If she does not recognize separation of church and state, she needs to go. More trouble has been caused in the name of religion than any other except money. Look at the trouble we have with the Muslim lite sisters in Congress.
Our First Amendment is fine just the way it is.
You think the Supreme Court has a problem with a 40-foot-tall cross that stands on public land in Maryland? The memorial is a nearly 100-year-old cross that was built in a Washington, D.C., suburb as a memorial to area residents who died in World War I.
Even Leftwing Justice Kagan noted that the cross is a symbol linked with soldiers killed in World War I.
“When you go into a World War I battlefield, there are Stars of David there, but because those battlefields were just rows and rows and rows of crosses, the cross became, in people’s minds, the pre-eminent symbol of how to memorialize World War I dead,” she said, adding that there are no religious words on the Maryland cross and that it sits in an area with other war memorials. She asked, “So why in a case like that can we not say essentially the religious content has been stripped of this monument?”
Leftwing Breyer asked a lawyer arguing for the cross’ challengers what she thought about saying that “history counts” and that “We’re not going to have people trying to tear down historical monuments even here.”
“What about the marshal’s cry: “God save the United States and this honorable court.”
The cross’s defenders include The American Legion, which raised money for the monument, and Maryland officials who took over maintenance of the cross nearly 60 years ago to preserve it and address traffic safety concerns. Maryland officials say the cross, sometimes called the “Peace Cross,” doesn’t violate the Constitution because it has a secular purpose and meaning.
Those defending the cross say a ruling against them could doom of hundreds of war memorials that use crosses to commemorate soldiers who died. Justice Samuel Alito picked up on that concern during arguments, telling American Humanist Association lawyer Monica Miller: “
There are cross monuments all over the country, many of them quite old. Do you want them all taken down?”
In 1971 the court announced one test for such cases. It asks whether the government’s action has a secular purpose, advances or inhibits religion or fosters “an excessive government entanglement with religion.” But in the decades since, the court hasn’t followed that test, and several former and current justices have criticized it.
Justice Neil Gorsuch asked if it wasn’t time to get rid of the test, saying it has resulted in a “welter of confusion.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that lower courts “need some clarity” from the Supreme Court.
Your bigoted small-minded smears of this highly accomplished young woman are vile. You should reconsider, repent of them and issue a public apology to make atonement for your corrupt slander of her reputation.
You are obviously confused so I will explain. Senate Confirms Dangerous Religious Extremist Allison Rushing As Federal Judge. This is the thread title, she wants to overturn existing law because of her religion. I smeared no woman, I smeared the concept of ruling by religion. I like the crosses too, but they do not threaten any law. If you want to repent and apologize, fine, I will not.
You smeared her as a "dangerous religious extremist". Your post is here for all to see. She is a strong woman who disagrees with you and you have responded with quite vicious slander. Apparently women are not supposed to disagree with you and be to serve in Federal Office.
Allison Rushing is highly qualified, respects the rule of law, and exercise the judicial restraint worthy of a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals. Ms. Rushing understands the role of a judge is to interpret the law as written, not legislate from the bench, though, if you would prefer that we confirm activist conservative jurists, we certainly can do so.
You hatefully smeared a strong woman, a native of North Carolina, Rushing excelled at Wake Forest University and at Duke Law School. She clerked for three of the most preeminent federal judges in the country, including then-Judge Neil Gorsuch and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then joined and subsequently became a partner at Williams & Connolly, recognized as the
most selective law firm in the United States.
Accolades have followed her throughout her education and career, and justifiably so.
Rushing also has an impressive record of pro-bono legal service. She successfully represented a military veteran seeking education benefits, helped numerous criminal defendants on appeal, and represented the New York City Council Black, Latino, and Asian Caucus in opposing a discriminatory city facility use policy that was ultimately rescinded by Mayor Bill de Blasio.
Why the attacks on Rushing, then?
During law school, she did a summer internship with Alliance Defending Freedom which the blackmailing Southern Poverty Law Center has irresponsibly labeled a “hate group.” Of course, this is the same SPLC that recently paid $3.375 million and issued a public apology to settle a threatened defamation lawsuit after it falsely labeled Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz an anti-Muslim extremist. So unwarranted attacks are not new territory for the SPLC and the haters that support and follow them.
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) gor 25 years has defended constitutionally guaranteed freedoms for
Americans from all walks of life who are seeking to live consistent with their conscience.
The Washington Post has described ADF as the “
legal powerhouse that keeps winning at the Supreme Court,” with nine victories at the court in the past eight years. In fact, according to
independent analysis published last fall, ADF emerged as a front-runner at the Supreme Court: the law firm with the
highest number of wins in First Amendment cases and the
top performing firm overall during the 2013-2017 terms.
Unlike strong women hating scum that seek to keep women compliant, fair-minded individuals from both sides of the aisle
have vigorously rejected the SPLC’s characterization of ADF. U.S. Senator James Lankford calls ADF “
a national and reputable law firm that works to advocate for the rights of people to peacefully and freely speak, live and work according to their faith and conscience without threat of government punishment.”
Nadine Strossen, the former president of the ACLU, explained, “
I consider ADF to be a valuable ally on important issues of common concern, and a worthy adversary (not an ‘enemy’) on important issues of disagreement; what I do not consider it to be, considering the full scope of its work, is a ‘hate group.’”
And what did Rushing actually do during her summer internship with ADF? It was certainly nothing like what the SPLC would have you to believe. She co-authored an
academic legal article discussing who had the right to bring a lawsuit in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of a passive display (like a Ten Commandments monument) on public property, a legal question which the Supreme Court
is still grappling with even to this today!
It's dangerous scum who seek to banish a credentialed and highly competent woman from public service. For this, Rushing was branded an “ideological extremist.”
Who, in this scenario, are actually the ideological extremists?
