Posted on 04/04/2022 9:30:08 AM PDT by grundle
She’s sounds more radical with each passing day, but in the end the nominee will be confirmed. It’s where we are now.
Has anyone axed her if she agrees with the UN Declaration of Human Rights?
The Constitutional jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court seems to suggest that that court holds the same position, i.e., that it holds no position on tge existence ir binding effect on the natural law that flows from God. In effect, the Supreme Court is ignoring God and the natural law. Moreover, based on an unbroken string if majority opinions going back decades, at least, the Supreme Court seems to be of the mind that nobody has provided a persuasive argument to suggest that it has been in any way wrong to conduct itself in this manner.
Among other omissions, the U.S. Constitution foregoes any mention or suggestion of the Social Kingship of Christ. This has left open for debate the question of whether the mind and will of God must be considered when deciding constitutional questions. Recent trends seem to indicate that this question has already been decided, albeit probably by default, in the negative.
Hence the nominee’s straight-faced non-response response. If she hasn’t accurately reflected the majority SCOTUS position, I’d like to know how the latter fiverges from the substance of her response to Senator Cruz.
Grassley is on target to hit Jackson’s Achilles heel. If Jackon does not accept the natural rights concept without which our Constitution is absurd, what ARE her judicial principles?
The Senate held hours of hearings. Why did they not require her to explain her philosophy? Is Truth relative? Are right and wrong situational? How can the 10th Amendment mean anything without natural rights? Does she reject the Roe v Wade ruling for example? Does she oppose slavery? Why? Without individuals’ natural right to personal freedom, slavery becomes just a matter of convenience and perspective.
Conceivably Jackson, who likely is some variety of post-Modern Marxist, might be capable interpreting the Constitutional, while personally rejecting the (classical) liberal philosophy on which it is based. That’s too much to expect of anyone, without their core beliefs creeping in. Hiring a clever atheist to be the minister of your church is a poor substitute for someone who finds religion plausible and has their heart in it.
when my rights arent deemed to come from the Lord, they certainly will at the barrel crown.
Any one have a time on when the VOTE for Judge Jackson to the Supreme Court, will take place?
Well,God does and so did our Founders.
This creature isn’t qualified to join the black pseudo-Judges that have proliferated on ‘reality TV’ the last few years, much less sitting on the Supreme Court.
This woman is extremely dangerous.
Her beliefs do not conform with our Constitution.
She denies God’s gifts of human rights.
She perverts the natural law, and says:
“The State hath given and the State hath taken away. Blessed be the name of the State.”
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.