L
LilyM
Guest
Rather like all the naysayers who refused to support Merrick Garland because of who nominated him?
Sauce for the goose, my friend …
Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court Justice
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
Sauce for the goose, my friend …
If the means are not immoral in themselves, then, yes, they may be justified by their good ends.
Just to get this out of the way, does the Catechism state that keeping one’s word, given under one set of circumstances, binds under pain of sin when those circumstances have changed? When “keeping one’s word” will get innocent people killed? Does it say that we must always behave in a manner that the larger society regards as “honorable”, even when values higher than honor are at stake? When lives are at stake? Does it say that “integrity” must be maintained, even when doing so will cost innocent people their lives?
I’m sure a lot of outright lies were told in Europe during WWII to keep the Nazis from capturing Jews and sending them to the concentration camps. Didn’t Cardinal Roncalli himself (later to become Pope John XXIII) have Hungarian Jews “baptized” to save them from Hitler’s forces?
If I can save an innocent life — if I can save many innocent lives — but be considered by secular society to have been a dishonorable, perfidious, untrustworthy wretch of a man in so doing (all this without even having lied!), that is society’s problem, not mine. They’ll just have to deal with it. Doesn’t bother me a bit. Allowing those lives to be taken, when I could have prevented it, now that would bother me.
E
Ender
Guest
There is no possibility of the Dems giving Barrett (or any other nominee) a pass; their supporters would never stand for it. They have to go after her with everything they can come up with. Everyone believes this could lead to the reversal of Roe (whether it does or not), and the pro-abortion party will not take that chance.
One never knows how a justice will vote, and there are no guarantees here. I do not believe Roberts would vote to override Roe if it was 5-4, but I do believe he would vote to override if it came out 6-3. This will be a wild few weeks.
I have no idea how the opposition will proceed; on paper Barrett looks ideal. The Dems may regret the way they went after Kavanaugh with the last minute charges they brought forward. Doing the same thing to Barrett won’t have nearly the same impact, and I don’t think the GOP will allow it again. In any event, expect absolute lunacy in the streets.
R
Rau
Guest
I know nothing about this nominee. But how many justices sitting on the highest court of any country are women with 7 children? How does one find the time (as mother of 7) to propel one’s judicial career to that height?
I
Irishmom2
Guest
Would you be asking that question of a man with 7 children? 
P
Pitcairn17
Guest
It is alleged she belongs to the “People of Praise” group, which seems to be a charismatic group open to multiple Christian denominations and, it is further alleged, which promotes extreme female subservience. Does anyone have further knowledge of this group or the truthfulness of this accusation?
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I am not a Democrat.
Right now I’m ambivalent about the process and ambivalent about the (eventual) nominee.
I’m so disappointed. I thought that the Court was not political. Naive? Yeah, probably.
The raw exercise of political power is unseemly, somehow.
Right now I’m ambivalent about the process and ambivalent about the (eventual) nominee.
I’m so disappointed. I thought that the Court was not political. Naive? Yeah, probably.
The raw exercise of political power is unseemly, somehow.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Women are great at multitasking…
E
Ender
Guest
This article discusses her children and, toward the end, discusses “People of Praise”. The “extreme female subservience” would be a reference to accepting the husband as head of the family.
Child bearing and child raising does not fall equally on men and women. That Barrett was able to raise a family, including a special needs child, while having the career she has had is significantly more impressive than seeing a man who has a family succeed.Would you be asking that question of a man with 7 children?
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Last I heard lying was considered wrong and a sin.
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” McConnell said on February 13, 2016, the day Scalia died.
"As we mourn the tragic loss of Justice Antonin Scalia, and celebrate his life’s work, the American people are presented with an exceedingly rare opportunity to decide, in a very real and concrete way, the direction the Court will take over the next generation. We believe The People should have this opportunity,” the senators wrote. [The Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee.]
And we have all seen the video of Lindsey Graham. But we’re used to him changing positions 180 degrees. Just pick anything he said about Trump in 2015-16 and anything he’s said in 2020.
Notice there is NOTHING in these 2016 statements about what party holds the presidency and what party holds the majority in the Senate. To pretend that this is a “different circumstance” is disingenuous. It’s like me saying “I will donate a million dollars to the Red Cross” and then saying four years later, “Well, I said that when I was sitting in my office. The circumstances have changed. Now I’m sitting in my house.” Nonsense. “Circumstances” always change! If you use that defense, no statement cannot be challenged and no statement can be trusted.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Three points that no one here seems to have considered:
- Almost everyone is ecstatic about Amy because she is Catholic and they think she will overturn Roe v Wade because of her beliefs. In the next breath, they claim that any questioning of her on religious grounds should be out of bounds. Contradiction? Why yes it is!
