_wingrove/status/1311689358295085056

Holy shit...

HughFreakingDillon

No

Gern Blansten said:

https://twitter.com/josh_wingrove/status/1311689358295085056

Holy shit...

that hot liar will just walk it back as saying she was a scholar at rhodes college, so what she said was accurate. 

OnWis97

Yes

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

Holy shit...

that hot liar will just walk it back as saying she was a scholar at rhodes college, so what she said was accurate. 

I was thinking she'd call it a "joke."  We all know these people are not funny, which enables people to believe their lies and flubs are jokes.

I actually don't think she was "lying." I think she has no idea what a Rhodes Scholar is.  Either way, it's an indictment on her.

Gern Blansten

No

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

Holy shit...

that hot liar will just walk it back as saying she was a scholar at rhodes college, so what she said was accurate. 

I was thinking she'd call it a "joke."  We all know these people are not funny, which enables people to believe their lies and flubs are jokes.

I actually don't think she was "lying." I think she has no idea what a Rhodes Scholar is.  Either way, it's an indictment on her.

That's what I think...she is clueless which is sad given her position

HughFreakingDillon

No

Gern Blansten said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

Holy shit...

that hot liar will just walk it back as saying she was a scholar at rhodes college, so what she said was accurate. 

I was thinking she'd call it a "joke."  We all know these people are not funny, which enables people to believe their lies and flubs are jokes.

I actually don't think she was "lying." I think she has no idea what a Rhodes Scholar is.  Either way, it's an indictment on her.

That's what I think...she is clueless which is sad given her position

i don't find her clueless. i just find her completely devoid of a soul. 

Bentleyspop

No

Gern Blansten said:

https://twitter.com/josh_wingrove/status/1311689358295085056

Holy shit...

Maybe now that she is a Rhodes scholar she'll also win a noble prize

mace1229

Yes

I've been torn on this one. I think Garland should have been confirmed, but makes this hypocritical, I agree. But does 2 wrongs make a right? That's what I was on the fence about. And I don't think so. Maybe make changes so presidents do get a vote on their nomination in the future so it doesn't happen again. If you're in the camp of well Garland didn't get a vote 4 years ago so Barrett shouldn't either, I understand that point. Just disagree, but that logic makes sense to me.

I don't agree with the logic of someone not being appointed based on religion or other political views unless you have evidence to support a claim they would put a political agenda over the constitution. Every judge has personal beliefs and a political agenda, we just expect them to put it aside. It seems people are confusing "should she be confirmed" with "do I want her to be confirmed."

HughFreakingDillon

No

mace1229 said:

I've been torn on this one. I think Garland should have been confirmed, but makes this hypocritical, I agree. But does 2 wrongs make a right? That's what I was on the fence about. And I don't think so. Maybe make changes so presidents do get a vote on their nomination in the future so it doesn't happen again. If you're in the camp of well Garland didn't get a vote 4 years ago so Barrett shouldn't either, I understand that point. Just disagree, but that logic makes sense to me.

I don't agree with the logic of someone not being appointed based on religion or other political views unless you have evidence to support a claim they would put a political agenda over the constitution. Every judge has personal beliefs and a political agenda, we just expect them to put it aside. It seems people are confusing "should she be confirmed" with "do I want her to be confirmed."

i think the senate should be compelled to hold confirmation hearings if a president nominates a judge, no matter if it's his first day or his last in the white house. the senate majority leader should not have that much power. 

i disagree with democrats who say she shouldn't be confirmed because that would be the end of obamacare. that's her job, to hear cases brought before the courts. if she believes obamacare to be unconstitutional as interpreted by law, then so be it. 

PJPOWER

Yes

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

I've been torn on this one. I think Garland should have been confirmed, but makes this hypocritical, I agree. But does 2 wrongs make a right? That's what I was on the fence about. And I don't think so. Maybe make changes so presidents do get a vote on their nomination in the future so it doesn't happen again. If you're in the camp of well Garland didn't get a vote 4 years ago so Barrett shouldn't either, I understand that point. Just disagree, but that logic makes sense to me.

