Amy Coney Barrett, possible Justice...non-violent felons should not lose their 2nd Amendment Rights.

OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
83,395
Reaction score
21,844
Points
2,180
he makes the decisions for the family and serves as her moral compass.
Being a decider for the family and a moral compass doesn't mean he decides what she does as a professional justice tasked with upholding the Constitution.
uh-huh ... you didn't read the whole thing i bet. her religion will dictate her decisions.

she staunchly anti choice & that has everything to do with her beliefs.

if she were asked, (like mike pence ) what/who is she? to list in order
1st, 2nd 3rd...

a constitutional defender, a republican, or a ' christian ' ...

what do you think her answer would be?

There is no religious test for holding office in the United States, so her religious views are off the table...
only if she keeps a wall of separation.

Nope...not even that ......there is no requirement to keep your religion separate....we have freedom of religion in this country.
absolutely one has freedom of religion AND freedom from religion.

but we are a secular nation when it comes to the law of the land. & to override the constitution - which is the law of the land - because one's religion CONflicts with it -

is, uh .... unconstitutional.



Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent


To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

How is it that a private letter becomes law? Do you understand how stupid this argument has been?

Do you understand that Jefferson held religious services, himself, at the Virginia Capitol?

You guys know so much that is just completely untrue, unfactual and unreal.
 

Pilate

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2016
Messages
758
Reaction score
166
Points
80
I’m skeptical. Though I guess I can see the benefits of this, as well as the risks.
 

sartre play

Gold Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
4,731
Reaction score
685
Points
140
Why are politicians, always putting out the most negative & dishonest statements as facts. Why has truth died in the name of winning?
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
30,772
Reaction score
16,222
Points
2,945
Location
Land of the sane.
her husband, the decider, must be in favor of it.
Why would you call her husband the decider? Do you think women are subservient to their husbands and can't make their own decisions?
lol... 1st, let me preface my reply & say i am female & to answer your question:

NO.

but that is EXACTLY what her religious sect dictates.

Amy Coney Barrett's People of Praise and the Role of Women, According to Former Members
Khaleda Rahman 54 mins ago
[...]

Members of the People of Praise are also assigned advisers of the same sex, called a "head" for men and a "handmaid" for women—until the latter phrase apparently became too charged following the release of Hulu's television adaption of Margaret Atwood's dystopian novel The Handmaid's Tale. The novel portrays a totalitarian, theocratic regime where women are considered property of the state.

The term "handmaid" is rooted in the Bible. Mary, the mother of Jesus, described herself as "handmaid of the Lord." But the negative connotations from the show prompted People of Praise to start referring to female advisors as "women leaders," according to reports.

For a married women, her husband is her "head"—he makes the decisions for the family and serves as her moral compass. "Total discipline is imposed upon those who submit themselves to their head," said Theill, "and this includes submission of your will, your desire, your actions."
[...]
"In the case of a woman, her 'head' is her husband—that's who is in charge of her. That is the person who is supposed to be making all of her moral decisions and taking responsibility for the condition of her soul. It's really creepy, but that's the idea."
[...]
The "subordinate role of women to men is a fundamental cultural premise" for the group, he wrote.
[...]
The final straw, Reimers said, came when he had objected to instructions given to his wife by a handmaid. When he relayed his concerns to his head, he was told his wife was "trying to undermine God's plan for her life."

In Not Reliable Guides, Reimers described how a married woman in the People of Praise is "expected always to reflect the fact that she is under her husband's authority."
[...]
Amy Coney Barrett's People of Praise and the Role of Women, According to Former Members

And you are wrong........Newsweek had to retract that link...

“How Amy Coney Barrett's People of Praise group inspired 'The Handmaid's Tale,’” said the first iteration of the story’s headline. The headline now reads, “How Charismatic Catholic Groups Like Amy Coney Barrett's People of Praise Inspired 'The Handmaid's Tale.’”

The report also bears a humiliating and flawed editor’s note, which reads:

This article's headline originally stated that People of Praise inspired 'The Handmaid's Tale'. The book's author, Margaret Atwood, has never specifically mentioned the group as being the inspiration for her work. A New Yorker profile of the author from 2017 mentions a newspaper clipping as part of her research for the book of a different charismatic Catholic group, People of Hope. Newsweek regrets the error.
----

Newsweek's report has been amended significantly since publication. But even the revisions cannot save it. It stated originally:

Members of People of Praise are assigned to personal advisers of the same sex — called a "head" for men and "handmaid" for women, until the rise in popularity of Atwood's novel and the television series based on it forced a change in the latter.

