Posted on 06/29/2018 9:52:23 AM PDT by springwater13
The retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has conservative Christians excited about a huge opportunity to shift American laws on issues like religious freedom and abortion. President Donald Trump has noted he has a list of 25 names as possible Supreme Court candidates, but there's one name that pro-lifers seem to really love.
CBN's Chief Political Correspondent David Brody says evangelical circles are buzzing about Amy Coney Barrett.
"Many of my sources, evangelical in nature, love her. They believe that she is the one that if they had their dream pick that she would be the one," Brody said on the 700 Club Friday. "Barrett has been very outspoken of her Catholic views and God."
Barrett is a mother of seven children and a devout Catholic. At just 46-years-old, Barrett holds promise for a potential decades-long term on the bench. She once clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, taught law at Notre Dame, and has reported conservative views about protecting religious freedom.
A Barrett nomination could face a very tough fight in the Senate. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) opposed Barrett vehemently during her Senate confirmation battle for US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Feinstein even implemented a religious test, blasting Barrett for her deep Catholic faith, calling it "dogma."
"When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you and that's of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years," Feinstein said.
(Excerpt) Read more at 1.cbn.com ...
Exactly.
Of the 204 Founding Fathers, only 3 were Catholic. That’s under 2%. The remainder were evangelical, protestant, etc. Maybe we should mirror that proportion/percentage in SCOTUS. It’s insane that there are no evangelicals on the Court. We “invented” this country.
Your lackadaisical attitude toward the 2nd Amendment is appalling.
We are one vote away on the Supreme Court from losing a basic God-given right, the right of every free man to bear arms to defend himself, and you say things like, "There aren’t that many second amendment cases.."
Because of attitudes like yours, and a liberal-tilted Supreme Court, good men in California, Jim Robinson included, can be denied the right to carry based on the whim of a county sheriff. Where the hell does it say that in the Constitution?
Justices Thomas, Gorsuch blast court decision to reject gun rights appeal
US Supreme Court declines to take up 2nd Amendment case: A look at the California law
As I said upthread, without the 2nd Amendment, every other God-given right enshrined in the Constitution is in jeopardy. We need SC Justices who are hard core supporters of the 2nd Amendment.
If we can't completely discern the gun rights positions of a Supreme Court nominee it is imperative that said nominee be rejected.
Which founding fathers would you consider to be Evangelical?
>>NO WOMEN. Once any Women is exposed to the DC elites they turn ‘Touchy Feely’ Left.<<
You will be horse whipped for saying that but it’s clear to me you’ve expressed a very perceptive insight.
>>And mark my words. Put a mommy on the court, and soon it’ll be open borders, “reasonable” gun laws and other such things. Women in combat units will never go away, etc.
Women are nesters.<<
Well and truly said!
Don’t drag me into your madness. My 9mm would point you right wrt my views of the 2d (if it could talk.) I do not have a lackadaisical attitude towards anything the Founders created particularly the constitution.
How does stating that there not that many cases that have gone to the courts make me an opponent of the 2d? Why don’t you tell me about all such cases rather than make idiotic accusations?
I’d guess around 65, considering that IN THAT ERA Congregationalist, Quakers, Methodists, Presbyterians, Calvinists generally were evangelical. Most have gone squishy over the centuries, but then it was different.
“Maybe we should mirror that proportion/percentage in SCOTUS. It’s insane that there are no evangelicals on the Court. We “invented” this country.”
I blame all the Catholic and Jewish presidents and their completely biased nominations.
Freegards
>> “You are either Catholic or you are not. There is no in between.”<<
The most appropriate word to describe that statement is “nonsense”.
>>BTW, there are “many Catholics” who think “Francis” is a heretical, raving narcissistic loon - and want him deposed.<<
And I will confirm without any hesitation that I am one of them. The man is a disgrace and a a perfect example of the evil fruit of the Second Vatican Council.
>>Precisely. My only litmus test is that they understand their job is to interpret the Constitutions AS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN. If they do that, everything else takes care of itself. No one with a brain who knows the meaning of the word “life” for instance, would have ever condoned abortion.<<
Well and truly said.
AMEN!!! You are exactly Right on!!! :) It should be a about the Constitution first!!! Obama, did his utmost to shred and destroy the Constitution!! He supposedly majored in Constitutional Law....but I strongly believe that it was all relevant to circumvent Congress and breach the U.S. Constitution of the United States like no other POTUS in American History and that is the Only Legacy he should ever have attributed to him!!! He will go down in History of the Worst POTUS in American History!!!!
>>I don’t really care what people think about me when I recognize that men and women are FUNDAMENTALLY different in thinking and temperament in ways that matter. People who would take me apart for stating this truth are NOT conservatives and are not worth my time debating.<<
A perfect statement if ever there was one. Thanks for posting it.
Thanks, that makes your earlier comment more clear to me.
Not a big fan of religious litmus tests but it does seem like Protestants are under represented on the court.
So she never had a case involving the Second amendment? And she is blamed for that?
A mother of seven is close to my heart since my mom was a mother of seven. I’m sure she would do fine.
This is sanity:
We can only accept a proven strong 2nd Amendment supporter to the Supreme Court. We can't take chances with our God-given Constitutional rights by accepting unknowns, even if we are reminded of our mothers.
“Not a big fan of religious litmus tests but it does seem like Protestants are under represented on the court.”
Not a big fan of religious tests either, but all the presidents who nominated these folks are Protestants who choose to under represent Protestants on the courts and then mostly Protestants choose to confirm this under representation. How would any public figure even talk about this publicly in today’s environment that wouldn’t be detrimental politically?
freegards
Fidelity to the Constitution is sufficient proof the judge understands and supports the 2d. I wonder how many gun cases came before Scalia before he was named Justice, and how many before Judge Thomas.
I may be a clueless dumbass but I just don’t remember there being all that many gun cases before the courts.
How un-evangelical of you. The correct response is;
PISS OFF, lady.
I’m not afraid to step off the reservation when necessary.
Whatever insult you prefer is fine by me.
I’m sure you’ve met some ‘puffed’ up evangelicals. But it’s not the one’s (many) I know.
Have a good weekend.
And thank you for your service.
For those that want to learn more about Amy Barrett, this presentation she made that is on youtube is very informative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yjTEdZ81lI&t=342s
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.