Jump to content

Senate confirms Justice Handmaid One

SaysWho?

By SaysWho?
in The Political Re-Education Camp

 Share

Recommended Posts

Joe

Joe

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

If someone were part of a secretive Freemason or some social / political / religious fraternity-like group it would be worth investigating and figuring out the extent of their stated oaths (not perceived oaths like you see in Catholic and Jewish directed hate) and how that conflicts/limits/explains their commitment to the judicial oath (in this instance) that they will end up taking. This is particularly important when there is not a shared cultural connection like you see with most all lawmakers and the appointees they evaluate.

 

I am decidedly not anti religious. Religious institutions, like all institutions, are to be held as suspect though.

 

I almost became a Freemason. Let me tell you: all they do is go out drinking and eating on Friday's.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CayceG

CayceG

Posted
Posted

A buddy of mine is trying to become a Freemason because he is very very interested in esoteric Platonic philosophy and alchemy. 

 

 

I think once he gets in, he's going to be disappointed no one wants to talk about the deep knowledge of the emerald tablets or where the lost city of Atlantis actually lies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
b_m_b_m_b_m

b_m_b_m_b_m

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Religious test that is not fine: "Are you XXXXX faith? That is not good, please answer."

Religious test that is 100% fine: "You declared an oath vowing to place the leader of your religion above all else in your life, how will that effect your oath to the constitution?"

Also you better believe the gop would have 0 qualms going after a Muslim judge openly and explicitly, on TV, print, and radio, because of their faith.

 

Republicans do not do anything in good faith!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CayceG

CayceG

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Religious test that is not fine: "Are you XXXXX faith? That is not good, please answer."

Religious test that is 100% fine: "You declared an oath vowing to place the leader of your religion above all else in your life, how will that effect your oath to the constitution?"

 

Maybe I don't have an understanding of Catholic doctrine, but I do have an understanding of previous anti-Catholic attacks in this country. This is precisely the same angle JFK was attacked from (back and to the right, about 6 stories up). It was the same angle Catholics were attacked from by the Know-Nothings. 

 

Is this actually a vow Catholics hold? Why can't her garbage positions and interpretation of the law be the angle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

If someone were part of a secretive Freemason or some social / political / religious fraternity-like group it would be worth investigating and figuring out the extent of their stated oaths (not perceived oaths like you see in Catholic and Jewish directed hate) and how that conflicts/limits/explains their commitment to the judicial oath (in this instance) that they will end up taking. This is particularly important when there is not a shared cultural connection like you see with most all lawmakers and the appointees they evaluate.

 

I am decidedly not anti religious. Religious institutions, like all institutions, are to be held as suspect though.


Feinstein was not talking about any secretive group, she was referring specifically to Coney Barrett’s words about being a devout Catholic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jason

Jason

Posted
Posted
Quote

 

She’s a member of People of Praise, a charismatic covenant community in South Bend, Indiana, that has been criticized by former members for being a religious cult. Though most of its members are Catholic, its practices, including speaking in tongues and faith healing, draw more from fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity than the Vatican. One of its most notable features is the submissive role played by women, some of whom were called “handmaids”—at least until the Handmaid’s Tale aired in 2017, At that point, the group started referring to them as “women leaders.”

 

Barrett has written and spoken publicly about being a devout Catholic lawyer, even saying that during her confirmation hearing that she would not enter an order of execution if she were a federal trial judge because it would conflict with Catholic Church teaching. In 2006, she gave a commencement speech at Notre Dame law school in which she told the grads, “Always keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and…that end is building the kingdom of God.” But Barrett has not publicly addressed her involvement with People of Praise.

 

 

Quote

Most of its members are Catholic, but People of Praise is ecumenical, and any Christian can join. But joining the group requires a major commitment and a willingness to submit to a lay spiritual adviser known as a “head,” who has an outsized role in one’s life and relationships. After several years of exploration, prospective members must agree to a formal covenant and pledge to attend to each other’s spiritual, material, and financial needs—as well as attend many meetings, even as they still go to Mass or otherwise remain active in their regular churches. Members are supposed to consult their head on nearly every aspect of their lives—from raising children to buying a car. A woman’s personal head is her husband, and women aren’t allowed into serve in top leadership roles in the community.

Quote

Women, he notes, were discouraged from having independent ideas. “At a women’s retreat one handmaid taught (with the approval of the coordinators) that one manifestation of the sin of pride is the failure to submit one’s thoughts and opinions to the heads of the community for correction,” Reimers writes.

Quote

It’s not anti-Catholic for Senate Democrats to ask Barrett to explain her relationship with or role in People of Praise. Wondering if she was a handmaid—and what that might mean in a Supreme Court justice—is a far cry from asking John F. Kennedy whether he had more loyalty to the Pope than the United States. As she told Notre Dame’s Class of 2006, “First, before you take any job, particularly one that requires a move, pray about it. St. Ignatius of Loyala observed that when presented with options, most people choose what they want to do first, and it’s only after the choice is already made that they go to God and say, ‘How can I serve You in the Situation I’m in?’  It’s the rare person who consults God before making a choice.”

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/09/its-not-anti-catholic-to-ask-amy-coney-barrett-about-her-religious-group-people-of-praise/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I don't give a single fuck about what Diane feinsten said, much less what she said 3 years ago.


Of course you don’t, because it flies in the face of your response that no Dems are attacking Coney Barrett’s faith. It’s ok to amend your post to say most Dems aren’t attacking her faith :p 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CitizenVectron

CitizenVectron

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, CayceG said:

 

Maybe I don't have an understanding of Catholic doctrine, but I do have an understanding of previous anti-Catholic attacks in this country. This is precisely the same angle JFK was attacked from (back and to the right, about 6 stories up). It was the same angle Catholics were attacked from by the Know-Nothings. 

