Amy Barrett Couldn't Be More Wrong

[PoliticalChic]

1. The following was Barrett's response when asked about anti-religion bigotry.

"...I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

pjmedia.com

2. She said the above in the context of "whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added."
But that view ignores an element that has been removed from the views of our founders, a view that made America as exceptional as it once was: the sanctity of human life.



3. And it fails to mention a particular faith, one that abounds with a blood-lust above all else: Militant Secularism.
In all of its denominations, Militant Secularism is far, far from what is meant by 'morality.'

None of that religion have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They serve a power many millennia old, once believed banished from Western Civilization, but, today, making a strong and virulent come-back.
It was put, succinctly, by Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


4. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.


5. Choose a. or b.
a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


If we must have judges, they should never be the sort who ignore government inspired slaughter of our fellow human beings.

 

[night_son]

1. The following was Barrett's response when asked about anti-religion bigotry.

"...I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

pjmedia.com

2. She said the above in the context of "whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added."
But that view ignores an element that has been removed from the view of our founders, a view that made America as exceptional as it once was: the sanctity of human life.



3. And it fails to mention a particular faith, one that abounds with a blood-lust above all else: Militant Secularism.
In all of its denominations, Militant Secularism is far, far from what is meant by 'morality.'

None of that religion have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They serve a power many millennia old, once believed banished from Western Civilization, but, today, making a strong and virulent come-back.
It was put, succinctly, by Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


4. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.


5. Choose a. or b.
a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


If we must have judges, they should never be the sort who ignore government inspired slaughter of our fellow human beings.

The human mind cannot operate endlessly or even perhaps briefly in a state of antiseptic clinical objectivity. Of course one's own deepest held moral beliefs and conscience will and must influence decisions both great and small, private and professional. I believe Barrett and most everyone else, for that matter, fully understand this inescapable aspect of the human condition. Hence the uproar from both sides of the aisle. Then again, perhaps she's a reptile in human flesh, a cold-blooded machine mind awaiting her chance at fame and glory. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The following was Barrett's response when asked about anti-religion bigotry.

"...I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

pjmedia.com

2. She said the above in the context of "whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added."
But that view ignores an element that has been removed from the view of our founders, a view that made America as exceptional as it once was: the sanctity of human life.



3. And it fails to mention a particular faith, one that abounds with a blood-lust above all else: Militant Secularism.
In all of its denominations, Militant Secularism is far, far from what is meant by 'morality.'

None of that religion have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They serve a power many millennia old, once believed banished from Western Civilization, but, today, making a strong and virulent come-back.
It was put, succinctly, by Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


4. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.


5. Choose a. or b.
a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


If we must have judges, they should never be the sort who ignore government inspired slaughter of our fellow human beings.

The human mind cannot operate endlessly or even perhaps briefly in a state of antiseptic clinical objectivity. Of course one's own deepest held moral beliefs and conscience will and must influence decisions both great and small, private and professional. I believe Barrett and most everyone else, for that matter, fully understand this inescapable aspect of the human condition. Hence the uproar from both sides of the aisle. Then again, perhaps she's a reptile in human flesh, a cold-blooded machine mind awaiting her chance at fame and glory. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

"The human mind cannot operate endlessly or even perhaps briefly in a state of antiseptic clinical objectivity."

That is both insightful and hermeneutic!
Relying on 'reason' and the human mind?
The human mind is infinitely capable of rationalization. We can always come up with reasons that weigh in the direction we want the outcome to be.
And that is why the set of truths in the Bible is so important.


David Mamet:
The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.”

It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.

The religion that rejects those rules, and the source of same, Militant Secularism, must be extinguished from our society, and especially from our legal system.



You wrote:
"Then again, perhaps she's a reptile in human flesh, a cold-blooded machine mind awaiting her chance at fame and glory. I suppose we'll find out soon enough."


Yikes!!! I hope I didn't suggest that about this judge!!!!!

 

[the other mike]

The human mind cannot operate endlessly or even perhaps briefly in a state of antiseptic clinical objectivity. Of course one's own deepest held moral beliefs and conscience will and must influence decisions both great and small, private and professional. I believe Barrett and most everyone else, for that matter, fully understand this inescapable aspect of the human condition. Hence the uproar from both sides of the aisle. Then again, perhaps she's a reptile in human flesh, a cold-blooded machine mind awaiting her chance at fame and glory. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

Good answer.
Happening live as we speak;

Trump is a much better speaker off the cuff than reading
from the 'prompters...

 

[Michelle420]

1. The following was Barrett's response when asked about anti-religion bigotry.

"...I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

pjmedia.com

2. She said the above in the context of "whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added."
But that view ignores an element that has been removed from the views of our founders, a view that made America as exceptional as it once was: the sanctity of human life.



3. And it fails to mention a particular faith, one that abounds with a blood-lust above all else: Militant Secularism.
In all of its denominations, Militant Secularism is far, far from what is meant by 'morality.'

