Amy Coney Barrett Is Not a Safe Pick for the Supreme Court.

LOL

Barrett would be a disaster. She would bend the Constitution into knots to accommodate "The Children" … because … the children.

She herself has a woke designer family. Isn't that special?

Barrett would almost surely be to the left of John Roberts. Some one-issue conservatives advocate her because she is "pro life". But other than that, Barrett is a big fat ZERO. She is almost certainly not to be trusted, and would soon be an intrinsic part of "the girls club".

She would be a disaster.

The argument is that the only absolute is that there are no absolutes—all morality is relative and subjective, viewed through the “culture” of the aggrieved demographic.

No cc, it is perfectly acceptable to be prejudiced against Protestants esp the Bible believing ones like myself. Also men as a group and whites as a group are legitimate targets. Finally, “rednecks” or basically country people.

"Anti-Catholicism, the last acceptable prejudice."

No, not Anti-Catholic. The Supreme Court has been packed with Catholics for years. Jews and Catholics have dominated the Supreme Court for a long time. How that can be considered "anti-catholic" is diengenuous.

Barrett is flawed, that is the reason she does not belong on the Supreme Court.

“6-27-2019

Of course not.”

What’s your point supposed to be?

I don’t like her “moral” opposition to the death penalty.
It indicates logical and philosophical issues that are not good.
It tells me she is likely to turn out to be a liberal in other areas in addition to being wrong on what is an important issue.

Try debating the issue instead of attacking me for having recently joined.

From https://stream.org/author/johnzmirak/:
John Zmirak is a Senior Editor of The Stream, and author of the new Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism. He received his B.A. from Yale University in 1986, then his M.F.A. in screenwriting and fiction and his Ph.D. in English in 1996 from Louisiana State University. His focus was the English Renaissance, and the novels of Walker Percy. He taught composition at LSU and screenwriting at Tulane University, and has written screenplays for and with director Ronald Maxwell (Gods & Generals and Gettysburg). He was elected alternate delegate to the 1996 Republican Convention, representing Pat Buchanan.

How could we possibly contradict him? < /s >

I’m onboard with you on this.

Mr. Zmirak is an idiot. All of his grave concerns boil down to “She’s Catholic”.

I read it a bit differently. In my view, Mr. Zmirak is an idiot. All of his grave concerns boil down to "Pope Francis is dangerous, She’s Catholic, and hasn't clearly distinguished her jurisprudence from her faith. Since unabashed Catholics swallow the dictates of the Pope, Francis will dictate her opinions of things like immigration, etc." But as Hugh the Scott said, and I repeat, Mr. Zmirak is an idiot.

They would do it for any self stated Christian. They cant abide anyone Christian living their faith in their jobs.

Note this was never a concern of the founders. They were concerned with non-Christians in govt positions.

She earned her J.D., summa cum laude, from Notre Dame,

Not Harvard. Not even Yale or Stanford. Not qualified. Next /s/

From my observations going now on several years, there are many if mot most Catholics that are not at all enamored with this Pope and appear to be just marking time until he’s gone and off the stage.

agreed.

I would not worry about Americans following this Pope.

the only ones who take him at all seriously are the leftists lesbians and guitar strummers.

Here's my pick.

Britt Grant

And The Low Down

I am pretty sure after Kavannaugh, the President realizes NONE of his SCOTUS appointments will ever be easy to confirm, easier to confirm, whatever. Trump needs to nominate someone to the right of Judge Bork, homefully a Clarence Thomas on steriods. Whoever it is, I am sure it is a female’s “turn” which also takes away all sexually related attacks on the nominee. So there is that. They will be digging again for illegal alien maids and not filing SS for them.

How could we possibly contradict him? < /s >

Please. Go ahead and contradict him. Tear his arguments to pieces. Propound counterarguments.

I’m not a Catholic, BUT the case in this piece is very weak and very wrong. The Constitution IS subservient to God’s law. All of mans law is subordinate to God’s law.

Think about it, if the Constitution were to be somehow amended in the future to remove certain inalienable rights, then it would cease to be law. We worship God, not the Constitution. If you want to make a case that Barrett’s theology is wrong, fine. However God isn’t subservient to the Constitution.

Natural Law – Commentaries on the Laws
MEANING OF LAW
Law, in its most general and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action; and is applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action, whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational. Thus we way, the laws of motion, of gravitation, of optics, or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature and of nations. And it is that rule of action, which is prescribed by some superior, and which the inferior is bound to obey.