Atwood herself has indicated that the group's existence motivated her to write The Handmaid's Tale, set in the fictional Gilead, where women's bodies are governed and treated as the property of the state under a theocratic regime.
The latter paragraph now reads:

Atwood herself has previously referred to the practices of a charismatic Catholic group motivating her to write The Handmaid's Tale, set in the fictional Gilead, where women's bodies are governed and treated as the property of the state under a theocratic regime.
The revised version also includes a passage in which its author tries none-too-subtly to defend the article's original falsehood:

While Atwood has not elaborated on which sect she was referring to, a New Yorker profile of the author in 2017 mentions that in a box of newspaper clippings the author collected while writing the novel, there is "an Associated Press item reported on a Catholic congregation in New Jersey being taken over by a fundamentalist sect in which wives were called 'handmaidens' — a word that Atwood had underlined."

The clipping includes a spokesperson for the People of Hope sect based in Newark, New Jersey saying, "We're all Roman Catholics. We differ in the sense that we are a Charismatic group, which would mean that we have prayer meetings, during which there is raising of hands, singing and speaking in tongues."

People of Praise has never had a presence in the state of New Jersey.
People of Praise, People of Hope. Tomato, tamahto. You people all look the same. Also, as mentioned above, the Associated Press did not report on People of Hope until Atwood's book had already been published. Newsweek managed to screw up the original story, the editor's note, and even the freshly added paragraphs. Yet it refuses to retract the article.


As indefensible as Newsweek’s refusal to pull the story, which relies now on outright falsehoods and lurid innuendo, is the fact that the magazine is still promoting the initial lie on social media:

she is a member of people of praise, correct?


"Handmaids”


The People of Praise has both men and women leaders. For many years, we referred to some of our women leaders as handmaids, following the use of the term by Mary, Jesus’s mother, who called herself “the handmaid of the Lord,” (Lk. 1:38). Mary is honored by millions as the first Christian and as a model believer. In keeping with this, the term handmaid originally honored a woman with an important relationship with God and a leadership role within our community. Recognizing that the meaning of this term has shifted dramatically in our culture in recent years, we no longer use the term handmaid to describe those women who are leaders in the People of Praise.


The People of Praise began using the term handmaid in the 1970s, well before Margaret Atwood wrote her famous novel (1985). The People of Praise community was not the inspiration for Ms. Atwood’s work.
The People of Praise Responds to Recent Press | People of Praise
You've just debunked yourself. Congratulations, moonbat. :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg:
no i did not.

the OP tried saying the newsweek article ( which was less than an hr old when i linked it ) was wrong based on the wrong name of the sect they claimed the judge is a member of. they supposedly said 'people of hope' ....

the article i posted said people of praise ... which is the sect the judge belongs to. which was the the point of my reply - - - the subordinate role of wives in relation to their husbands, & the bigger picture where women are subordinate to men...

then i directly linked their own site describing their use of the phrase 'handmaid', because the OP deflected from my original point... NOT a printed name that was inaccurate.


sooooooooooooo..................... there you have it.

What part of her becoming a lawyer, a judge and now a likely Supreme Court Justice.....on of the 3 branches of our government........is being subordinate to anyone?

If this wasn't the CDZ I would add some thoughts about you as a person....
she is where she is because it was allowed & she will no doubt decide cases based on her religion. it won't be admitted out loud of course.

& never assume i care what you, a trump supporter, thinks of me.
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
30,772
Reaction score
16,222
Points
2,945
Location
Land of the sane.
but we are a secular nation when it comes to the law of the land. & to override the constitution - which is the law of the land - because one's religion CONflicts with it -is, uh .... unconstitutional.
Again, the Constitution says nothing about abortion. Read the 10th Amendment for clarification of such matters.
Roe v Wade isn't part of the Constitution, it's one group of SCOTUS's decision on a single case regarding privacy.
We now have another group who may reverse that decision.
Like they did with prohibition, for example.

History: study it or look foolish.
i'd say the right to choose falls more under the 14th amendment.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
126,691
Reaction score
12,990
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
And you intentionally lie with that number...since over 23,000 of those deaths are suicides and the 10,265 actual gun murders in the U.S. in 2018, of those 70-80% are criminals murdering other criminals, with illegally acquried guns...and of those remaining murders, the majority are friends and family of criminals...caught in the crossfire of their criminal lifestyles...
Again, not sure how we reduce those numbers by letting more people have guns. You are fine with gun death.. I'm not.

1601161650347.png
 

Orangecat

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
1,262
Reaction score
1,583
Points
1,893
i'd say the right to choose falls more under the 14th amendment.
You can mouth any irrelevant words you'd like, per the 1st Amendment.
The fact remains: The Constitution says nothing about abortion.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
44,921
Reaction score
7,907
Points
1,830
but we are a secular nation when it comes to the law of the land. & to override the constitution - which is the law of the land - because one's religion CONflicts with it -is, uh .... unconstitutional.
Again, the Constitution says nothing about abortion. Read the 10th Amendment for clarification of such matters.
Roe v Wade isn't part of the Constitution, it's one group of SCOTUS's decision on a single case regarding privacy.
We now have another group who may reverse that decision.
Like they did with prohibition, for example.

