Judicial nominee faces Senate scrutiny over Knights of Columbus membership

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you'd disqualify 99% of the people who go to black and hispanic churches also

No , nor do I disqualify this judge nominee. I just said it was a valid question to ask. You are rabid and making shit up.

KoC is a legitimate religious charity, membership shouldn't be questioned regardless of their stated values if they are consistent with their doctrine. That's a religious test.

.

No, as KoC is politically active, and has contributed money to props and pacs. This question is no different than asking about any other politically active group. You try to shield it with religion....how unAmerican....

 

[OKTexas]

So you'd disqualify 99% of the people who go to black and hispanic churches also

No , nor do I disqualify this judge nominee. I just said it was a valid question to ask. You are rabid and making shit up.

KoC is a legitimate religious charity, membership shouldn't be questioned regardless of their stated values if they are consistent with their doctrine. That's a religious test.

.

No, as KoC is politically active, and has contributed money to props and pacs. This question is no different than asking about any other politically active group. You try to shield it with religion....how unAmerican....

So has the Catholic Church, the commies on the judiciary committee won't go after the Church because some commies claim to be Catholics. Hell the Pope speaks on political topics all the time.

US Catholic bishops reject ruling against Prop. 8

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So has the Catholic Church, the commies on the judiciary committee won't go after the Church because some commies claim to be Catholics.

No, actually, people on both sides of the aisle won't directly address religion on the floor, which is correct.

However, reporters should be fair game.

"Mr. Romney, do you REALLY believe you have your own planet waiting for you, and do you think this affects your decisions when governing and being an executive?"

ALL for it.

 

[OKTexas]

So has the Catholic Church, the commies on the judiciary committee won't go after the Church because some commies claim to be Catholics.

No, actually, people on both sides of the aisle won't directly address religion on the floor, which is correct.

However, reporters should be fair game.

"Mr. Romney, do you REALLY believe you have your own planet waiting for you, and do you think this affects your decisions when governing and being an executive?"

ALL for it.

The guy wasn't being questioned by reporters, also I added a link to my last post.

.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So you'd disqualify 99% of the people who go to black and hispanic churches also

No , nor do I disqualify this judge nominee. I just said it was a valid question to ask. You are rabid and making shit up.

KoC is a legitimate religious charity, membership shouldn't be questioned regardless of their stated values if they are consistent with their doctrine. That's a religious test.

.

No, as KoC is politically active, and has contributed money to props and pacs. This question is no different than asking about any other politically active group. You try to shield it with religion....how unAmerican....

So any other person asked to serve that happens to belong to the AFLCIO is fair game right?

 

[OKTexas]

So you'd disqualify 99% of the people who go to black and hispanic churches also

No , nor do I disqualify this judge nominee. I just said it was a valid question to ask. You are rabid and making shit up.

KoC is a legitimate religious charity, membership shouldn't be questioned regardless of their stated values if they are consistent with their doctrine. That's a religious test.

.

No, as KoC is politically active, and has contributed money to props and pacs. This question is no different than asking about any other politically active group. You try to shield it with religion....how unAmerican....

So any other person asked to serve that happens to belong to the AFLCIO is fair game right?

Or the NAACP

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

he guy wasn't being questioned by reporters, also I added a link to my last post.

Yes I know. Nor was he being given a religious test.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So any other person asked to serve that happens to belong to the AFLCIO is fair game right?

Sure, they can/should be asked if the political beliefs expressed by the AFLCIO will affect their decisions. Absolutely. And don't be surprised if some say, "yes", and explain how. That's also fine. There is no ban on saying "yes". It's not disqualifying.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That is what you are implying by saying the KoC are a reason that these nominees were asked about the association to that group.

Agreed, but the Dems can get away with anything and everything as they have the corporate media in their back pocket.

 

[hadit]

Fort Fun Indiana, what Ginsburg did was announce that all 50 states were ready for gay marriage

So what? She was saying, should the court rule for it, she thinks America is ready for it. You are over reaching....faux outrage, faux talking point ...

She was voicing an opinion that had been rejected by the states every time it had been put to the popular vote. IOW, she was signaling her intention to force it on the people without even the courtesy of hearing the arguments. A Justice should not do that.