 

Is this actually a vow Catholics hold? Why can't her garbage positions and interpretation of the law be the angle?

 

It would depend on the specific faith and what kind of "oath" is required. For example, a long-held view in Catholicism (dating back to OG Jesus) is the whole "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Basically, government runs their stuff, god isn't involved (i.e. pay your taxes). So there is a very easy out for Catholics to say that the Pope does not give orders that should be followed in the carrying out of government actions. In the case of other religions, if a religion specifically made people swear an oath that said a wife has to listen to a husband in all things, etc, then that could be a bigger issue. I mean, imo, I am perfectly fine with religious tests for court positions in the sense of having a judge declare an oath that they will place the constitution/laws of the land above any personal religious beliefs.

 

Interestingly, on the Catholic angle, the church did attempt to interfere in the legalization of gay marriage in Canada by having bishops/cadinals openly pressure Catholic Prime Minister Paul Martin to not pass the bill in 2005. Paul Martin wrote a really great opinion piece at the time (carried front-page in papers) on why he had a duty to set aside his own personal religious beliefs in the pursuit of government policy, and equality. It is one reason why I hope Paul Martin goes down as a great politician in Canadian history (even though he only won a single, minority election). 

 

150605144118-01-gay-marriage-restricted-

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CayceG

CayceG

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

It would depend on the specific faith and what kind of "oath" is required. For example, a long-held view in Catholicism (dating back to OG Jesus) is the whole "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Basically, government runs their stuff, god isn't involved (i.e. pay your taxes). So there is a very easy out for Catholics to say that the Pope does not give orders that should be followed in the carrying out of government actions. In the case of other religions, if a religion specifically made people swear an oath that said a wife has to listen to a husband in all things, etc, then that could be a bigger issue. I mean, imo, I am perfectly fine with religious tests for court positions in the sense of having a judge declare an oath that they will place the constitution/laws of the land above any personal religious beliefs.

 

Interestingly, on the Catholic angle, the church did attempt to interfere in the legalization of gay marriage in Canada by having bishops/cadinals openly pressure Catholic Prime Minister Paul Martin to not pass the bill in 2005. Paul Martin wrote a really great opinion piece at the time (carried front-page in papers) on why he had a duty to set aside his own personal religious beliefs in the pursuit of government policy, and equality. It is one reason why I hope Paul Martin goes down as a great politician in Canadian history (even though he only won a single, minority election). 

 

150605144118-01-gay-marriage-restricted-

 

 

 

I actually really like the idea that she just wholesale wouldn't be a part of an execution verdict. But that arrives at a bigger question: Do we want justices and judges to evaluate things based on their personal feelings on an issue, or on a reading and interpretation of the law? I know there's overlap in both of those, but it's a question to ask. 

 

This example from Paul Martin is pretty much that. But depending on the issue, any politician or interpreter of the law could make the right decision either based on their beliefs, or based on a cold interpretation of the law--it's all dependent on what the viewer thinks is right. 

 

 

 

Regarding Barrett's position in the POP thing, I think better questions to her would be whether or not she consults with anyone else on confidential matters of the court--whether overtly or vaguely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
b_m_b_m_b_m

b_m_b_m_b_m

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

It would depend on the specific faith and what kind of "oath" is required. For example, a long-held view in Catholicism (dating back to OG Jesus) is the whole "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Basically, government runs their stuff, god isn't involved (i.e. pay your taxes). So there is a very easy out for Catholics to say that the Pope does not give orders that should be followed in the carrying out of government actions. In the case of other religions, if a religion specifically made people swear an oath that said a wife has to listen to a husband in all things, etc, then that could be a bigger issue. I mean, imo, I am perfectly fine with religious tests for court positions in the sense of having a judge declare an oath that they will place the constitution/laws of the land above any personal religious beliefs.

 

Interestingly, on the Catholic angle, the church did attempt to interfere in the legalization of gay marriage in Canada by having bishops/cadinals openly pressure Catholic Prime Minister Paul Martin to not pass the bill in 2005. Paul Martin wrote a really great opinion piece at the time (carried front-page in papers) on why he had a duty to set aside his own personal religious beliefs in the pursuit of government policy, and equality. It is one reason why I hope Paul Martin goes down as a great politician in Canadian history (even though he only won a single, minority election). 

 

150605144118-01-gay-marriage-restricted-

Often it comes up that Catholic bishops or some priests I don't recall exactly, will threaten/actively try to deny Holy Communion to pro-choice elected officials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Find one today, in the year of our Lord 2020.

 

Hint: you can't because they aren't

The entire reason this has come up is because of how she was questioned during her first confirmation. It is quite relevant to the discussion of what is proper and improper questioning leading into this next confirmation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

I mean, imo, I am perfectly fine with religious tests for court positions in the sense of having a judge declare an oath that they will place the constitution/laws of the land above any personal religious beliefs.

 

You don’t have to go the religious test route to establish whether a person places anything in such a position that it would jeopardize their ability to follow the judicial oath, because religious affiliation is not the only thing that could do so. For example, in America in particular, most people have a stronger allegiance to their political party than their faith (see: Evangelical support of Trump).

 

The questions that actually matter, if you can even get answers to them (post Bork confirmations are a joke with the nominees basically not answering anything), are about how the nominees views the law, how they view the role they are taking, and examples of how they would approach rulings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jason

Jason

Posted
Posted
2100.jpeg

http://apnews.com//branding/apple-touch/ap-news-apple-touch-167.png Barrett tied to faith group ex-members say subjugates women

APNEWS.COM
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court has close ties to a charismatic Christian religious group that holds men are divinely ordained as the "head” of the...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...