History: study it or look foolish.
i'd say the right to choose falls more under the 14th amendment.
Just be honest and state that you want an atheist that has no value on human life or society...you'll feel much better.
I think we need a Liberal who holds that destroying property and murdering people to let off steam is inline with the USC.
 

Meister

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
41,541
Reaction score
14,992
Points
2,250
Location
Conservative part of the Northwest
he makes the decisions for the family and serves as her moral compass.
Being a decider for the family and a moral compass doesn't mean he decides what she does as a professional justice tasked with upholding the Constitution.
uh-huh ... you didn't read the whole thing i bet. her religion will dictate her decisions.

she staunchly anti choice & that has everything to do with her beliefs.

if she were asked, (like mike pence ) what/who is she? to list in order
1st, 2nd 3rd...

a constitutional defender, a republican, or a ' christian ' ...

what do you think her answer would be?

There is no religious test for holding office in the United States, so her religious views are off the table...
only if she keeps a wall of separation.

Nope...not even that ......there is no requirement to keep your religion separate....we have freedom of religion in this country.
absolutely one has freedom of religion AND freedom from religion.

but we are a secular nation when it comes to the law of the land. & to override the constitution - which is the law of the land - because one's religion CONflicts with it -

is, uh .... unconstitutional.
The separation of church and state protects the citizen's religion from government, not protecting the government from a citizen's religion.



 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
66,971
Reaction score
11,205
Points
2,030
She'll (sad for her) always be grouped in with Gorsuch and Kav as lesser jurists because Trump appointed her.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
83,395
Reaction score
21,844
Points
2,180
She'll (sad for her) always be grouped in with Gorsuch and Kav as lesser jurists because Trump appointed her.

Only for leftists... who will smear anyone they disagree with.....while the real jokes on the court are breyer, kagan and sotomayor, and the one who died, ruth bader....
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
83,395
Reaction score
21,844
Points
2,180
And you intentionally lie with that number...since over 23,000 of those deaths are suicides and the 10,265 actual gun murders in the U.S. in 2018, of those 70-80% are criminals murdering other criminals, with illegally acquried guns...and of those remaining murders, the majority are friends and family of criminals...caught in the crossfire of their criminal lifestyles...
Again, not sure how we reduce those numbers by letting more people have guns. You are fine with gun death.. I'm not.

View attachment 393347

Because guns in the hands of normal people are not used in crime...that is why over the last 26 years as more Americans own and carry guns, our gun crime rate did not go up....it went down.....

the democrat party letting actual criminals out of jail creates the gun crime rate, and if they would stop doing that, the cities they control wouldn't have so much gun crime.

Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%


Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
 

Tipsycatlover

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
42,935
Reaction score
15,279
Points
2,290
he makes the decisions for the family and serves as her moral compass.
Being a decider for the family and a moral compass doesn't mean he decides what she does as a professional justice tasked with upholding the Constitution.
uh-huh ... you didn't read the whole thing i bet. her religion will dictate her decisions.

she staunchly anti choice & that has everything to do with her beliefs.

if she were asked, (like mike pence ) what/who is she? to list in order
1st, 2nd 3rd...

a constitutional defender, a republican, or a ' christian ' ...

what do you think her answer would be?

There is no religious test for holding office in the United States, so her religious views are off the table...
only if she keeps a wall of separation.

Nope...not even that ......there is no requirement to keep your religion separate....we have freedom of religion in this country.
absolutely one has freedom of religion AND freedom from religion.

but we are a secular nation when it comes to the law of the land. & to override the constitution - which is the law of the land - because one's religion CONflicts with it -

is, uh .... unconstitutional.



Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent


To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin
With this letter, Jefferson reassured the Danbury Baptists that they could limit property ownership in their community to Baptists without fear of the legislature stepping in.
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
30,772
Reaction score
16,222
Points
2,945
Location
Land of the sane.
she is where she is because it was allowed & she will no doubt decide cases based on her religion. it won't be admitted out loud of course.
So you're a mind reader now? Too funny.
silly you.

Amy Coney Barrett, Mr. Trump's Supreme Court nomination, meets the president's unprecedented anti-abortion rights litmus test. The federal judge has referred to abortion as "always immoral" and offers something a former top candidate, Barbara Lagoa, doesn't: A clear anti-abortion rights judicial record. During her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, she has already ruled on two abortion-related cases, both times favoring restrictions on access to abortion.
What we know about Amy Coney Barrett's judicial abortion record

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Barrett Responses to Whitehouse QFRs.pdf
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top