LongTimeFan Posted October 13, 2020 Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 Whether or not you agree with her nomination, if you watch this hearing you have to be impressed that she is very calm, cant be tricked/bullied into giving her view and answers all their legal cases with NO NOTES in front of her. Dems are, to this point, not going after her faith. All questions on ACA or Roe v Wade or recusing herself. The Dems are trying to infer alot of things, but she just calmly corrects the record. Justafan 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgo Posted October 13, 2020 Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 She's just sitting there taking the punches for Jesus. It's her calling afterall, she must stand firm in order to help usher in the Kingdom of God in America. LongTimeFan, and Number9 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted October 13, 2020 Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 She is impressive for sure. Attacking her faith sends the wrong message @tgo Do you have facts of her time on the Appellant court being tainted by her religious views? Don't confuse her religious views with those of her political views. luvyablue256, LongTimeFan, and Justafan 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgo Posted October 13, 2020 Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 9 minutes ago, oldschool said: She is impressive for sure. Attacking her faith sends the wrong message @tgo Do you have facts of her time on the Appellant court being tainted by her religious views? Don't confuse her religious views with those of her political views. Haha, it definitely sends the wrong message from a political perspective, and Democrats should avoid it in the hearings, etc. Who is to say definitively whether her quacky extremist sectarian religious views influence her well-documented right wing legal outlook? I certainly couldn't prove it, but my guess is probably so, as is the case with the litany of other conservative justices trying to lead the fight in the culture war in the last few decades like Rehnquist and the others on the court, guided primarily by the principles laid down for them by the man with the pointy hat who sits on his throne in Rome, rather than by secular Constitutional American principles, free from religious doctrinal bias. Regardless, we definitely shouldn't say this stuff out loud in public though! Sorry, my bad! T-RAC, and pamo9 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted October 13, 2020 Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 minute ago, tgo said: Haha, it definitely sends the wrong message from a political perspective, and Democrats should avoid it in the hearings, etc. Who is to say definitively whether her quacky extremist sectarian religious views influence her well-documented right wing legal outlook? I certainly couldn't prove it, but my guess is probably so, as is the case with the litany of other conservative justices trying to lead the fight in the culture war in the last few decades like Rehnquist and the others on the court, guided primarily by the principles laid down for them by the man with the pointy hat who sits on his throne in Rome, rather than by secular Constitutional American principles, free from religious doctrinal bias. Regardless, we definitely shouldn't say this stuff out loud in public though! Sorry, my bad! Relax nancy. I was really referring to the Dems in the senate. Feinstein's words from 2017 are coming back to haunt her. you can obviously post what you want. I was honestly asking if her religious views had been an issue in her previous rulings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeFan Posted October 13, 2020 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, tgo said: Haha, it definitely sends the wrong message from a political perspective, and Democrats should avoid it in the hearings, etc. Who is to say definitively whether her quacky extremist sectarian religious views influence her well-documented right wing legal outlook? I certainly couldn't prove it, but my guess is probably so, as is the case with the litany of other conservative justices trying to lead the fight in the culture war in the last few decades like Rehnquist and the others on the court, guided primarily by the principles laid down for them by the man with the pointy hat who sits on his throne in Rome, rather than by secular Constitutional American principles, free from religious doctrinal bias. Regardless, we definitely shouldn't say this stuff out loud in public though! Sorry, my bad! I can't prove anything but you damn well know its true! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OilerTitanHybrid Posted October 13, 2020 Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 28 minutes ago, tgo said: She's just sitting there taking the punches for Jesus. It's her calling afterall, she must stand firm in order to help usher in the Kingdom of God in America. LOL! Number9 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OilerTitanHybrid Posted October 13, 2020 Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 I just tuned into this. 30 minute lunch break coming up soon, they said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgo Posted October 13, 2020 Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, oldschool said: Relax nancy. I was really referring to the Dems in the senate. Feinstein's words from 2017 are coming back to haunt her. you can obviously post what you want. I was honestly asking if her religious views had been an issue in her previous rulings. Oh I'm not sure about her rulings since her judicial record is so limited. But in terms of her views on the ACA and Roe v. Wade, she's made them well known in her academic career and writings, etc. She has never ruled on abortion. Her career is that of an academic though moreso than a true jurist it seems. She's only been a judge for a couple years of her life. And yeah, Democrats are smart not to bring her faith into the hearings or public messaging. People can think what they want privately, but it's not something that should be brought into the public discourse on the matter from leaders. She'll get confirmed so there's really no point in disparaging her faith or her personally, it's bad form and is beside the point of her judicial philosophies and viewpoints on constitutional issues. Dems need to navigate this deftly and carefully, with strategic purpose and soundness, and get it over with and then use it to drive voter turnout politically in the election. Edited October 13, 2020 by tgo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVTITAN Posted October 13, 2020 Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 She is intelligent, you may not agree with her but he comes across better than Kavanaugh oldschool, and MadMax 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgo Posted October 13, 2020 Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 minute ago, WVTITAN said: She is intelligent, you may not agree with her but he comes across better than Kavanaugh Hard not to come across better than Kavanaugh though. But yes, obviously she's intelligent. She was a leading academic nationally and a long time professor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post IsntLifeFunny Posted October 13, 2020 Popular Post Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 Anybody that attends a church that speaks in tongues should not be a Supreme Court Justice. WG53, SpLeEnBeAnS, OILERMAN, and 5 others 4 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted October 13, 2020 Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 6 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said: Anybody that attends a church that speaks in tongues should not be a Supreme Court Justice. That's a blatant violation of the constitution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted October 13, 2020 Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 Sheldon Whitehouse is on fire. lol... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted October 13, 2020 Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 11 minutes ago, oldschool said: That's a blatant violation of the constitution. Jokes? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.