 

[Silhouette]

She was voicing an opinion that had been rejected by the states every time it had been put to the popular vote. IOW, she was signaling her intention to force it on the people without even the courtesy of hearing the arguments. A Justice should not do that.

Yes. In short she announced her bias prior to the case to the media. Caperton v AT Massey Coal (2009 USSC) required that upon that moment Ginsburg recuse herself from the case.

 

[hadit]

She was voicing an opinion that had been rejected by the states every time it had been put to the popular vote. IOW, she was signaling her intention to force it on the people without even the courtesy of hearing the arguments. A Justice should not do that.

Yes. In short she announced her bias prior to the case to the media. Caperton v AT Massey Coal (2009 USSC) required that upon that moment Ginsburg recuse herself from the case.

Correct. Justice Thomas faced pressure to refuse himself from hearing obamadontcare because his WIFE, not he himself, opposed it. Ginsberg openly declared her own bias but did not recuse herself.

 

[denmark]

You cant be charged with murder for having an abortion within the prescribed time periods. What are you talking about?

If a woman kills her fetus at 3 months old, that isn't murder. If YOU kill a woman's fetus at 3 months old , that's murder (well if you did it intentionally of course, but for the sake of this argument let's assume you did) anyway if a 3 month old fetus was not a human you could not be charged with murder because murder is legally defined as "the illegal killing of a human" so the law definately defines a fetus as a human being. Arguing that point is stupid. The law is clear.

Likewise those who call abortion murder are stupid, because murder is the ILLEGAL killing of a human being. Abortion is legal, as you note in the legal time frame.

That's the only point I'm making here, fetuses ARE humans as defined by law and it's stupid to claim otherwise.

Abortion is simply the LEGAL killing of a human being. No different than say self defense really.

Can you tell me that you really dont understand the differences in those two situations?

"If a woman kills her fetus at 3 months old, that isn't murder. If YOU kill a woman's fetus at 3 months old, that's murder"

I'm not going to argue about if the fetus is human or not. Thats irrelevant to me because if allowed to go to term we know it wont be a dog or a cat. The difference is that if you kill the fetus without the moms permission you killed what is or would become a human. When a woman has an abortion she is exercising her right not to have the fetus in her body.

I know it's irrelevant to you, but it isn't to the other poster who has been screaming for pages that a fetus is NOT a human , when obviously it is . That you do not have the personal integrity to simply say "that person is wrong" because they agree with you politically is YOUR problem, not mine.

As for abortion, I'm one of the few conservative leaning people you will find who not only supports the right of liberals to abort their babies, but thinks that we need more idiots aborting their kids before they to can become idiots.

I merely enjoy pointing fingers at stupid and claiming that fetuses aren't human when we have seen time after time where people have been charged with MURDER for killing fetuses is indeed stupid.

Change my mind about you and admit that it is stupid to admit that fetuses are humans else you wouldn't be able to murder one.

I cant say the person is wrong because I have no idea at what point that person thinks the fetus becomes a human.

I'm pretty sure there are a lot of idiot conservatives aborting children. The thing about conservatives is they do the same things and then lie about it so they dont look like hypocrites.

People being charged with murder doesnt prove that the fetus is human. Its just a way to stick it to the person that killed the mother further. The argument being it was definitely going to be a human if the killer hadnt stopped the process without the moms permission.

I understand, you are a dishonest person and can't simply say "hey dummy obviously fetuses are humans, b/c you can only murder humans"

Apparently, USA law has its own specific definition of a “human being”:

“(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.”

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

 

[Silhouette]

Correct. Justice Thomas faced pressure to refuse himself from hearing obamadontcare because his WIFE, not he himself, opposed it. Ginsberg openly declared her own bias but did not recuse herself.

An impeachable offense. So if Kamala Harris and pals push for this type of selectivism in judicial nominees based on hunch alone, then a judge who has demonstrated bias such as Ginsburg HAS to have Harris impeach her first. Otherwise we cannot take these people seriously at all.

You don't get to practice selective democracy in the US. Funny it's the same group crying "discrimination!!" all the time who CLEARLY are HIGHLY discriminatory in selectively favoring some over others to forward the agenda of the Cult they serve. You know, Germany had a cult with similar tactics back in the 1930s....just sayin'...

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The abortion debate is not the topic of this thread. Please get back on track.