Posted on 06/29/2018 9:52:23 AM PDT by springwater13
You are so right!
You’ve been reading too much Bill Gothard!
I have three female friends, all unmarried, none of whom are “covered under a man’s authority,” and they are decent, gracious, smart, successful and conservative, with common sense, and I’d take them as a Supreme Court judge any day over some benighted loon who’s been emasculated by our sodden culture.
Maybe that “covered by a man’s authority” stuff made sense in the ‘50’s, but not now...
Ed
What about Sanders? She has survived just fine.
I’m interested in her positions not her personal life.
I worry that she may be too soft.
She may be the sort that says that she feels that she is personally Right to Life but isn’t going to impose that on anyone else.
Every single woman appointed to the Supreme Court has been calamitous.
**Can’t get over the idea that Catholics were the FIRST CHRISTIANS,**
The first Christians were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (The apostles knew the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The Son inherited his name. From who pray tell? The Holy Ghost is sent in the name of Jesus.)
The original Christians did not pray to deceased Christians, only to God
The original Christians did not use graven images,..... period.
You missed my “other other things being equal” qualifier. Of course I’d pick a staunchly conservative woman over a loony leftist man, assuming the unconscionable choice between JUST those two.
Regardless, what does the ethos of the 50’s have to do with the diminution of truth today?
Just watched her and Joan Larsen’s confirmation hearing. Both are very impressive I would have no problem with either sitting on the Supreme Court.
Amy Barrett is as sharp as a razor blade and a rock solid Constitutionalist, as is Joan Larsen. Anyone that has any doubts about either should watch that hearing.
But wait, doesn't that mean she believes in an bunch of "unbiblical idolatry" like venerating the Virgin Mary, praying to saints, infant baptism, etc., and has "never been saved" because she can't name the "exact moment she accepted Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior"? Wouldn't her appointment mean we don't have an actual "Christian" on the court since she doesn't accept sola scriptura and salvation thru "faith alone" in Jesus Christ?
Make up your minds, Evangelicals.
Really? Prior to the Civil War, there was only one justice who was not a protestant. We had an overwhelmingly protestant court for many decades, mainline Protestant churches historically were overrepresented compared to the overall religious makeup of the country at the time. The Supreme Court was almost uniformly Episcopal and Presbyterian in the early 1800s. Nobody batted an eyelash or complained there were "too many protestants" on the court at the expense of other religious faiths in America.
If you appointed the current SCOTUS judges to reflect the religious demographics of the U.S. political leaders of the late 1700s, you likely wouldn't have any evangelicals on the court, either. They certainly did not "invent" this country, as the vast majority of people who founded this country were from mainline protestant churches and especially from the Anglician/Episcolian/Church of England tradition, which is essentially Roman Catholic lite. Quite a few were also only "Christian" on paper but denied the divinity of Christ, belonging to churches like Unitarian.
A modern day SCOTUS that looked like the demographics of the founding fathers would consist of about 4 Episcopalians, 2 Presbyterians, 2 Congregationalists, 1 Quaker, and 0 Southern Baptists, 0 Assembly of God, 0 Pentecostals, 0 Born Again "Non-denominational" Evangelical protestants, 0 Catholics, and 0 Jews.
In short, Obama could scout around his pals at Trinity United Church of Christ (an example of an modern day mainline protestant Congregationalist church) for potential SCOTUS picks.
Most folks believe, to be qualified to be president, one must be at least 35 and have been entitled to US citizenship by birth.
E.g., by having been born in the US (14th Amendment) or having been born abroad to US parent(s). Being a naturalized citizen (e.g., Kissinger or Schwarzenegger) isn't sufficient. One must have been entitled to US citizenship from birth.
Take 2008 for example: One of the candidates was born in Honolulu (American mother, Kenyan father), and the other was born in Panama (American mother, American father). Both were natural born, and thus both eligible. It was up to the voters.
Yet one turned out to be a Muslim Traitor, and the other a loon!
WTF?
Ultimately, it's up to the voters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.