I don't agree with the logic of someone not being appointed based on religion or other political views unless you have evidence to support a claim they would put a political agenda over the constitution. Every judge has personal beliefs and a political agenda, we just expect them to put it aside. It seems people are confusing "should she be confirmed" with "do I want her to be confirmed."

i think the senate should be compelled to hold confirmation hearings if a president nominates a judge, no matter if it's his first day or his last in the white house. the senate majority leader should not have that much power. 

i disagree with democrats who say she shouldn't be confirmed because that would be the end of obamacare. that's her job, to hear cases brought before the courts. if she believes obamacare to be unconstitutional as interpreted by law, then so be it. 

Exactly, if Obamacare is unconstitutional, it should not exist.  

OnWis97

Yes

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

I've been torn on this one. I think Garland should have been confirmed, but makes this hypocritical, I agree. But does 2 wrongs make a right? That's what I was on the fence about. And I don't think so. Maybe make changes so presidents do get a vote on their nomination in the future so it doesn't happen again. If you're in the camp of well Garland didn't get a vote 4 years ago so Barrett shouldn't either, I understand that point. Just disagree, but that logic makes sense to me.

I don't agree with the logic of someone not being appointed based on religion or other political views unless you have evidence to support a claim they would put a political agenda over the constitution. Every judge has personal beliefs and a political agenda, we just expect them to put it aside. It seems people are confusing "should she be confirmed" with "do I want her to be confirmed."

i think the senate should be compelled to hold confirmation hearings if a president nominates a judge, no matter if it's his first day or his last in the white house. the senate majority leader should not have that much power. 

i disagree with democrats who say she shouldn't be confirmed because that would be the end of obamacare. that's her job, to hear cases brought before the courts. if she believes obamacare to be unconstitutional as interpreted by law, then so be it. 

I agree with you in principle, though she needs to be vetted for impartiality, etc., of course.

As for the unbolded, I don't think it's realistic to do it on the last day. They need more vetting. I almost wish there was a codified amount of time.

dignin

mace1229 said:

I've been torn on this one. I think Garland should have been confirmed, but makes this hypocritical, I agree. But does 2 wrongs make a right? That's what I was on the fence about. And I don't think so. Maybe make changes so presidents do get a vote on their nomination in the future so it doesn't happen again. If you're in the camp of well Garland didn't get a vote 4 years ago so Barrett shouldn't either, I understand that point. Just disagree, but that logic makes sense to me.

I don't agree with the logic of someone not being appointed based on religion or other political views unless you have evidence to support a claim they would put a political agenda over the constitution. Every judge has personal beliefs and a political agenda, we just expect them to put it aside. It seems people are confusing "should she be confirmed" with "do I want her to be confirmed."

What if that person has extreme personal beliefs and political agendas?

Do you really think they can just set that aside?

PJPOWER

Yes

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

I've been torn on this one. I think Garland should have been confirmed, but makes this hypocritical, I agree. But does 2 wrongs make a right? That's what I was on the fence about. And I don't think so. Maybe make changes so presidents do get a vote on their nomination in the future so it doesn't happen again. If you're in the camp of well Garland didn't get a vote 4 years ago so Barrett shouldn't either, I understand that point. Just disagree, but that logic makes sense to me.

I don't agree with the logic of someone not being appointed based on religion or other political views unless you have evidence to support a claim they would put a political agenda over the constitution. Every judge has personal beliefs and a political agenda, we just expect them to put it aside. It seems people are confusing "should she be confirmed" with "do I want her to be confirmed."

What if that person has extreme personal beliefs and political agendas?

Do you really think they can just set that aside?

Lawyers have to set their prejudices aside in numerous scenarios.  Do you think any lawyer wants to defend child rapists or murderers?  They have to learn to set their beliefs aside to do their job, that’s why they are all soulless, ha

mace1229

Yes

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

I've been torn on this one. I think Garland should have been confirmed, but makes this hypocritical, I agree. But does 2 wrongs make a right? That's what I was on the fence about. And I don't think so. Maybe make changes so presidents do get a vote on their nomination in the future so it doesn't happen again. If you're in the camp of well Garland didn't get a vote 4 years ago so Barrett shouldn't either, I understand that point. Just disagree, but that logic makes sense to me.

