No kidding. I’ve yet to see a decent female SCOTUS. They all lean left, or are hard core leftists. No matter what they “seem” to be before taking the oath.
Plus Amy has some serious issues.
1) she’s catholic. With the Pope now being full out pro-gay, that’s scary.
2) she’s got little kids from another country, instead of adopting US kids.
3) she’s married to a DOJ official.
Combine all of those, and it just screams : Pro-forced gay acceptance, Pro-immigration from crap countries, and Pro-The DOJ can do no wrong.
I hope I’m wrong.
So tell me, genius - should Souter be given as proof that we should no longer nominate men?
After a few clips of crying children on the border, you know how she'll rule on immigration issues.
She has 5 of her own kids and two adopted from Haiti which may or may not be a good thing. Hitlery stole Haitian aid money which may make Barrett go against the Rats, on the other hand Trump called Haiti a shthole which may tick her off about Trump. And yes, I really do not understand why people adopt foreign kids when we got so many here who are up for adoption. Some never get adopted and spend their whole childhood in foster care. Adopting foreign could be a sign she has a lib slant as well
I am Catholic and I know this Pope sucks. I don’t give a damn what this idiot Pope thinks. Why assume that she or anybody else does?
And just how many woman have the Republicans nominated and confirmed?...And how many turned out to be leftists?...
Was it 5? Was it 10? Was it 30?
OK, you’re wrong.
It may scream that to you, but that is not what her record or her public statements say as far as I could tell. They suggest that she’s a conservative Originalist who clerked for Scalia.
Remember too that the great Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are all Catholics. And, yes, I’ve seen SJW’s bragging constantly about their adoptions from the third world as a form of virtue-signaling, but I’ve also seen conservative Christians who adopt from the poorest countries out of compassion. Lastly, I don’t think her husband working for the DOJ is proof of anything about her own beliefs.
She may not be perfect, but all the other frontrunners seem to have legitimate criticisms against them too. If Trump picks her, then I hope it’s because he’s thoroughly vetted her (he better have!) and thinks she’d be a great justice. If he picks someone else, then I hope the same about them.
You are wrong, she is another Scalia.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Thursday, July 5, 2018
At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.
A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.
In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.
In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence.
But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.
This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.") –from Persona Humana (1975)
As for Pope Francis, however ambiguous, equivocating or contradictory he may be in his erratic public statements, he can not and will not contradict this.
As for Judge Barrett, if you think she will base her opinions on anything but the U.S. Constitution (and Natural Law, as Bork discussed once upon a time: a reasonable sense of how to construe things justly) -- you are, I think, biased as well as defamatory.
I'm glad we don't have to discuss whether you are unbiased enough to give a sound judgment.
Laura Ingraham has three adopted children from other countries; would that disqualify her?
Like many actual Catholics, I am sure she knows enough to ignore most of what this Pope says.
Senator Feinstein, who could have guessed you post on Free Republic.
Hint: it was 1.
Of the top candidates, she’s Ben Shapiro’s first choice. That’s good enough for me.