Feinstein Targets Trump Christian / Catholic Judicial Nominee As Threat To Lib Abortion Agenda

[easyt65]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

 

[william the wie]

Feinstein is right an awakening in the US would be the immediate death knell of the Democratic party.

 

[DOTR]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Remember Wikileaks. Podesta s emails show democrats calling Catholics backwards and discussing ways to plant fake liberal groups within the church in order to overthrow the bishops.
I'm trying to remember the name but can't without looking it up but remember the Federal judicial candidate ten or so years ago who was accused of actually believing catholic doctrine? Democrats asked him several times to explain his backwardness in being a Christian.
They also attacked him because it was rumored he had avoided taking his kids to Disney on Disney Gay Pride Day. I'm not sure if they ever resolved that question.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Fake Squaw ha started touting her Deep christian faith.....like obama did

 

[BULLDOG]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.

 

[defcon4]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.

Of course not. They are determined by leftist judges. Everybody knows that.

 

[easyt65]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.

And one's Christian faith is protected by the Constitution, discrimination - such as being singled out and declared disqualified to be a judge because of that faith - not being tolerated.

If Democrats get away with disqualifying Christians from holding such positioans then others must also be disqualufied for their beliefs that could be imposed on others...such as Atheists, Muslims, Jews, Vegans, and asshole snowflakes...

 

[BULLDOG]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.

And one's Christian faith is protected by the Constitution, discrimination - such as being singled out and declared disqualified to be a judge because of that faith - not being tolerated.

If Democrats get away with disqualifying Christians from holding such positioans then others must also be disqualufied for their beliefs that could be imposed on others...such as Atheists, Muslims, Jews, Vegans, and asshole snowflakes...

Any candidate who indicates he will let his religious beliefs override our laws is not qualified for the job.

 

[defcon4]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.

And one's Christian faith is protected by the Constitution, discrimination - such as being singled out and declared disqualified to be a judge because of that faith - not being tolerated.

If Democrats get away with disqualifying Christians from holding such positioans then others must also be disqualufied for their beliefs that could be imposed on others...such as Atheists, Muslims, Jews, Vegans, and asshole snowflakes...

Any candidate who indicates he will let his religious beliefs override our laws is not qualified for the job.

They will lie about it. Everybody knows that.

 

[easyt65]

Do you realize according to recent polls that the majority of the country now considets themselves to be Christians?

The minority liberal asses constantly demand their minority opinions, desires, and agendas be imposed on the majority because being in the minority and being so rejected makes them feel bad'.

Time to tell violent / tantrum-throwing minority progressives to stfu, that they do not get to dictate to the majority of the country.

 

[easyt65]

Any candidate who indicates he will let his religious beliefs override our laws is not qualified for the job.

But it's ok for a member of the liberal minority to impose his faith / beliefs on others, for an atheist, a Muslim, a Vegan, etc to do so?

Because liberals say so...

 

[DOTR]

Found it. It was William Pryor nominated to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by George Bush.

"Also at the hearing, Senator Russell Feingold (D., Wis.) made an issue out of the fact that Pryor and his wife changed their Walt Disney World vacation plans when they learned their visit was coinciding with the annual Gay Day there (the first Saturday in June)."
Link

His daughters were four and six.
Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer worried about Pryor's "deeply held" religious beliefs.

Feinstein...Feingold...Shumer. Hmmm. Now what do they have in common with each other but not with 98% of the rest of the country?

Anyhow their hatred of God and religion has been on display that long.

 

[MisterBeale]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Frankly, I think it would be hilariously refreshing to hear one of the Congress critters say, "I dunno, I think the last thing we need is another Zionist as head of the FED."

What the hell, let's just dispense with PC all together. I've got not problem with what she said, perhaps she just needs to be a bit more clear and admit she is being a hypocrite, other than that, we're good here.

 

[BULLDOG]

Any candidate who indicates he will let his religious beliefs override our laws is not qualified for the job.

But it's ok for a member of the liberal minority to impose his faith / beliefs on others, for an atheist, a Muslim, a Vegan, etc to do so?

Because liberals say so...

Example?

