Posted on 07/04/2018 2:18:23 PM PDT by Az Joe
Judge Kethledge rigorously enforces all laws as they are written, including the immigration laws. He knows that faithfully applying the Immigration and Nationality Act means respecting Congress's decision to give federal courts only a limited role in the immigration process.
I don’t listen to Ann any more but I also take this article with a grin of salt as the author works for the man he defends....
That’s usually a question I ask. Of the sitting Justices, Kennedy was a JAG officer for the CAARNG and Alito was briefly commissioned in the Army Signal Corps.
It depends how you define Roman Catholic. In my view, if you embrace evil you are not a Roman Catholic. If you embrace sodomy and abortion, you are not a Roman Catholic, even if you are attending mass daily.
Nope. Don’t buy it.
This is another uniparty attempt to undermine the USSC.
No, that is the sort of limited resume in place of an actual judicial record that allows for the Souters and O’Connors of the world.
The GOP is even more prone to stumbling by over-promoting women with thin resumes than is the left.
And your evidence of such a snotty allegation?
Please stop! You don't know what you're talking about. I suspect by your rantings that you are a CINO. You couldn't be a devout, practicing Catholic otherwise you would be disparaging yourself by claiming devout Catholics are blindly following their wacky liberal bishops.
It is the devout Catholics that believe in the long-held traditions of the faith that are challenging this "pope" and his minions.
I'm asking respectfully that you refrain from using this phony rhetoric about being a "devout Catholic" as your reason for opposing Barrett. My red flag goes up when I hear nominees in confirmation hearings not standing by their principles and pushing back on unfounded or ridiculous assumptions proposed to them. I would tell them in no uncertain terms as respectfully as I could to "pound sand" if they even hint at some kind of religious litmus test for qualification. I don't feel she handled Feinstein's questioning very well.
As far as her "overturning" Roe v Wade, I would politely tell any senator that she is not being nominated for the Supreme-Supreme Court Justice, that she would be only 1 of 9 and it would require at least 4 other justices to concur for that to happen. 4 others that are already on the court.
You’re the jerk tossing the baseless accusations around.
Well, you've just contradicted yourself or you think Barrett is lying, because according to you it's the NOT truly devout and faithful Catholics that are modernists and globalists. Barrett says she is devout, but you insist she's not?
On another point, your virtue-signaling accusation over her Haitian children is also unfair. For one, if she was virtue-signaling it would have been the first thing we would have heard about her 7 children - we only recently found out about that as evidenced by some on this thread who have admitted not even hearing about it until now, even after she's already gone through a confirmation hearing.
As far as adopting a child from the US, have you ever tried to adopt a child? There are thousands of childless couples waiting in line to adopt US babies. The Haitian children were most likely unwanted orphans that would have otherwise grown up at the mercy of any crumbs of charity thrown their way.
Find me one example where Judge Barrett has advocated for open borders, for giving illegal border crossers a pass, or for promoting any aspect of the globalist agenda.
I have not yet discovered anything in Barett’s writings or commentary that would justify the accusations made against her - but, of course, it is impossible to disprove a negative.
>>Find me one example where Judge Barrett has advocated for open borders, for giving illegal border crossers a pass, or for promoting any aspect of the globalist agenda.
I have not yet discovered anything in Barett’s writings or commentary that would justify the accusations made against her - but, of course, it is impossible to disprove a negative.<<
My concerns regarding her have nothing to do with what she has or hasn’t said or written about open borders, etc.
You are totally confused regarding the intent of my posts on this issue because nothing you’ve stated makes any sense relative to my views concerning Barrett. So review my posts again and please don’t harangue me with any further incomprehensible chatter.
Coulter’s opinion sounds valid to me. DOWN with Kethledge.
Really? Silly thinking, IMO. Would Scalia have changed his opinions merely b/c a Communist fraud has assumed the papacy? That’s a rhetorical question. My RC wife loathes this surreptitious goof.
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.