I don't agree with the logic of someone not being appointed based on religion or other political views unless you have evidence to support a claim they would put a political agenda over the constitution. Every judge has personal beliefs and a political agenda, we just expect them to put it aside. It seems people are confusing "should she be confirmed" with "do I want her to be confirmed."

What if that person has extreme personal beliefs and political agendas?

Do you really think they can just set that aside?

Who then decides which religions are too extreme and which ones are okay to practice in this country? Everyone has the freedom of religion (with the exception of religions that break laws of course. So yeah, a cult leader would not be qualified). But to say this Catholic is okay because they are they only go to church on Easter and Christmas, but this Catholic takes the bible way too seriously, she's disqualified, well then you're taking away freedom of religion and discriminating at that point. 

And you think there is any justice or judge that doesn't hold personal political views? We expect them all to put them aside. But we know they are human and it is not possible to do that 100% of the time, that is why there are 9 in the supreme court. If it was just black and white, we'd only need 1. 

dignin

She isn't just a normal Catholic though. She belonged to, or still does, a cult group. She has no business being considered for the supreme Court. If she were a Muslim with these extremist views, the right would lose their minds.

Barrett tied to faith group ex-members say subjugates women

But the group has also been portrayed by some former members, and in books, blogs and news reports, as hierarchical, authoritarian and controlling, where men dominate their wives, leaders dictate members’ life choices and those who leave are shunned.

Her mother, Linda Coney, has served in the branch as a “handmaid,” a female leader assigned to help guide other women, according to documents reviewed by the AP.

 A 2007 issue discusses how the 17 single women who live together in a household, called the Sisterhood, had their paychecks direct deposited into a single bank account. One member said she had “no idea” what the amount of her paycheck was.

The pooled money was managed by one woman, who budgeted for everyone’s clothing and other expenses, including $36 weekly per person for food and basics like toilet paper. All women were expected to give 10% of their pay to People of Praise, another 1% to the South Bend branch and additional tithes to their churches.

Married couples and their children also often share multifamily homes or cluster in neighborhoods designated for “city building” by the group’s leaders, where they can easily socialize and walk to each other’s houses.

As part of spiritual meetings, members often relay divine prophecies and are encouraged to pray in tongues, where participants make vocal utterances thought to carry direct teachings and instructions from God. Those utterances are then “interpreted” by senior male leaders and relayed back to the wider group.

A 1969 book by Kevin Ranaghan, a co-founder of People of Praise, dedicates a chapter to praying in tongues, which he describes as a gift from God.

“The gift of tongues is one of the word-gifts, an utterance of the Spirit through man,” Ranaghan wrote in “Catholic Pentecostals.” “Alone, the gift of tongues is used for prayer and praise. Coupled with the gift of interpretation it can edify the unbeliever and strengthen, console, enlighten or move the community of faith.”

In a blog entry on the group’s website from March of this year, a mother described taking her children to pray in tongues as the coronavirus pandemic took hold.

“My husband at the time was very drawn to it because of the structure of the submission of women,” recounted Theill, who is now 65.

Theill, who converted to Catholicism after getting married, said in her People of Praise community women were expected to live in “total submission” not only to their husbands, but also the other male “heads” within the group.

In a book she wrote about her experience, Theill recounts that in People of Praise every consequential personal decision — whether to take a new job, buy a particular model car or choose where to live — went through the hierarchy of male leadership. Members of the group who worked outside the community had to turn over their paystubs to church leaders to confirm they were tithing correctly, she said.

Theill says her “handmaid,” to whom she was supposed to confide her innermost thoughts and emotions, then repeated what she said to the male heads, who would consult her husband on the proper correction.

“There’d be open meetings where you just have to stand for the group and they’d tell you all that was wrong with you,” Theill recounted to the AP last week. “And I would ask questions. I was a critical thinker.”

When she told her husband she wanted to wait to have more children, Theill said, he accompanied her to gynecological appointments to ensure she couldn’t get birth control.

“I was basically treated like a brood mare,” she said, using the term for a female horse used for breeding. During her 20-year marriage, Theill had eight children from 11 pregnancies.