LAW AS ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE
Thus when the Supreme Being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, He impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be. When He put the matter into motion, He established certain laws of motion, to which all movable bodies must conform. And, to descend from the greatest operations to the smallest, when a workman forms a clock, or other piece of mechanism, he establishes at his own pleasure certain arbitrary laws for its direction; as that the hand shall describe a given space in a given time; to which law as long as the work conforms, so long it continues in perfection, and answers the end of its formation. If we further advance, from mere inactive matter to vegetable and animal life, we shall find them still invariable. The whole progress of plants, from the seed to the root, and from thence to the seed again; the method of animal nutrition, digestion, secretion and all the branches of vital economy; - are not left to chance, or the will of the creature itself, but are performed in a wondrous involuntary manner, and guided by unerring rules laid down by the great Creator.

LAW AS A RULE OF HUMAN ACTION
This, then, is the general signification of law, a rule of action dictated by some superior being; and, in those creatures that have neither the power to think, nor to will, such laws must be invariably obeyed, so long as the creature itself subsists, for its existence depends on the obedience. But laws, in their more confined sense, and in which it is our present business to consider them, denote the rules, not of action in general, but of human action or conduct: that is, the precepts by which man, the noblest of all sublunary beings, a creature endowed with both reason and free will, is commanded to make use of those faculties in the general regulation of his behavior. Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. A being independent of any other, has no rule to pursue, but such as he prescribes to himself; but a state of dependence will inevitably oblige the inferior to take the will of him, on whom he depends, as the rule of his conduct; not indeed in every particular, but in all those points wherein his dependence consists. This principle, therefore, has more or less extent and effect, in proportion as the superiority of the one and the dependence of the other is greater or less, absolute or limited. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker’s will.

LAW OF NATURE
This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when He created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with free will to conduct himself in all parts of life, He laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that free will is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws.

Considering the Creator only a Being of infinite power, He was able unquestionably to have prescribed whatever laws He pleased to His creature, man, however unjust or severe. But as He is also a Being of infinite wisdom, He has laid down only such laws as were founded in those relations of justice, that existed in the nature of things antecedent to any positive precept. These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the Creator Himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which He has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such, among others, are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to everyone his due; to which three general precepts Justinian has reduced the whole doctrine of law. But if the discovery of these first principles of the law of nature depended only upon the due exertion of right reason, and could not otherwise be obtained than by a chain of metaphysical disquisitions, mankind would have wanted some inducement to have quickened their inquiries, and the greater part of the world would have rested content in mental indolence, and ignorance its inseparable companion. As, therefore, the Creator is a Being, not only of infinite power, and wisdom, but also of infinite goodness, He has been pleased so to contrive the constitution and frame of humanity, that we should want no other prompter than to inquire after and pursue the rule of right, but only our own self-love, that universal principle of action. For he has so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter. In consequence of which mutual connection of justice and human felicity, He has not perplexed the law of nature with a multitude of abstracted rules and precepts, referring merely to the fitness or unfitness of things, as some have vainly surmised; but has graciously reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal precept, ‘that man should pursue his own true and substantial happiness.’ This is the foundation of what we call ethics, or natural law. For the several articles into which it is branched in our systems, amount to no more than demonstrating, that his or that action tends to man’s real happiness, and therefore very justly concluding that the performance of it is a part of the law of nature; or, on the other hand, that this or that action is destructive to man’s real happiness, and therefore that the law of nature forbids it.

This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. But in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is still necessary to have recourse to human reason; whose office it is to discover, as was before observed, what the law of nature directs in every circumstance of life; by considering, what method will tend most effectually to our own substantial happiness. And if our reason were always, as in our first ancestor before his transgression, clear and perfect, unruffled by passions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease or intemperance, the task would be pleasant and easy; we should need no other guide but this. But every man now finds the contrary in his own experience; that his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error.

REVEALED LAW
This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine providence; which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at sundry times and in diverse manners, to discover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in its present corrupted state; since we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wisdom of the ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those of the law of nature, so their intrinsic obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system, which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God Himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together.

Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. There are, it is true, a great number of indifferent points, in which both the divine law and the natural leave a man at his own liberty; but which are found necessary for the benefit of society to be restrained within certain limits. And herein it is that human laws have their greatest force and efficacy: for, with regard to such points as are not indifferent, human laws are only declaratory of, and act in subordination to the former. To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the divine, and demonstrably by the natural law; and from these prohibitions arises the true unlawfulness of this crime. Those human laws that annex a punishment to it do not at all increase its moral guilt, or add any fresh obligation in foro conscientiae (in the court of conscience) to abstain from its perpetration. Nay, if any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we, are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must offend both the natural and the divine. But with regard to matters that are in themselves indifferent, and are not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws; such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the inferior legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose, and to make that action unlawful which before was not so.

— SECTION THE SECOND, Vol. 1, OF THE NATURE OF LAWS IN GENERAL —

It's a silly article written by a Catholic who think that Judge Barrett may be too Catholic and follow Pope Francis in her rulings.

She has written that original intent trumps stare decisis. Her dissent on a 2nd amendment case involving a non-violent felon illustrates that belief.

Britt Grant is interesting. Thanks for the link.