Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court

[PACOX]

You don't think she's actually Catholic? I feel like in modern societies, religion is a) a club membership, b) good PR and possibly c) an argument if it suits your case you you happen to need one (ie. can't wreck your brain for an original thought on your own).

Its hard to say what someone "really" is but Catholics have a pretty structured governing body that says these "XYZ are out platforms and even if you're not the most devoted person there's a bare minimum". They have guy who is like "yeah that's cool' or 'nah, we're not cool with that. It's easier to hit them with a litmus test that a Protestant.

I've been reading up on her and she seems like someone who might call herself a Catholic for clout, maybe because she was raised Catholic, but all over her platforms that stem from religious beliefs scream "Conservative Right-Wing Christian" which has basically become its own denomination...almost it's own religion.

She is truly religious. Not sold on the Catholic part except having a ton of kids.

[cubby]

Dems are so butthurt over her, they started her attacking on the grounds of her religion. She happens to be a Catholic. So is Joe Biden. Every attack against Barret will only hurt Biden.

As for the process of her confirmation, I expect she'll be confirmed a week before elections for maximum effect. Trump know the voters wouldn't forgive any Republicans who'd vote against her. Even Mitt Romney realises that.

I would prefer if the Senate completely skipped the hearings and went for the vote directly. Just to demonstrate to the Democrats what they created when they chaanged the laws, and so brutally and without conscience attacked Kavanaugh.

I find the attackes on Barret by vector of her adopting black children to be laughable. Left is now claiming it's racist to adopt black children. Wow. Tell that to Hollywood. I'm sure they'll be willing to return those poor orphans where they found them in order not to be branded racists.

I'm just waiting now to see how they spin a sex assault allegation against Barret at the 11th hour. The thing is, it won't work. The spell was broken with Kavanaugh.

It's adorable that you don't even understand your first comment above is wrong - in fact is a lie. Shout when you figure it out - ask if you have any questions!

[Adam Jensen]

There are repercussions to losing elections.

Man, Democrats haven't been this upset since we freed their slaves.

That was one hundred mother fucking fifty goddamn years ago.

Not even playing this game. People who can't figure out that the Democrats of 2020 and the Democrats of 1865 are two ENTIRELY different things aren't worth having discussions with. Welcome to the ignore list.

- - - Updated - - -

Dems are so butthurt over her, they started her attacking on the grounds of her religion. She happens to be a Catholic. So is Joe Biden. Every attack against Barret will only hurt Biden.

It's not her Catholicism that concerns us. Biden is a Catholic too. But I guess nuance isn't your strong suit. Biden isn't a fundamentalist trying to push his religious beliefs on us. Barrett is. See the difference?

Couldn't give two shits about Barrett's religion if she wasn't trying to push it into American law through the courts.

[Felya]

Don't go twitsting the truth. I posted a a judicial document, a sentencing of a stupid dead pedohile who sexually abused five little boys aged from 5 to 11, describing the wicked things the dead pedophile you feel so strongly about defending committed.

And you still don’t understand what’s wrong with it... because of your character.

That the truth of it upset you enough to report me, tells me all I need to know about you. For one, I would not let any children near you, or in your vicinity. I'm glad you came out openly.

I honestly don’t care what you think. That was meant to tell others... not you... you don’t even understand what you did wrong.

Now lets stick to the discussion at hand. Are you capable of that, or do you feel the need to defend your "tendencies" as something "natural" or "normal"?

Where is the discussion at hand? You being so wound up about democrats, to the point that this is your argument.

Both sides consider their fellow Americans as some unrepentant enemy. You can thank your side for that.

You are not both sides... take ownership for your shit. Oh wait... when has a Trump fan ever taken responsibility for their actions?

[Zan15]

there is no right to an abortion in the constitution. Your logic does not apply.

Yes it is. not by name but their right is very clear in the constitution.

Why would I help pay for other peoples abortions? If you can't book a day off and don't have a friend or someone that can drive you across state lines? Or maybe take some responsibility and realize that even when using protection, you are consenting to all the possibilities that can happen from sex. IE. STDs, getting pregnant, etc.

Whelp because you would end up paying way more after 18 years, especially if they wanted to terminate because of problems. Then you are looking at 18-30-50 years of tax support.

Or you one of those "save the children" but fuck them after they are born kind of human?

- - - Updated - - -

You afford maintenance by charging the customer for it, duh....

oh the 11 customers in the rural area are going to support it with a 6,109,345% increase to their bills huh?
If you don't realize that the entire infrastructure requires huge populations to pay for simple maintenance then there's no use talking to you.

Lets say they do get control and do raise prices, you think urban area's with their huge ability to generate capital won't just re-source their own water??

Come on you are being ridiculous

Location matters, if for no other reason than the people who control the area control the existence of it.

.

and you still can't accept that most of the "locations" are not in rural area's, they are in what would be considered part of the urban counties.

I left out electric because I have no numbers off the top of my head.

i.e you couldn't figure out how to bullshit your way around that one huh?

Most new housing in "rural" areas is for invading city slickers who cant afford to live in the city anymore.

