Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Why Amy Coney Barrett's kooked-up religious beliefs aren't off limits if she is the Supreme Court nominee   (politico.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Roman Catholic Church, Roman Catholic, Pope, Supreme Court of the United States, Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II, Bishop, Amy Coney Barrett  
•       •       •

1528 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Sep 2020 at 7:30 PM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



68 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-09-24 1:12:02 PM  
Why would anyone think they would be?
 
2020-09-24 2:25:59 PM  

BMFPitt: Why would anyone think they would be?


Because asking someone religious if they will be listening to logic or God seems to piss off said religious followers.

"I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me." Remember when that was the rule and not the exception?
 
2020-09-24 7:30:19 PM  
I look forward to her explaining why she has to get her husband's  approval before ruling  on each case
 
2020-09-24 7:31:50 PM  

edmo: I look forward to her explaining why she has to get her husband's  approval before ruling  on each case


You're assuming they'll even be a hearing.
 
2020-09-24 7:32:08 PM  
It's an absolute travesty how Catholics have been prevented from serving on the high court.
 
2020-09-24 7:32:57 PM  
Good, you want a job like that you need to have your life opened up and put on display. She serves the public so anything like this should be open game.
 
2020-09-24 7:33:12 PM  
That's a feature, not a bug.
 
2020-09-24 7:34:55 PM  

APO_Buddha: Because asking someone religious if they will be listening to logic or God seems to piss off said religious followers.

"I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me." Remember when that was the rule and not the exception?


No.
 
2020-09-24 7:35:03 PM  
Because we've got to stop treating religion like it's an immutable part of a persons identity and criticizing it is some sort of moral outrage.

Religion is not race, gender or national origin; it's not something you're born with and cannot change. A person who confesses religious belief does so freely and willingly and allows those beliefs to inform their interactions with their fellow citizens. If a person's religion is bullshiat we should be able to tell them their religion is bullshiat without fear of being tarred for intolerance.
 
2020-09-24 7:35:58 PM  
They've asked others about their sacred beliefs
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-24 7:36:40 PM  
Sorry, but any belief system that puts one group of people above another, especially on the basis of some inherited trait, is fair game for a powerful position that must treat everyone equally and fairly.
 
2020-09-24 7:37:05 PM  

Call the Guy: They've asked others about their sacred beliefs
[Fark user image image 316x160]


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-24 7:37:38 PM  
This is so weird, because at any other time in my life, I would have loved the idea of a heretic, and honest-to-God believer in heresy, becoming a supreme court judge. In any country.

But American heresies seem uniquely shiatty, lately.

This timeline is depressing.
 
2020-09-24 7:38:01 PM  
Yeah I deserve to know if the person you're putting up to judge the most important legal matters of our civilization takes part in some kind of freaky death cult rituals.
 
2020-09-24 7:38:06 PM  

Tanqueray: edmo: I look forward to her explaining why she has to get her husband's  approval before ruling  on each case

You're assuming they'll even be a hearing.


This. Evidence wasn't necessary earlier this year (that was THIS year), and hearing the nominee's actual words aren't necessary either.

Though they may be a formality.
 
2020-09-24 7:39:19 PM  
Uh... does she hold "God's law*" over man's law?

*gods law seemingly whatever the asshole spouting nonsense claims it to be
 
2020-09-24 7:40:02 PM  
"Mrs.Barrett, besides the Constitution, what other groups or tenants have you sworn an oath to and in which order of priority do you hold those oaths"   Ask that and then ask for details.
 
2020-09-24 7:40:34 PM  
Trump's doing his who wants a man who wants a woman bit.  He couldn't sound more disrespectful to his nominee.
 
2020-09-24 7:41:42 PM  
Amy doesn't help Trump win Florida, and it's all about Trump. She's an awful choice for so many reasons.

Therefore, He's going to pick Barbara Lagoa as his nominee. That's my bet, unless he picks Merrick Garland to stick it to his own party, but that would never happen, because Obama.
 
2020-09-24 7:42:46 PM  

neongoats: Yeah I deserve to know if the person you're putting up to judge the most important legal matters of our civilization takes part in some kind of freaky death cult rituals.


I mean, there are already a lot of Senate Republicans.
 
