Posted on 04/04/2022 9:30:08 AM PDT by grundle
According to democrats:
Humans have no right to breath air. They don’t even have a right to live.
Well. . .she’s a progressive Leftist. . what do you expect? Grassley is surprised? Does he not know that most all of his “distinguished colleagues across the aisle” also reject the notion of natural rights? Democrats have been rejecting natural rights since the days of Woodrow Wilson. The only difference is Wilson was open about it.
I have read that if the Judiciary Committee doesn’t approve a nominee, then it becomes much more difficult to get a nominee through the full Senate. The Judiciary Cmte. is now divided 11 to 11 between the R’s & D’s. Sasse & Tillis are the only possible abstentions/yes votes for this abomination of a nominee. Approval by the Judiciary Cmte. means that the full Senate can approve a nominee by 50% +1 vote...but what if the committee doesn’t approve?
Does anyone else know more about this process, and about what Tillis & Sasse have said so far?
She doesn’t even grasp this fundamental core aspect of our rights.
To observe she is not fit to be a SCOTUS justice is putting it mildly.
A clear and positive condemnation of the Constitution.
And any politician who votes for her should be impeached on that alone, regardless of any accomplishment.
A Supreme Court justices main job is to make,sure,people’s natural rights are not violated! Her answer should, in a sane world, automatically disqualify her
She can’t tell you, she isnt a biologist
Correct. Same as the “I’m not a biologist”
These are weasel words.
It”s all code for “I can’t tell you what I really believe and survive the appointment process”
This woman is an ANTI American Perverted POS
PERIOD
[[
Does she even have to be told that her answer does not agree with the views of our forefathers and ALL subsequent generations]]
Zhe doesn’t care, she knows she is in no matter what she says
Sad news for most of you writing on this thread:
While I agree with you 100% that the Declaration of Independence makes specific reference to our rights being endowed to us by our “Creator,” the simple fact is that the Declaration of Independence is NOT the law of the land. The Constitution **IS** - the Declaration is just that, a declaration. There is not one whit of enforceable law in that document, masterpiece of human creation that it is, and if we’re going to have an intelligent discussion about what Supreme Court justices actually do, there has to be a recognition of that fact.
That all said, I despise the current nominee and hope that she goes down in flames along with the rest of the Leftist agenda. She is clearly an America-hating Leftist (as if there was another kind of Leftist), and doesn’t qualify for the post of dog catcher, let alone a judge of any kind, let alone deserve to sit on the USSC. But facts are facts.
“In other words, all of our rights come from the state, and can be revoked at the state’s convenience.”
Will be a great Republican ad.
Her rejection of natural rights is par for the course.
She’s a radical Marxist who could be making social and political policy for the rest of us for the next 35 years. That’s terribly frightening.
It’s a no-brainer to reject her out of hand. There must be several million more qualified individuals for this seat. Slow Joe should withdraw her nomination and pick someone who has at least a 7th grade knowledge of Civics.
Sadly,the putcome,outcome, nearly certain. Pur congress doesn’t care about ethics, morality, or qualifications any longer. She’s black and radical and dangerous to,the republic and thatmis al. That the unpiarty cares about.
Hi.
If Judge Ketanji believes there sre no natural rights, then she believes that there is no G-d.
For example, self defense. Or life is what the government says it is.
Thumbs down.
5.56mm
Yes, she does hold a position, and we know what it is. She has rights; we don’t.
They aren't.
They are meta-legal constructs.
They aren't laws, they are fundamental aspects of human nature that inspire law - or resistance to it.
People often quote Alexander Hamilton:
The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.
But they quote him out of context:
There is no need, however, of this plea: The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.The nations of Turkey, Russia, France, Spain, and all other despotic kingdoms, in the world, have an inherent right, when ever they please, to shake off the yoke of servitude, (though sanctified by the immemorial usage of their ancestors;) and to model their government, upon the principles of civil liberty.
Hamilton isn't claiming that our natural rights constitute some unchanging legal text, he's recognizing that our natural rights are inherent in our nature, and that when written laws contradict them there will be forces within society to change them.
The question for a jurist isn't to make up their own minds about what our natural rights are, and to enforce them as law, but to recognize that our laws are inspired by our natural laws, and to enforce them as written until our society's understanding of natural rights inspires us to change them.
It is clearly evident that society's understanding of natural rights evolves over time. And that those changes result in changes to the law, and even to the Constitution. And a jurist should recognize and abide by those changes.
But a jurist should not short-step the process, recognizing rights that have not yet been established in law through the legislative process, based on nothing other than their personal belief that they should be.
Makes sense when you realize the dem party believes there is no God. Other than soros, that is.
A Socialist would say.
I don't mean a Dutch or Swedish Free Market Socialist, but rather a Chinese or Soviet Socialist (Totalitarian).
Vote Nope on this Dope.
Does that now mean “Your body (Gov); your choice”?
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.