.

i am sure you got citation for that right?

If the government that controls the land changes, ownership can as well.

Sure and the govt of the urban area's that outnumber rural area's a couple hundred thousand to one would roll right in and control the land they need and already own.

[eschatological]

You don't think she's actually Catholic? I feel like in modern societies, religion is a) a club membership, b) good PR and possibly c) an argument if it suits your case you you happen to need one (ie. can't wreck your brain for an original thought on your own).

Well, let's just say this: I'm Catholic too, and I have nothing in common with this woman, either politically or religiously.

You can see that just in the last two Popes. Benedict was ultra-conservative, and basically retired because he could see the winds of change, at which point the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (one of the most conservative, traditional institutions on Earth) elected their first non-European to be Pope, who used to be a Jesuit priest (a particularly progressive order of Catholic priests), and who immediately said God made homosexuals as they are and they should be loved for that, turning over centuries of gay oppression by the Church. He's also elevated the importance of women in a traditionally misogynistic institution, and if you read the tides it seems like he's setting up allowing women to be priests in the Catholic Church, something almost every other Christian denomination has done a long time ago. He's still conservative by modern progressive standards, but it's a wild departure.

It boggles my mind that people can't understand there's a political spectrum within a singular Church. I happen to think the conservative side isn't rooted in anything Biblical (both Jesus and the Apostles were damn near socialists, according to the Bible), but only rooted in the "Empire" part of the Holy Roman Empire, and thus they're not really living up to the message of Catholicism.....but they'd say the same about me, because I almost wholeheartedly disagreed with everything the institutional Church (IE, the Vatican) said prior to this current Pope.

- - - Updated - - -

That was one hundred mother fucking fifty goddamn years ago.

Not even playing this game. People who can't figure out that the Democrats of 2020 and the Democrats of 1865 are two ENTIRELY different things aren't worth having discussions with. Welcome to the ignore list.

- - - Updated - - -



It's not her Catholicism that concerns us. Biden is a Catholic too. But I guess nuance isn't your strong suit. Biden isn't a fundamentalist trying to push his religious beliefs on us. Barrett is. See the difference?

Couldn't give two shits about Barrett's religion if she wasn't trying to push it into American law through the courts.

I mean, these are the same people who think ISIS Muslims represent all of Islam, so it's not a surprise they think Catholicism must be a monolith and progressives are being hypocrites here.

[Slant]

Well, let's just say this: I'm Catholic too, and I have nothing in common with this woman, either politically or religiously.

You can see that just in the last two Popes. Benedict was ultra-conservative, and basically retired because he could see the winds of change, at which point the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (one of the most conservative, traditional institutions on Earth) elected their first non-European to be Pope, who used to be a Jesuit priest (a particularly progressive order of Catholic priests), and who immediately said God made homosexuals as they are and they should be loved for that, turning over centuries of gay oppression by the Church. He's also elevated the importance of women in a traditionally misogynistic institution, and if you read the tides it seems like he's setting up allowing women to be priests in the Catholic Church, something almost every other Christian denomination has done a long time ago. He's still conservative by modern progressive standards, but it's a wild departure.

It boggles my mind that people can't understand there's a political spectrum within a singular Church. I happen to think the conservative side isn't rooted in anything Biblical (both Jesus and the Apostles were damn near socialists, according to the Bible), but only rooted in the "Empire" part of the Holy Roman Empire, and thus they're not really living up to the message of Catholicism.....but they'd say the same about me, because I almost wholeheartedly disagreed with everything the institutional Church (IE, the Vatican) said prior to this current Pope.

Huh, I just went through the list until the 16th century, apparently he IS the first non-European pope. Apparently I'm so progressive, that thought never entered my head. I thought it was the most normal thing of them all, just pick whoever is most popular...

Anyway, not sure what your point is, but y'all need to stop blaming Germany for everything. :P

And you guys wonder why we get inflated egos once in a while. If we're that important, why don't you just let us run the world. We'd clean it up in no time!

[Zython]

I don't know. Are you sure you actually read that article or did you just go by the click bait headline?

Because, honestly, like with most anti-Trump nonsense, it tends to do a lot of inferencing and "reading into things."

However, here's a clip of Van Jones talking about how historic their prison reform bill is.

So, there's that.

I don't know. All this what-about-ism just sounds like Democrats bein' Democrats to me.

Don’t know why you’re so angry at the article. It’s your source.

[Mihalik]

I never really understood how a Catholic would ever end up being a Republican in the US.

While Conservative Catholics do align themselves with the whole anti-abortion and gay bashing brigade (let's be honest here...if religious people of all denominations can agree on something, that's hating the gays and the importance of making women pop out babies) every single other thing the GOP stands for is fundamentally opposed to pretty much every social teaching of the Catholic church.

The whole "personal responsibility&bootstraps" bullshit is derived from Protestant theology.

I can't fathom the mental gymnastics that a practicing devout Catholic would need to engage in to reconcile Republican social policy with Catholic Social teaching.