2020-09-24 7:43:54 PM  

AtomPeepers: That's my bet, unless he picks Merrick Garland to stick it to his own party, but that would never happen, because Obama.


If there was an anti-Merrick Garland visiting from the Negaverse, Trump would pick him.
 
2020-09-24 7:43:59 PM  

Abox: Trump's doing his who wants a man who wants a woman bit.  He couldn't sound more disrespectful to his nominee.


What?
 
2020-09-24 7:45:44 PM  

Natalie Portmanteau: Uh... does she hold "God's law*" over man's law?

*gods law seemingly whatever the asshole spouting nonsense claims it to be


they have firmly held beliefs on kidnapping children and fuqing corpses

/yes birds too
 
2020-09-24 7:46:02 PM  

spiralscratch: Sorry, but any belief system that puts one group of people above another, especially on the basis of some inherited trait, is fair game for a powerful position that must treat everyone equally and fairly.


FTA: Such a request to examine the covenant may seem unseemly to some. After all, the Constitution says that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust."

And if you are not going to think about the explicit ban on religious tests in the Constitution, there are still entirely humanistic problems with your position. Only a small minority of American households include people who would be comfortable with a man making less annual income than his girlfriend, wife, or women he dates. You will find that on the American bench, there is even a small minority who would be comfortable with that. There is no firm subculture, beyond a few committed feminists, that advocates for women's financial success to be independent of the financial success of the men in their lives.

I agree with you. However, I think our shared distaste for inequality is beyond religion, and requires a different test. Naming the damage to Coney's brain and soul is harder than "Cult bad!" I'm not sure how to state it, except that real defenders of liberty, like Isaiah Berlin and Karl Popper and Angela Davis have written libraries of books and interviews in an attempt to stop Coney's kind of evil from proliferating.
 
2020-09-24 7:46:23 PM  
She's not a Catholic, she's a heretic.
 
2020-09-24 7:47:31 PM  
It's an extremely relevant question as to whether she can be an impartial and reasonable juror when deciding cases of the utmost importance.

Unfortunately, it has become common accepted practice that idea logs will be allowed onto the court in order to vote certain ways on certain issues. There should be something approaching a sort of objectivity, even if it's grounded in this sort of Judicial philosophy. But now all that matters is ideology. Justice, rationality, precedence, and the actual law no longer has any real meaning.
 
2020-09-24 7:52:53 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: This is so weird, because at any other time in my life, I would have loved the idea of a heretic, and honest-to-God believer in heresy, becoming a supreme court judge. In any country.

But American heresies seem uniquely shiatty, lately.

This timeline is depressing.


What's funny is that I am actually, literally a member of a cult*, one that would certainly be called "heretical" by anybody not in it, and even by some of the people that are in it. And even I think this chick is a dangerous pick, and a dangerous precedent.

*details available on request
93 93/93
Fr. S.A. 0=0
 
2020-09-24 7:54:09 PM  

Tibaron: "Mrs.Barrett, besides the Constitution, what other groups or tenants have you sworn an oath to and in which order of priority do you hold those oaths"   Ask that and then ask for details.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-24 7:54:19 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: Only a small minority of American households include people who would be comfortable with a man making less annual income than his girlfriend, wife, or women he dates. You will find that on the American bench, there is even a small minority who would be comfortable with that. There is no firm subculture, beyond a few committed feminists, that advocates for women's financial success to be independent of the financial success of the men in their lives.


Weird how I've basically gone through my whole life never meeting any of these people.

Anytime this subject has been brought up, whoever is assumed to hold this belief always says that they'd love for their wife to make more than them.

I sure as fark would love to not be the sole breadwinner*.

// She's been selling ColorStreet nails lately, but I am skeptical of the profitability of this endeavor.
 
2020-09-24 7:57:50 PM  

AtomPeepers: Amy doesn't help Trump win Florida, and it's all about Trump. She's an awful choice for so many reasons.

Therefore, He's going to pick Barbara Lagoa as his nominee. That's my bet, unless he picks Merrick Garland to stick it to his own party, but that would never happen, because Obama.


That would actually be a smart move.