None of that religion have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They serve a power many millennia old, once believed banished from Western Civilization, but, today, making a strong and virulent come-back.
It was put, succinctly, by Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


4. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.


5. Choose a. or b.
a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


If we must have judges, they should never be the sort who ignore government inspired slaughter of our fellow human beings.

She also supports forced lockdowns and forced vaccination.

 

[the other mike]

1. The following was Barrett's response when asked about anti-religion bigotry.

"...I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

pjmedia.com

2. She said the above in the context of "whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added."
But that view ignores an element that has been removed from the views of our founders, a view that made America as exceptional as it once was: the sanctity of human life.



3. And it fails to mention a particular faith, one that abounds with a blood-lust above all else: Militant Secularism.
In all of its denominations, Militant Secularism is far, far from what is meant by 'morality.'

None of that religion have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They serve a power many millennia old, once believed banished from Western Civilization, but, today, making a strong and virulent come-back.
It was put, succinctly, by Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


4. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.


5. Choose a. or b.
a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


If we must have judges, they should never be the sort who ignore government inspired slaughter of our fellow human beings.

If she's confirmed, it would be great to have her cat fights with Sonia
on C-Span.

 

[the other mike]

She also supports forced lockdowns and forced vaccination.

And her voice sounds like a munchkin.

 

[harmonica]

1. The following was Barrett's response when asked about anti-religion bigotry.

"...I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

pjmedia.com

2. She said the above in the context of "whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added."
But that view ignores an element that has been removed from the views of our founders, a view that made America as exceptional as it once was: the sanctity of human life.



3. And it fails to mention a particular faith, one that abounds with a blood-lust above all else: Militant Secularism.
In all of its denominations, Militant Secularism is far, far from what is meant by 'morality.'

None of that religion have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They serve a power many millennia old, once believed banished from Western Civilization, but, today, making a strong and virulent come-back.
It was put, succinctly, by Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


4. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.


5. Choose a. or b.
a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


If we must have judges, they should never be the sort who ignore government inspired slaughter of our fellow human beings.

no she is right

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The following was Barrett's response when asked about anti-religion bigotry.

"...I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

pjmedia.com

2. She said the above in the context of "whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added."
But that view ignores an element that has been removed from the views of our founders, a view that made America as exceptional as it once was: the sanctity of human life.



3. And it fails to mention a particular faith, one that abounds with a blood-lust above all else: Militant Secularism.
In all of its denominations, Militant Secularism is far, far from what is meant by 'morality.'

None of that religion have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They serve a power many millennia old, once believed banished from Western Civilization, but, today, making a strong and virulent come-back.
It was put, succinctly, by Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


4. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.


5. Choose a. or b.
a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


If we must have judges, they should never be the sort who ignore government inspired slaughter of our fellow human beings.

She also supports forced lockdowns and forced vaccination.

As per the OP, I am prepared to disagree with the Justice on specific issues.

My requirement is fealty to the Constitution as written.

 

[Michelle420]

They should appoint you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The following was Barrett's response when asked about anti-religion bigotry.

"...I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

pjmedia.com

2. She said the above in the context of "whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added."
But that view ignores an element that has been removed from the views of our founders, a view that made America as exceptional as it once was: the sanctity of human life.



3. And it fails to mention a particular faith, one that abounds with a blood-lust above all else: Militant Secularism.
In all of its denominations, Militant Secularism is far, far from what is meant by 'morality.'

None of that religion have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They serve a power many millennia old, once believed banished from Western Civilization, but, today, making a strong and virulent come-back.
It was put, succinctly, by Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


4. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.


5. Choose a. or b.
a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


If we must have judges, they should never be the sort who ignore government inspired slaughter of our fellow human beings.

no she is right

It depends on how 'religion' and 'morality' are defined.

I'll put you down in the column with Trotsky and Margaret Sanger.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They should appoint you.

To whom is that post directed?

If moi.......I'm holding out for 'Queen.'

 

[miketx]

1. The following was Barrett's response when asked about anti-religion bigotry.

"...I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

pjmedia.com

2. She said the above in the context of "whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added."
But that view ignores an element that has been removed from the views of our founders, a view that made America as exceptional as it once was: the sanctity of human life.



3. And it fails to mention a particular faith, one that abounds with a blood-lust above all else: Militant Secularism.
In all of its denominations, Militant Secularism is far, far from what is meant by 'morality.'

None of that religion have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They serve a power many millennia old, once believed banished from Western Civilization, but, today, making a strong and virulent come-back.
It was put, succinctly, by Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


4. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.


5. Choose a. or b.
a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


If we must have judges, they should never be the sort who ignore government inspired slaughter of our fellow human beings.

She also supports forced lockdowns and forced vaccination.

As per the OP, I am prepared to disagree with the Justice on specific issues.

My requirement is fealty to the Constitution as written.

I just heard her say she supported it just like you say, as written.

 

[Michelle420]

They should appoint you.

To whom is that post directed?

If moi.......I'm holding out for 'Queen.'

You of course.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I realize that it is is only we on the Right who read and study, and for that particular group I would like to recommend

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The following was Barrett's response when asked about anti-religion bigotry.