There are some strange cultish groups within the Catholic Church, but even those mostly tend to adhere to the core of Catholic Social teaching. A Catholic Republican is an oxymoron.

[Gestopft]

I never really understood how a Catholic would ever end up being a Republican in the US.

While Conservative Catholics do align themselves with the whole anti-abortion and gay bashing brigade (let's be honest here...if religious people of all denominations can agree on something, that's hating the gays and the importance of making women pop out babies) every single other thing the GOP stands for is fundamentally opposed to pretty much every social teaching of the Catholic church.

The whole "personal responsibility&bootstraps" bullshit is derived from Protestant theology.

I can't fathom the mental gymnastics that a practicing devout Catholic would need to engage in to reconcile Republican social policy with Catholic Social teaching.

There are some strange cultish groups within the Catholic Church, but even those mostly tend to adhere to the core of Catholic Social teaching. A Catholic Republican is an oxymoron.

There's a reason the GOP is laser-focused on culture war issues instead of substantive policy.

[Masark]

The whole "personal responsibility&bootstraps" bullshit is derived from Protestant theology.

I can't fathom the mental gymnastics that a practicing devout Catholic would need to engage in to reconcile Republican social policy with Catholic Social teaching.

Cafeteria Catholics who take a few tidbits, then pile their plates a foot high from white evangelicalism.

[Thepersona]

There's a reason the GOP is laser-focused on culture war issues instead of substantive policy.

Dude, you havent seen Conservative Catholics here. They still think they are landowners and we're their serfs.

[smityx]

ACB's SC robe. Will she be able to render a decision without consulting her husband first?

[DingDongKing]

Not being funny, but I would.

[downnola]

Cafeteria Catholics who take a few tidbits, then pile their plates a foot high from white evangelicalism.

It's mostly this but there are also plenty of ultra-conservative Catholics that make evangelicals look liberal. You can usually sort them out by watching how much foam builds up in their mouth when you bring up the Jesuits and Pope Francis.

[DingDongKing]

It's mostly this but there are also plenty of ultra-conservative Catholics that make evangelicals look liberal. You can usually sort them out by watching how much foam builds up in their mouth when you bring up the Jesuits and Pope Francis.

I would love to see Pope Francis endorse Joe Biden, just to antagonise the hell out of all the Catholics around.

[Mihalik]

I would love to see Pope Francis endorse Joe Biden, just to antagonise the hell out of all the Catholics around.

The issue is a bit more complicated. The Church can't directly endorse a politician without risking major legal and even diplomatic fallout.

What Francis could do to significantly influence the direction the Church is taking in the US is to literally gut the US Bishops Conference. The Catholic Church in the US has always been given an unusual degree of autonomy to avoid the impression of Vatican meddling in US affairs.

But Francis could simply shake up the Council of Bishops on moral rather than political grounds, pointing out the COMPLETE MORAL FAILURE to address the history of child abuse rampant in the Church. In the process it could get rid of a legion of assholes appointed by Benedict (most of them are massively right wing).

Bishop Chaput was one these right wingers replaced this year by Francis, tho the problem is that the US has 400+ Bishops, half of them are Benedict appointees and replacing a sitting bishop is a helluva lot harder than replacing a retiring one, and most of the sitting right wingers aren't going out without a fight...often a very vicious fight.

Cardinal Leo Burke is another one of those Bishops that reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally needs to go, Joseph Strickland from Texas is another one. Then there's that human stain Timothy Dolan.

Literally almost all the most vocal right wingers on Council are neck deep in the sexual abuse scandal.

Francis could also distance the Church from the Catholic League on some doctrinal technicality, that would go a long way too.

[DingDongKing]

-snip-

Aye, I know. Was joking. But in general the Vatican needs to institute some serious reforms.

[Toppy]

The issue is a bit more complicated. The Church can't directly endorse a politician without risking major legal and even diplomatic fallout.

What Francis could do to significantly influence the direction the Church is taking in the US is to literally gut the US Bishops Conference. The Catholic Church in the US has always been given an unusual degree of autonomy to avoid the impression of Vatican meddling in US affairs.

But Francis could simply shake up the Council of Bishops on moral rather than political grounds, pointing out the COMPLETE MORAL FAILURE to address the history of child abuse rampant in the Church. In the process it could get rid of a legion of assholes appointed by Benedict (most of them are massively right wing).

Bishop Chaput was one these right wingers replaced this year by Francis, tho the problem is that the US has 400+ Bishops, half of them are Benedict appointees and replacing a sitting bishop is a helluva lot harder than replacing a retiring one, and most of the sitting right wingers aren't going out without a fight...often a very vicious fight.

Cardinal Leo Burke is another one of those Bishops that reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally needs to go, Joseph Strickland from Texas is another one. Then there's that human stain Timothy Dolan.

Literally almost all the most vocal right wingers on Council are neck deep in the sexual abuse scandal.

Francis could also distance the Church from the Catholic League on some doctrinal technicality, that would go a long way too.

Didn't he outright condemn Trump last election?

[Felya]

I think this is interesting, in the context of the thread:



Revisiting that statement in modern times: