Posted on 09/28/2020 5:54:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is in the grip of “dogmas.” So goes a criticism made by, ironically, the most dogmatic of people. In fact, the gripe reflects a certain dogma-born prejudice. Oh, I don’t speak of the anti-Catholic, anti-“religious,” anti-pro-life and anti-conservative varieties, though they’re also present. Nor do I refer to how a Muslim nominee would never be subjected to such scorn. Rather, the prejudice here is seldom recognized and something even good people may exhibit.
“The dogma lives loudly in you,” Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told Barrett in 2017 during the latter’s nomination hearing for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. My answer to the senator would have begun with a simple but sage statement:
“In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don’t know it.”
This was written by potentate of profundity G.K. Chesterton in 1923, and he was, of course, correct (and still is). One of Feinstein’s apparent dogmas, for instance, is a common one: that only religious people have dogmas.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists “dogma’s” very first definition as “a: something held as an established opinion,” and, boy, the Left’s minions aren’t short on established opinions. They take as self-evident, for example, that “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia” and “transphobia” are wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Just have a vote.
The Supreme Court starts up again soon.
No good reason to not confirm Judge Barrett has ever been put forth even though she has been the top contender since Kavanaugh.
I’m sure the Dems would love her, if she was a Baal priestess and threw babies in the fire.
I’ll bet she didn’t damn Trump like our former POS rabbi.
The anti religious slurs are coming from people who take their politics as religion, and religion of the worst kind. They protolyze and condemn claiming morally superior grounds. They claim to be the moral majority, but are in fact the hateful extremists. Why they are that way would take textbooks of psychology to explain.
The inverse of FSwine’s tautology is that her friend Pelosi lives without dogma, and thus while trustworthy to the Demorloch Party, is not a Catholic at all. And a clever GOP Senator would have dragged her thusly in retort.
I find it ironic that they are attacking Amy for praising her husband for his support of her career and her having children in addition to a career. However, RBG, was married had CHILDREN during her career and she was a God. They are calling Amy a stepford wife.
RBG SAID: If you have a caring life partner, you help the other person when that person needs it. I had a life partner who thought my work was as important as his, and I think that made all the difference for me.” (The Washington Post, 2014).
Sen Booker is going to ask Amy if she will recuse herself in deciding Presidential election as Trump appointed her.
Dems are going to hammer this demand she recuse herself should election result go to SC.
I sure hope she says no.
What about the other 2 he appointed? This makes no logical sense, but then again, it's Booker and the corrupt media.
With respect to ACB, her religion is unremarkable.
With respect to the USSC, it’s a valid question to ask why 6 of 9 votes are Catholic.
But Catholics say the question cannot be asked.
With respect to ACB, her religion is unremarkable.
With respect to the USSC, it’s a valid question to ask why 6 of 9 votes are Catholic.
But Catholics say the question cannot be asked.
..........................................................
If all nine of them were Catholic, it would not bother this Baptist a whit, as long as they were constitutional/originalists.
As it most likely would not bother Catholic conservatives on F.R. if all 9 of them were Baptist, constitutional/originalist.
Just my opinion of course and I’ve been known to be wrong before.
What if 6 or 9 were Mormon, and strict constructionists?
Note: I don’t care.
And I don’t care if it is a subject the American people want to examine.
My sole criteria is Strict Constructionism.
But I am skeptical of a push to make any subject off limits when confirming USSC judges.
It’s a double standard with women for the Democrats but, as the old saying goes, “at least they have standards.” As much as the Dems are in to themselves, I find it odd that they don’t know their own hypocrisy... or if they do they don’t care. And I think they don’t care because it means so little to them. They live, they die, no God or judgement in the afterlife, no big deal. So this is what you are dealing with.
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.