"...I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

pjmedia.com

2. She said the above in the context of "whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added."
But that view ignores an element that has been removed from the views of our founders, a view that made America as exceptional as it once was: the sanctity of human life.



3. And it fails to mention a particular faith, one that abounds with a blood-lust above all else: Militant Secularism.
In all of its denominations, Militant Secularism is far, far from what is meant by 'morality.'

None of that religion have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They serve a power many millennia old, once believed banished from Western Civilization, but, today, making a strong and virulent come-back.
It was put, succinctly, by Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


4. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.


5. Choose a. or b.
a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


If we must have judges, they should never be the sort who ignore government inspired slaughter of our fellow human beings.

She also supports forced lockdowns and forced vaccination.

As per the OP, I am prepared to disagree with the Justice on specific issues.

My requirement is fealty to the Constitution as written.

I just heard her say she supported it just like you say, as written.

I heard it, too.....and was thrilled.

Now, let's hope that it proves to be true, and she doesn't succumb as so many other Republican appointed Justices have.

 

[irosie91]

1. The following was Barrett's response when asked about anti-religion bigotry.

"...I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

pjmedia.com

2. She said the above in the context of "whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added."
But that view ignores an element that has been removed from the view of our founders, a view that made America as exceptional as it once was: the sanctity of human life.



3. And it fails to mention a particular faith, one that abounds with a blood-lust above all else: Militant Secularism.
In all of its denominations, Militant Secularism is far, far from what is meant by 'morality.'

None of that religion have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They serve a power many millennia old, once believed banished from Western Civilization, but, today, making a strong and virulent come-back.
It was put, succinctly, by Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


4. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.


5. Choose a. or b.
a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


If we must have judges, they should never be the sort who ignore government inspired slaughter of our fellow human beings.

The human mind cannot operate endlessly or even perhaps briefly in a state of antiseptic clinical objectivity. Of course one's own deepest held moral beliefs and conscience will and must influence decisions both great and small, private and professional. I believe Barrett and most everyone else, for that matter, fully understand this inescapable aspect of the human condition. Hence the uproar from both sides of the aisle. Then again, perhaps she's a reptile in human flesh, a cold-blooded machine mind awaiting her chance at fame and glory. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

"The human mind cannot operate endlessly or even perhaps briefly in a state of antiseptic clinical objectivity."

That is both insightful and hermeneutic!
Relying on 'reason' and the human mind?
The human mind is infinitely capable of rationalization. We can always come up with reasons that weigh in the direction we want the outcome to be.
And that is why the set of truths in the Bible is so important.


David Mamet:
The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.”

It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.

The religion that rejects those rules, and the source of same, Militant Secularism, must be extinguished from our society, and especially from our legal system.



You wrote:
"Then again, perhaps she's a reptile in human flesh, a cold-blooded machine mind awaiting her chance at fame and glory. I suppose we'll find out soon enough."


Yikes!!! I hope I didn't suggest that about this judge!!!!!

yeah, you sorta did

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. In his 1985 speech to the Federalist Society, General Meese focus’ on the language and then on intent…”Where the language of the Constitution is specific, it must be obeyed. Where there is a demonstrable consensus among the Framers and ratifiers as to a principle stated or implied by the Constitution, it should be followed. Where there is ambiguity as to the precise meaning or reach of a constitutional provision, it should be interpreted and applied in a manner so as to at least not contradict the text of the Constitution itself.” “The presumption of a written document is that it conveys meaning.”
   1. Both General Meese, and, in June, 1986, Justice Scalia, have stressed original meaning rather than original intentions, that is law; the primacy of text over intentions.
2. The accessibility of the historical materials about the framing of the Constitution and its original meaning is due to the fact that both our nation is fairly young, and that pamphlets, newspapers, books and the writings of both Federalists and Anti-Federalists are all extant! Guessing isn’t required, nor is there a fog, or mist of time.
   1. There is no difficulty in finding dictonaries and grammar books from the 1780’s, plus the legal textbooks used by the framers, such as Blackstone’s “Commentaries.”
3. Another mistake highlighted by General Meese is construing the Constitution in the light of evolving standards of human dignity. We should never forget ‘Dred Scott v. Sandford,’ ‘Lochner v. New York,’ and ‘Korematsu v. United States’ were substantive due process decisions where the court was guided by its own twisted ideas about what ‘human dignity’ required.
   1. Meese argued, further, that ‘Plessy v. Ferguson,’ was a case where the Supreme Court ignored the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment in favor of giving weight to Jim Crow-era evolving standards of human decency.

This is the sort of Justice Ms Barrett will be.....one would hope.

 

[citygator]

Oh great another abortion thread by men who want to tell women what to do with their bodies. Zzzzzzz

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh great another abortion thread by men who want to tell women what to do with their bodies. Zzzzzzz

Moron......the unborn human being is not 'their body.'

You failed high school biology, huh?

Now, take notes:


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?

The slogan,

www.abort73.com

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?