Get everyone bent out of shape about Barrett, then pick Lagoa and all the pundits would be talking about his "reasonable choice"
 
2020-09-24 7:58:53 PM  
"No but it will be fine to question democrat nominees about their intense love of satan and are they not in fact atheist Muslims intent on establishing sharia law and banning the Bible." - Every Conservative
 
2020-09-24 8:00:07 PM  

scanman61: AtomPeepers: Amy doesn't help Trump win Florida, and it's all about Trump. She's an awful choice for so many reasons.

Therefore, He's going to pick Barbara Lagoa as his nominee. That's my bet, unless he picks Merrick Garland to stick it to his own party, but that would never happen, because Obama.

That would actually be a smart move.

Get everyone bent out of shape about Barrett, then pick Lagoa and all the pundits would be talking about his "reasonable choice"


"Just look how presidential he is acting!"
 
2020-09-24 8:02:30 PM  

Frozboz: scanman61: AtomPeepers: Amy doesn't help Trump win Florida, and it's all about Trump. She's an awful choice for so many reasons.

Therefore, He's going to pick Barbara Lagoa as his nominee. That's my bet, unless he picks Merrick Garland to stick it to his own party, but that would never happen, because Obama.

That would actually be a smart move.

Get everyone bent out of shape about Barrett, then pick Lagoa and all the pundits would be talking about his "reasonable choice"

"Just look how presidential he is acting!"


Exactly
 
2020-09-24 8:03:30 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: spiralscratch: Sorry, but any belief system that puts one group of people above another, especially on the basis of some inherited trait, is fair game for a powerful position that must treat everyone equally and fairly.

FTA: Such a request to examine the covenant may seem unseemly to some. After all, the Constitution says that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust."

And if you are not going to think about the explicit ban on religious tests in the Constitution, there are still entirely humanistic problems with your position. Only a small minority of American households include people who would be comfortable with a man making less annual income than his girlfriend, wife, or women he dates. You will find that on the American bench, there is even a small minority who would be comfortable with that. There is no firm subculture, beyond a few committed feminists, that advocates for women's financial success to be independent of the financial success of the men in their lives.

I agree with you. However, I think our shared distaste for inequality is beyond religion, and requires a different test. Naming the damage to Coney's brain and soul is harder than "Cult bad!" I'm not sure how to state it, except that real defenders of liberty, like Isaiah Berlin and Karl Popper and Angela Davis have written libraries of books and interviews in an attempt to stop Coney's kind of evil from proliferating.


To be clear: I didn't say anything about religion. I said "belief system". I don't necessarily care that she's a Catholic, or even that she belongs to some fringe society within the religion. What I care about is how those influences will steer her judgements and possibly lead her into revoking long-standing human rights.
 
2020-09-24 8:04:17 PM  
So, my "Is it a cult?" test.

Can I read all (and I mean ALL) of your holy texts? If not, you're a cult.

Can I have a sit-down discussion with one of your holy representatives (Priest, Imam, Rabbi, or equalavent) after reading the material? If not, you're a cult.
 
2020-09-24 8:04:20 PM  

scanman61: AtomPeepers: Amy doesn't help Trump win Florida, and it's all about Trump. She's an awful choice for so many reasons.

Therefore, He's going to pick Barbara Lagoa as his nominee. That's my bet, unless he picks Merrick Garland to stick it to his own party, but that would never happen, because Obama.

That would actually be a smart move.

Get everyone bent out of shape about Barrett, then pick Lagoa and all the pundits would be talking about his "reasonable choice"


I figure he'll get everyone riled up, then when he picks a male candidate he can say it was because everyone hated the woman he picked. Not his fault everyone liked the old white guy better than the crazy eyed lady. Plus points with the evangelicals for 'trying'.
 
2020-09-24 8:04:30 PM  
I don't find her very charismatic. I'd give her an 8 on that stat.
 
2020-09-24 8:05:09 PM  

groppet: Good, you want a job like that you need to have your life opened up and put on display. She serves the public so anything like this should be open game.


... and everything she and all her first-degree relatives own should be placed in a blind trust -- the return on which is based on metrics tied directly to the quality of life for _all_ Americans, not the stock market.

For all politicians, obviously.  Public service. Not self service through power granted by public agreement.
 
2020-09-24 8:06:01 PM  

scanman61: AtomPeepers: Amy doesn't help Trump win Florida, and it's all about Trump. She's an awful choice for so many reasons.

Therefore, He's going to pick Barbara Lagoa as his nominee. That's my bet, unless he picks Merrick Garland to stick it to his own party, but that would never happen, because Obama.