- Leaving Roe v Wade and abortion aside, do her supporters know anything about her decisions or legal positions? I suspect very few do. Read a few of her cases–she’s been a good friend of the corporate elite. The common man? Not so much! And how many know anything about the legal theory of “originalism” that Amy endorses by name? Any contradictions there? For example “cruel and unusual punishment” in 1789 vs. 2020? Discrimination on the basis of sex made illegal in 1964…but does “sex” in 1964 mean what it means in 2020? Or should we all pretend it’s eternally 1789?
Last edited:
I
Irishmom2
Guest
Yes, I understand that, but the comment in question did not appear to be complimenting her, rather an implication that she must have neglected her children.
No one lied.
Unless you have a great deal of evidence that she is a sexual predator, this is calumny.
Cough up the evidence, or retract the charge.
P
PennyinCanada
Guest
to Erikaspirit16, every thing you say can be applied to the Dems just as easily.
One thing that Catholics and Christians and Jews know, having the 10 commandments, is that we know how to ‘color within the lines’. This idea is absolutely foreign to people who don’t believe in God, in that if there is a line, push on it. Resist it. We don’t like restrictions, we don’t like to be told what to do. I think that a Catholic woman in the Supreme Court will say that it is not their (judges) mandate to change the standing law. Law makers do that. Dems expect activism from their Supreme Court justices so no wonder they are worried. I don’t think it will play out the way you are expecting.
Also if Trump does not put in #9 justice, there were be 8 justices. You can bet your last dollar that there will be a huge fight over who won this election and the Supreme Court could decide with a 4 to 4 tie. Nancy Pelosi steps in. So I can see where the Dems are spitting nails to keep that vacant seat open.
One thing that Catholics and Christians and Jews know, having the 10 commandments, is that we know how to ‘color within the lines’. This idea is absolutely foreign to people who don’t believe in God, in that if there is a line, push on it. Resist it. We don’t like restrictions, we don’t like to be told what to do. I think that a Catholic woman in the Supreme Court will say that it is not their (judges) mandate to change the standing law. Law makers do that. Dems expect activism from their Supreme Court justices so no wonder they are worried. I don’t think it will play out the way you are expecting.
Also if Trump does not put in #9 justice, there were be 8 justices. You can bet your last dollar that there will be a huge fight over who won this election and the Supreme Court could decide with a 4 to 4 tie. Nancy Pelosi steps in. So I can see where the Dems are spitting nails to keep that vacant seat open.
Go back and read what I said. I did not advocate lying. Breaking promises is not lying.HomeschoolDad:
Last I heard lying was considered wrong and a sin.
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” McConnell said on February 13, 2016, the day Scalia died.
"As we mourn the tragic loss of Justice Antonin Scalia, and celebrate his life’s work, the American people are presented with an exceedingly rare opportunity to decide, in a very real and concrete way, the direction the Court will take over the next generation. We believe The People should have this opportunity,” the senators wrote. [The Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee.]
And we have all seen the video of Lindsey Graham. But we’re used to him changing positions 180 degrees. Just pick anything he said about Trump in 2015-16 and anything he’s said in 2020.
Notice there is NOTHING in these 2016 statements about what party holds the presidency and what party holds the majority in the Senate. To pretend that this is a “different circumstance” is disingenuous. It’s like me saying “I will donate a million dollars to the Red Cross” and then saying four years later, “Well, I said that when I was sitting in my office. The circumstances have changed. Now I’m sitting in my house.” Nonsense. “Circumstances” always change! If you use that defense, no statement cannot be challenged and no statement can be trusted.
If I were a United States Senator, and if I had to break a promise to attempt to save innocent unborn lives, I’d do it, and I wouldn’t regret it. I would tell my constituency, “yes, I did what I did, and if that’s a problem in your re-electing me, then just don’t vote for me — there are things in life more important than being a United States Senator, Senators get a nice pension, I don’t have to be your senator, I can go buy a cabin at the lake and spend the rest of my days fishing and hunting — your call”.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Since she’s become a public figure, that argument probably wouldn’t hold up in court. Just sayin.
O
openmind77
Guest
Actually I don’t think it matters that much who is appointed to replace RBG. This is because I fully expect the Christ to Return next year. When He is here, all people (including the courts and SCOTUS) will look to him for guidance on all issues - the ideology of the judge will take second place if any.
The Christ’s priorities have always been for the common man, the poor, the disadvantaged, especially those in desperate need like refugees. In fact I think many of the corporate friendly judges will resign after he comes. The next President will then have many positions to fill
P
ProVobis
Guest
One wonders how it was possible to live through the 2016 elections with only 8 justices.
P
PennyinCanada
Guest
I guess we’ll see how it plays out, huh?
I saw Hillary saying that ‘Joe Biden must never concede’. Never. So. What does that mean? Not that I am asking you to answer. I guess we’ll see how that plays out. A lot of players are behind the scenes making decisions that we don’t know about.
- Status