Catholic Amy Coney Barrett Front-Runner as Trump Signals Supreme Court Nomination Plans

  • Thread starter Thread starter yankeesouth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Masks are a preventative measure, not a cure.

You can still become infected. The intent is to reduce transmission, which has been effective.

I’m sorry you are dealing with this first hand. Prayers for you and your family.
 
Is that story actually saying for example, if there was an AutoZone in an Asian part of town, they might place Asian employees there? I am not sure that is some great negative.

The litigant seemed to infer it hurt his/her benefits or something.

How often does one see “Se Habla Español” in shop windows? They are catering to a certain sector.
 
Last edited:
Victoria33 said:
Amy has already been fully vetted by the Senate once before.
Click to expand...
Yes but I doubt if they looked into every high school party she attended. They will look into that now, and they will find someone who heard someone say they saw her grope someone inappropriately, but of course never reported the crime because she intimidated them. Etc…

Plus hysteria knows no bounds: reference the Newsweek article that has already associated her with Handmaiden’s Tale without any factual basis, complete with a picture of hooded women with hidden faces. If you didn’t know any better, you’d thing ACB was part of the KKK, what with the hoods and all.

I wonder if she still has the hood in her closet at home, and brings it out for Sunday Mass or something. Diane Feinstein will want an answer to that non-question. The hysteria is just beginning.
 
Last edited:
When she was attacked the first time using the “Dogma lives loudly in you” argument, I thought of when the great Catholic writer Hillaire Beloc ran for Parliament. During one campaign speech he was asked by a heckler if he was a “papist.” Retrieving his rosary from his pocket he held it aloft and responded, “Sir, so far as possible I hear Mass each day and I go to my knees and tell these beads each night. If that offends you, then I pray God may spare me the indignity of representing you in Parliament!” The crowd cheered and Belloc won the election.
 
One of my favorite Belloc attributions, said during the the 1906 election, during which his Catholicism was being used against him, in a tight race. His own advisors suggested downplaying the subject. This was his response, at the first public meeting of the campaign.
 
Last edited:
Balto1 said:
Pro-segregation, lovely.
Click to expand...
No it isn’t. Apparently the majority in this decision refused to invent damages when the plaintiff showed none and the law requires it.

I guess Autozone felt it was good business to have more Hispanics in stores serving a largely Hispanic clientele. So it transferred plaintiff to another store. Plaintiff didn’t show up for work and filed a discrimination suit instead.

The EEOC claimed that one doesn’t have to suffer damages to be awarded damages. That was the question on which the decision turned. Four out of the seven judges rejected the argument because the statute doesn’t say that.

That’s a long way from being “pro segregation”.
 
Last edited:
I would note that “People for the American Way” is a left wing organization founded in the 1980’s by Norman Lear to fight for progressive causes and against Christian influence in politics.
 
JimG said:
I would note that “People for the American Way” is a left wing organization founded in the 1980’s by Norman Lear to fight for progressive causes and against Christian influence in politics.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that their current campaigns, as noted on their website, are:
“dump Trump”
“Vote the Courts 2020”
Hmmm. Maybe they have a bit of an agenda?
 
jeannetherese said:
Not necessarily.
Click to expand...
Well, it is all about the arbitrary standard.
Whoever doesn’t approve, therefore they will come up with some definition for what they think is failure…then keep changing it as their argument fails.

And of course, when all else fails and they cannot actually articulate a decent argument, simply dismiss the argument…“whatever”.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
However, I have no doubt the Dems would have done the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.
Click to expand...
Democrats declined to do so in '68 so , no, this is purely Republican hypocrisy, not just politics as usual.
 
upant said:
this isn’t your '68 democrat party,
Click to expand...
It’d be interesting to compare platforms from then with what we see now. I wouldn’t be surprised if the republicans of today more closely resembled the democrats of '68.
 
Nepperhan said:
After 1968 the Democrats had a priest representing the party in Congress, so you may be wrong.
Click to expand...
were these policies supported by the '68 democrats

abortion, LGBT, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, transgenderism, identity politics, the destruction of the family, contraception, socialism, breaking the seal of the confession, federal funds to pay for abortions, forced abortions in Catholic hospitals

I don’t think so and they are Mainstreet democrat policies today.

 
JimG said:
Yes, and Fr. Drinan, SJ, always voted pro-abortion, which was a scandal for Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Until his bishop told him to cut it out. Then he was told to leave elected office.

He followed both orders.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top