12 reasons Amy Coney Barrett should be on the Supreme Court

lifesitenews ^ | July 6,2018 | Doug Mainwaring

[Hojczyk]

1.) NARAL fears her:

2.) Planned Parenthood fears her:

3.) Seasoned Democrat politicians have attacked her Catholicism

4.) Likewise, Senator Dick Durbin a fellow Catholic, may have illegally grilled Barrett during her Senate confirmation hearing last fall, attempting to impose a religious litmus test on the nominee:

5.) Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer has attempted to use scare tactics to make her a toxic choice: “If chosen as the nominee, she will be the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

6.) The New York Times published a hit piece, hoping to derail Barrett’s 2017 confirmation. The Grey Lady was disturbed that Barrett’s Senate interrogators had failed to call attention to her affiliation with an ecumenical Christian community, the People of Praise in South Bend, Indiana.

7.) MSNBC mocked Barrett for her faith. NewsBusters.org reports:

On Tuesday, MSNBC hosts and correspondents displayed their religious intolerance by attacking the faith of potential Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. During one hour after another, Barrett’s membership in a faith group was ridiculed and listed as one of her “potential weaknesses” in a Senate confirmation fight. [...]

8.) Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post says she “is a danger”:

9.) CNN’s Chris Cillizza insulted Amy Coney Barrett, and by association, the country’s entire female population, by deploying a misogynist attack, suggesting that if she were chosen as the nominee

10.) The very liberally-minded folks at Slate.com alleged that Barrett belongs to what looks like a “cult.”

11.) “The more Progressive Democrats attack her, the more likely [Barrett] is to be the nominee to replace Anthony Kennedy

Writing at legalinsurrection.com, Jacobson quotes an article in the Washington Post suggesting that Barrett is “everything Trump’s base could want. But she also gives Trump something less tangible: The opportunity to stoke a culture war.”

[vette6387]

“What has the history of the court’s justices been in regards to faith?”

There is a whole wiki on the SCOTUS that covers a range of subjects including religion., but here’s the operative comment:

“Most Supreme Court justices have been Protestant Christians. These have included 33 Episcopalians, 18 Presbyterians, nine Unitarians, five Methodists, three Baptists, and lone representatives of various other denominations. William Rehnquist was the Court’s only Lutheran. Noah Swayne was a Quaker. Some 15 Protestant justices did not adhere to a particular denomination. Baptist denominations and other evangelical churches have been underrepresented on the Court, relative to the population of the United States. Conversely, mainline Protestant churches historically were overrepresented.”

Also, there have been only eight Jewish Justices, but three of them sit on the court today.

“Following the retirement of John Paul Stevens in June 2010, the Court had an entirely non-Protestant composition for the first time in its history. Although Neil Gorsuch, appointed in 2017, attends an Episcopalian church, he was raised Catholic and it is unclear if he considers himself a Catholic or a Protestant.”

So from a historical perspective, today’s SCOTUS, from a religious viewpoint, is about as far out of it’s “mainstream” today as it has ever been. I posted a comment earlier to the effect that today with Three Jews ( who represent only 2% of our population and essentially six Catholics ( who represent 25% of our population) that the entire court represents only 27% of our population on the basis of their religious beliefs.

[jpsb]

second link was excellent.

[chaosagent]

Yes, I do. She also chose foreigner.

---

So the fact that she’s pretty much vehemently anti-illegal immigration makes no difference to you.

Is she allowed to even visit a foreign country?

[chaosagent]

BS. Wife worked CPS. I know the score. They are begging people to adopt American babies. The problem is no one wants the black kids and the white ones go quick. Of course, those same bigots will adopt foreign babies.

---

Maybe it depends on the area of the country. Had some close friends about 5 years ago trying to adopt ANY American baby, white, black, brown, yellow, whatever.

They were told that they were only allowed to adopt ‘white’ babies and there were many available, and there was a 9 year waiting list. When they asked why they couldn’t adopt any other ethnicity, they were told they didn’t want babies adopted outside of their ‘culture’, so black babies went to blacks, brown babies went to ... and so one.

When they then ask why they had so many black babies up for adoption they were told that blacks don’t adopt as many babies as whites. But no one else could adopt them either.

Finally after about six years they adopted twin girls from El Salvador.