Theill, who says she declined to take the covenant, described being dominated and eventually shunned because of the doubts she expressed about the group

https://apnews.com/article/new-orleans-donald-trump-amy-coney-barrett-us-supreme-court-courts-1be61f7c3427e41326038e5cdab54839

HughFreakingDillon

No

dignin said:

She isn't just a normal Catholic though. She belonged to, or still does, a cult group. She has no business being considered for the supreme Court. If she were a Muslim with these extremist views, the right would lose their minds.

Barrett tied to faith group ex-members say subjugates women

But the group has also been portrayed by some former members, and in books, blogs and news reports, as hierarchical, authoritarian and controlling, where men dominate their wives, leaders dictate members’ life choices and those who leave are shunned.

Her mother, Linda Coney, has served in the branch as a “handmaid,” a female leader assigned to help guide other women, according to documents reviewed by the AP.

 A 2007 issue discusses how the 17 single women who live together in a household, called the Sisterhood, had their paychecks direct deposited into a single bank account. One member said she had “no idea” what the amount of her paycheck was.

The pooled money was managed by one woman, who budgeted for everyone’s clothing and other expenses, including $36 weekly per person for food and basics like toilet paper. All women were expected to give 10% of their pay to People of Praise, another 1% to the South Bend branch and additional tithes to their churches.

Married couples and their children also often share multifamily homes or cluster in neighborhoods designated for “city building” by the group’s leaders, where they can easily socialize and walk to each other’s houses.

As part of spiritual meetings, members often relay divine prophecies and are encouraged to pray in tongues, where participants make vocal utterances thought to carry direct teachings and instructions from God. Those utterances are then “interpreted” by senior male leaders and relayed back to the wider group.

A 1969 book by Kevin Ranaghan, a co-founder of People of Praise, dedicates a chapter to praying in tongues, which he describes as a gift from God.

“The gift of tongues is one of the word-gifts, an utterance of the Spirit through man,” Ranaghan wrote in “Catholic Pentecostals.” “Alone, the gift of tongues is used for prayer and praise. Coupled with the gift of interpretation it can edify the unbeliever and strengthen, console, enlighten or move the community of faith.”

In a blog entry on the group’s website from March of this year, a mother described taking her children to pray in tongues as the coronavirus pandemic took hold.

“My husband at the time was very drawn to it because of the structure of the submission of women,” recounted Theill, who is now 65.

Theill, who converted to Catholicism after getting married, said in her People of Praise community women were expected to live in “total submission” not only to their husbands, but also the other male “heads” within the group.

In a book she wrote about her experience, Theill recounts that in People of Praise every consequential personal decision — whether to take a new job, buy a particular model car or choose where to live — went through the hierarchy of male leadership. Members of the group who worked outside the community had to turn over their paystubs to church leaders to confirm they were tithing correctly, she said.

Theill says her “handmaid,” to whom she was supposed to confide her innermost thoughts and emotions, then repeated what she said to the male heads, who would consult her husband on the proper correction.

“There’d be open meetings where you just have to stand for the group and they’d tell you all that was wrong with you,” Theill recounted to the AP last week. “And I would ask questions. I was a critical thinker.”

When she told her husband she wanted to wait to have more children, Theill said, he accompanied her to gynecological appointments to ensure she couldn’t get birth control.

“I was basically treated like a brood mare,” she said, using the term for a female horse used for breeding. During her 20-year marriage, Theill had eight children from 11 pregnancies.

Theill, who says she declined to take the covenant, described being dominated and eventually shunned because of the doubts she expressed about the group

https://apnews.com/article/new-orleans-donald-trump-amy-coney-barrett-us-supreme-court-courts-1be61f7c3427e41326038e5cdab54839

I do agree with you there. 

Bentleyspop

No

Separation of church and state

josevolution

That’s a freaking cult and she & family belong to it, she gets the nod say bye bye to Roe v Wade! She has def been nominated for that sole reason to get rid of women’s reproductive rights.

Halifax2TheMax

Accepted money from a hate group that promotes forced sterilization of transgender people and believes destroying an egg during invitro fertilization should be a crime. Just what ‘Murica needs in these times. She’ll fit right in.

HesCalledDyer

No

No, I don't believe Darlene Snell should be a SC Justice.