 

[MisterBeale]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.

And one's Christian faith is protected by the Constitution, discrimination - such as being singled out and declared disqualified to be a judge because of that faith - not being tolerated.

If Democrats get away with disqualifying Christians from holding such positioans then others must also be disqualufied for their beliefs that could be imposed on others...such as Atheists, Muslims, Jews, Vegans, and asshole snowflakes...

Any candidate who indicates he will let his religious beliefs override our laws is not qualified for the job.

Bullshit. Our laws are made of varying degrees of religious beliefs, or how much they are administered and enforced.

If you can't admit this to yourself, then you live in a whole heap of denial.

This is the whole reason federalism exists in the first place, so the states and localities can be free to practice religious exclusions and enclaves in their particular localities.

It is the federal government that wants blind secular obedience, it teaches and preaches scientism and atheism, and blind obedience to the police state.

 

[MisterBeale]

Any candidate who indicates he will let his religious beliefs override our laws is not qualified for the job.

But it's ok for a member of the liberal minority to impose his faith / beliefs on others, for an atheist, a Muslim, a Vegan, etc to do so?

Because liberals say so...

Example?

AGW.

 

[easyt65]

Any candidate who indicates he will let his religious beliefs override our laws is not qualified for the job.

But it's ok for a member of the liberal minority to impose his faith / beliefs on others, for an atheist, a Muslim, a Vegan, etc to do so?

Because liberals say so...

Example?

Now...you

 

[BULLDOG]

Any candidate who indicates he will let his religious beliefs override our laws is not qualified for the job.

But it's ok for a member of the liberal minority to impose his faith / beliefs on others, for an atheist, a Muslim, a Vegan, etc to do so?

Because liberals say so...

Example?

AGW.

That's nuts. Climate change has nothing to do with religion, no matter hat hannity tells you.

 

[MisterBeale]

Any candidate who indicates he will let his religious beliefs override our laws is not qualified for the job.

But it's ok for a member of the liberal minority to impose his faith / beliefs on others, for an atheist, a Muslim, a Vegan, etc to do so?

Because liberals say so...

Example?

AGW.

That's nuts. Climate change has nothing to do with religion, no matter hat hannity tells you.

I'm not sure what a talk show host has to do with this conversation.

But. . . that is your opinion.

Let's go to a definition;
Definition of RELIGION
Definition of religion

1. 
   1a : the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religionb (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2. 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3. 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4. 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

According to Merriam, AGW fits the definition under section 1, subsections 2, 3, and 4.

It is all a matter of perspective. Frankly, I think yours needs a bit of a revision, just look at your avatar, it is as embarrassing as the one posted by the board bigots. Don't you think you have more class? Or are you as monstrous as the monster you claim to oppose?

http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/agw-is-a-religion/

Global Warming as Religion and not Science

neo-neocon » Blog Archive » AGW: when a scientific theory becomes a religion…

Religion of AGW

 

[BULLDOG]

Any candidate who indicates he will let his religious beliefs override our laws is not qualified for the job.

But it's ok for a member of the liberal minority to impose his faith / beliefs on others, for an atheist, a Muslim, a Vegan, etc to do so?

Because liberals say so...

Example?

AGW.

That's nuts. Climate change has nothing to do with religion, no matter hat hannity tells you.

I'm not sure what a talk show host has to do with this conversation.

But. . . that is your opinion.

Let's go to a definition;
Definition of RELIGION
Definition of religion

1. 
   1a : the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religionb (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2. 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3. 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4. 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

According to Merriam, AGW fits the definition under section 1, subsections 2, 3, and 4.

It is all a matter of perspective. Frankly, I think yours needs a bit of a revision, just look at your avatar, it is as embarrassing as the one posted by the board bigots. Don't you think you have more class? Or are you as monstrous as the monster you claim to oppose?

AGW is a religion « JoNova

Global Warming as Religion and not Science

neo-neocon » Blog Archive » AGW: when a scientific theory becomes a religion…

Religion of AGW

You are nuts. Acceptance of scientific evidence is not religion. I know you are trying really hard to portray it that way. but, like I said, you're nuts