Posted on 10/14/2020 5:52:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
She’s everything they can’t be. Good.
It’s simple: Democrats hate everyone that doesn’t agree with them totally on every issue, particularly those who have run off their plantation, such as women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, etc.. Barrett is an attractive woman with a husband, large family, and doesn’t want to bend the knee to them.
The same is truth of people. Those who have drifted furthest from truth, hate those who speak it the most.
I'm not so sure about that. If that's truly what she believes, then slavery should and would still be legal. After all, it was the law, was it not?
We have no more slavery because we are enforcing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
I suspect in her context, the law is the Constitution itself.
Why did we need to add the 13th Amendment?
Before the 13th Amendment, any legitimate U.S. Supreme Court decision about the legality of slavery would have to recognize that slavery was a legal institution in many states up to that point.
What did The Constitution say before the 13th Amendment was added?
I believe there is something more fundamentally unsound with that statement.
The judicial branch (specifically at the upper levels such as the circuit courts and Supreme Court) does not exist to ENFORCE the law, but is there to INTERPRET the law.
Ah. Now I see. Abortion will continue to be legal, or in Any Barrett’s mind, moral, until another Amendment is added to prohibit it. Why didn’t she just say that?
If they try to do a Kavanaugh type smear on her it’s going to backfire big time. There is nothing in her background to suggest any type of inappropriate behavior on her part, but we know that won’t stop the RATS from doing a hit job on her. I predict they’ll go race card on her today. The RATS are just looking for anything to delay her confirmation vote.
I’m not really sure where you are coming from. I will try to answer in some detail. If you disagree, perhaps you can explain why in some detail.
Laws come and go. Prohibition being one example. Sometimes people think drinking is immoral, and sometimes people actually pass a law against it. Same with slavery.
Up until 1865 or so, the judiciary didn’t do much against slavery because it was a moral issue but the existing law (in some states) declared slavery to be legal.
We needed the 13th Amendment so that slavery became more than a moral issue. It became a legal issue. At that point, the judiciary could have a role in making sure that we no longer had slavery.
At the state level, there had been some laws against slavery (in, say, MA) but Virginia had no such law at the state level and the Constitution did not expressly forbid slavery. Therefore it was a moral issue and the judiciary had not much role. Once the 13th Amendment was passed, the judiciary had a bigger role to play because they were enforcing a law.
They hate her because she’s a sincere Christian, unlike the hypocrites biden, pelosi and bammy.
You need to read about the history of the Supreme Court. How Jackson, the founder and first president of the Democrat party IN THE 1830’s expanded and stacked the Supreme Court.
This led to Taney becoming Chief Justice and the Drew Scott decision that blacks were property and had to be returned to slavery in the south when caught in the north.
History repeats itself. If the Democrats stack the court again, the result will be the same, i.e. civil war II.
I hate auto correct.. Dred Scott
But they are the things the demons that possess the dems wish they could posses.
This. Darkness cannot exist where there's light, and Ms. Barrett's light shines brightly.
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.