That would actually be a smart move.

Get everyone bent out of shape about Barrett, then pick Lagoa and all the pundits would be talking about his "reasonable choice"


Lagoa is not my choice for entirely different reasons but I prefer her over Handmaiden Barbie.
 
2020-09-24 8:06:07 PM  

spiralscratch: To be clear: I didn't say anything about religion. I said "belief system". I don't necessarily care that she's a Catholic, or even that she belongs to some fringe society within the religion. What I care about is how those influences will steer her judgements and possibly lead her into revoking long-standing human rights.


Ohhh I see.

BMFPitt: Weird how I've basically gone through my whole life never meeting any of these people.


Don't know what to tell ya. It's a really small minority that you're part of.
 
2020-09-24 8:10:13 PM  

Tanqueray: edmo: I look forward to her explaining why she has to get her husband's  approval before ruling  on each case

You're assuming they'll even be a hearing.


Hey, if you Republicans want to stop any pretense of democracy and not hold hearings for judicial nominees, we'll be quite happy to play the same game when Democrats are in charge.

When you whine about it, we'll happily point out that YOU were the people who did away with such things.
 
2020-09-24 8:15:08 PM  
Because "religious beliefs" are just regular beliefs that we give extra credulity to. Treat them with the same derision as any other belief that has to be justified with "faith".
 
2020-09-24 8:17:44 PM  
If she were Jewish or Muslim, they would be, but because she's Catholic, they won't be.
 
2020-09-24 8:19:59 PM  

BMFPitt: Why would anyone think they would be?


doucheyplopper was a passionate defender of what he believes the Constitution says and was spewing a bunch of ridiculous horse shiat about religious tests in some thread the other day.
 
2020-09-24 8:23:44 PM  
Ramtha disapproves of questioning the tenets of this judges' wackadoodle cult faith!
 
2020-09-24 8:25:19 PM  

NathanAllen: She's not a Catholic, she's a heretic.


This.
 
2020-09-24 8:25:35 PM  

baron von doodle: scanman61: AtomPeepers: Amy doesn't help Trump win Florida, and it's all about Trump. She's an awful choice for so many reasons.

Therefore, He's going to pick Barbara Lagoa as his nominee. That's my bet, unless he picks Merrick Garland to stick it to his own party, but that would never happen, because Obama.

That would actually be a smart move.

Get everyone bent out of shape about Barrett, then pick Lagoa and all the pundits would be talking about his "reasonable choice"

Lagoa is not my choice for entirely different reasons but I prefer her over Handmaiden Barbie.


Granted, that's kinda like choosing your own method of death.
 
2020-09-24 8:31:59 PM  

BMFPitt: Why would anyone think they would be?


Barack Obama's religious beliefs were a constant topic and he had to defend them publicly, and on more than one occasion, over whether he was an Islamic extremist bent on forcing sharia law on the US.  In addition, the GOP and Donald Trump the private citizen made both Obama and John Roberts defend Obama's birth certificate publicly as his citizenship was also in question.
Let's take a closer look at Judge Barrett, and explore the so claimed deep religious life of Donald Trump, the word of God made flesh.  It is relevant to both understand their faith and if their claims about them are true.
At this point, Trump has all but admitted his father Fred was an illegal immigrant on multiple recent occasions. We should demand proof Donald is actually eligible to serve as POTUS.  Also, I heard Barrett is a secret Muslim using catholic dogma to hide her true agenda to force sharia law.  Teach the controversy.
 
2020-09-24 8:34:51 PM  

UltimaCS: Abox: Trump's doing his who wants a man who wants a woman bit.  He couldn't sound more disrespectful to his nominee.

What?


This thing he's doing at his rallies now.  He says he's going to nominate a great wonderful woman. Then he asks the audience who wants him to nominate a man and nobody claps.  Then he asks who wants him to nominate a woman and they all cheer.  It's pretty patronizing.
 
2020-09-24 8:42:31 PM  
Screw anyone who tries to call this a "relgious test."  Those people are Republicans and Christian Dominionists and their opinions should never hold sway over anything the government does or doesn't do.   It is more than appropriate to examine her beliefs to see exactly how unethical and immoral she plans to act.  Get that nonsense on record.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.