Let's Take a Look Back on Exactly How Kamala Harris Treated Brett Kavanaugh

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victoria33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ABORTION is the primary reason Kamala Harris opposes moderate-to-right-leaning Judges on the bench.

Kamala Harris received a 100% pro-abortion rating from NARAL and a 0% pro-life rating from the National Right To Life Committee.

Given the fact that Govtrackinsider.com identifies Kamala Harris as the most liberal extremist Senator, even more left than Bernie Sanders, this should not be a shocker.
 
1cthlctrth said:
ABORTION is the primary reason Kamala Harris opposes moderate-to-right-leaning Judges on the bench.

Kamala Harris received a 100% pro-abortion rating from NARAL and a 0% pro-life rating from the National Right To Life Committee.

Given the fact that Govtrackinsider.com identifies Kamala Harris as the most liberal extremist Senator, even more left than Bernie Sanders, this should not be a shocker.
Click to expand...
This is only of concern to those for whom liberal is a dirty word. For many, they would be more concerned about a candidate who was classified as the “most conservative member of the Senate”.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
For many, they would be more concerned about a candidate who was classified as the “most conservative member of the Senate”.
Click to expand...
As a Catholic who tries to be faithful, I would interpret “most conservative” as a great thing: pro-family, religious liberty, life, law and order, freedom from excessive government, anti-socialist in order to best defeat poverty, and pro-America.
 
1cthlctrth said:
As a Catholic who tries to be faithful, I would interpret “most conservative” as a great thing
Click to expand...
As a Catholic who tries to be faithful, I see “conservative” in today’s political climate as just another political ideology that is not particularly supportive of Catholic values. Note: “Conservative” as many use the term today does not mean the same thing as it once did.
 
Must we go over this again? He’s on the bench so why are we beating this dead horse? There were questions and answers. Some folks were convinced and some not.

Plus, please don’t use TownHall as a media source. It is not a credible site and was into birtherism (via among others columnist Pat Boone) long after even Trump gave it up.
 
Nepperhan said:
He’s on the bench so why are we beating this dead horse?
Click to expand...
Answer: Clearly, because Kamala Harris’ idea of what disqualifies someone form becoming a Federal Judge. A high percentage believe that Joe Biden would not complete his term if elected President. That would put Kamala Harris in charge of nominating Judges:
Federal Judge.


What sort of chief executive would Kamala Harris be? Well, here’s your first clue: On December 5, Harris posed a series of written questions to Brian Buescher, President Trump’s nominee for district court in Nebraska. The third question reads as follows:
Since 1993, you have been a member of the Knights of Columbus, an all-male society comprised primarily of Catholic men. In 2016, Carl Anderson, leader of the Knights of Columbus, described abortion as “a legal regime that has resulted in more than 40 million deaths.” Mr. Anderson went on to say that “abortion is the killing of the innocent on a massive scale.” Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?
Click to expand...
She wasn’t finished. Follow-ups included “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization?” and “Have you ever, in any way, assisted with or contributed to advocacy against women’s reproductive rights?”

Buescher, a Nebraska native and graduate of the Georgetown Law Center, replied that he joined the Knights when he was 18 years old; that his involvement includes charitable work; and that his job as a judge is to apply the law regardless of his personal convictions. Strong answers. That he had to offer them is a disgrace.

What Kamala Harris is suggesting is that membership in a 2-million-strong, 136-year-old Catholic social organization disqualifies an individual from the federal bench.
 
1cthlctrth said:
That would put Kamala Harris in charge of nominating Judges :
Click to expand...
Eeek! I hadn’t thought of that! Maybe she will call me and ask for suggestions?

Seriously, I cannot believe that having a Democrat nominate judges would be the end of the republic as we know it.
1cthlctrth said:
What Kamala Harris is suggesting is that membership in a 2-million-strong, 136-year-old Catholic social organization disqualifies an individual from the federal bench.
Click to expand...
It sounds a lot more like she was determining if a candidate could follow federal law which the candidate disagreed with. Its a reasonable question.
 
Last edited:
Nepperhan said:
Plus, please don’t use TownHall as a media source.
Click to expand...
what do you consider credible sites? you seem to be against every site that doesn’t agree with your opinion.
Nepperhan said:
Seriously, I cannot believe that having a Democrat nominate judges would be the end of the republic as we know it.
Click to expand...
no, just our freedom of religion
Nepperhan said:
It sounds a lot more like she was determining if a candidate could follow federal law which the candidate disagreed with. Its a reasonable question.
Click to expand...
what if he is against abortion, does that mean he isn’t qualified to be a judge?
 
upant said:
what do you consider credible sites? you seem to be against every site that doesn’t agree with your opinion.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I don’t look to the media for opinions. TownHall happens to be a not credible source.
 
upant said:
what if he is against abortion, does that mean he isn’t qualified to be a judge?
Click to expand...
Not at all. The question is if he can enforce a law with which he disagrees. That is, be true to his oath of office. You know, not legislate from the bench, what conservatives rue as ‘activist judges’.
 
Nepperhan said:
Sorry, but I don’t look to the media for opinions. TownHall happens to be a not credible source.
Click to expand...
I didn’t ask where you got your opinion. I asked what source you considered credible.
Nepperhan said:
Not at all. The question is if he can enforce a law with which he disagrees.
Click to expand...
can no law be overturned? not all laws are valid, history teaches us that.
 
upant said:
I didn’t ask where you got your opinion. I asked what source you considered credible.
Click to expand...
NY Times, Chicago Tribune, NPR, Christian Science Monitor. Time magazine is generally credible.
upant said:
can no law be overturned? not all laws are valid, history teaches us that.
Click to expand...
The question is if a judicial nominee can follow the law. That seems reasonable to ask.
 
upant said:
what does that have to do with personal activity be it for or against abortion?

if I walk in the march for life, does that mean I can’t follow the law?
Click to expand...
No, you can follow the law despite walking in a march for life. But it might still be an appropriate question to ask you, given that fact. And remember, Harris did not accuse the nominee of not being able to follow the law. She just asked the question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top