• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Democrats Attacking Amy Coney Barrett’s Religion And Family?

Aunt Antifa said:
The right wing screamosphere keeps insisting this is a thing that’s going on. I have yet to see it. Does anyone have any legit instances of this?

TWitter randos, message board randos (like me!) don’t count. Op ed columnists do not count. Sorry, but if we’re gonna play that game all day then there’s no reason we can’t take any handful of rando cons on this board and say “Here is the official GOP response to...”

So? Anyone?
Click to expand...
She should be attacked because her views are completely incompatible with the constitution, especially the first amendment with the whole first amendment is for Christians only and the US is a Christian nation and other such made up nonsense.

Also because she is a crazy person.
 
tacomancer said:
She should be attacked because her views are completely incompatible with the constitution, especially the first amendment with the whole first amendment is for Christians only and the US is a Christian nation and other such made up nonsense.

Also because she is a crazy person.
Click to expand...

I mean, you’re not wrong.
 
independentusa said:
Not like rightest filth who want to go back to women staying in the kitchen and obeying their husbands in all thinkings. Being a Catholic I know about the group she belongs to and that is their philosophy. And the group she belongs to is one of the basis for the Handmaids Tale.
Click to expand...


"Suburban housewives".
 
BlueTex said:
She is the rare US Catholic who does...
Click to expand...
dairyair said:
What her church beliefs are and what the constitution requires should not interfere.
Are you saying her personal beliefs may take precedent over the constitution? That makes for a horrible USSC judge.
Click to expand...
Roe itself is unconstitutional. It needs to be removed, and it will be.
 
Mashmont said:
Roe itself is unconstitutional. It needs to be removed, and it will be.
Click to expand...

...and then when we pack the courts due to the right wing overreach, we’ll fix the law so that there is no next time.

Just donated to PP in your honor. ;)
 
tacomancer said:
She should be attacked because her views are completely incompatible with the constitution, especially the first amendment with the whole first amendment is for Christians only and the US is a Christian nation and other such made up nonsense.

Also because she is a crazy person.
Click to expand...
She disagrees with the crazy atheist left. That’s what a reasonable person does.
 
Aunt Antifa said:
...and then when we pack the courts due to the right wing overreach, we’ll fix the law so that there is no next time.

Just donated to PP in your honor. ;)
Click to expand...
That’s OK. I’ll make up for it next week when I protest at PP and talk a couple of girls out of getting abortions. I’ll get your little $5 donation back plus another thousand or two. Hit em where it hurts
 
Here's my stance on this.

If an Orthodox Jewish man were being nominated for the Court, would his faith and where his basis for decisions would come from be questioned? Should it? Why? And who would propose those questions, do you think? What about a Muslim woman?

If an atheist presented online beliefs in banning religion or getting Freedom of Religion removed from the Constitution, should their position be questioned? Why?

I dont think its wrong to question whether someone who has presented biased religious or political beliefs, even on a personal level, or belongs to groups that express such beliefs puts those beliefs above the Constitution when it comes to their job being interpreting the Constitution. And they should be held to their answer, accountable for it. No one's religion or religious beliefs should be used as a basis for interpreting the Constitution or even be connected to it.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
BlueTex said:
No it wasn't and no it's not going to be...
Click to expand...
No it won't be overturned. Not a chance, But that won't stop the left wing smear/fear machine form scaring dopey liberals into thinking it will be.
That's been doing that forever.
 
KLATTU said:
No it won't be overturned. Not a chance, But that won't stop the left wing smear/fear machine form scaring dopey liberals into thinking it will be.
That's been doing that forever.
Click to expand...


Hell, Barrett herself has said in past interviews that she doesn't think it will ever be overturned...
 
Mashmont said:
Roe itself is unconstitutional. It needs to be removed, and it will be.
Click to expand...

I'll continue to hope it won't be. And that Barrett won't be confirmed as a USSC judge.
 
BlueTex said:
Hell, Barrett herself has said in past interviews that she doesn't think it will ever be overturned...
Click to expand...
Evil laws always fall, as will this one.
 
Mashmont said:
That’s OK. I’ll make up for it next week when I protest at PP and talk a couple of girls out of getting abortions. I’ll get your little $5 donation back plus another thousand or two. Hit em where it hurts
Click to expand...

I can undo hours of you standing there with the click of a button.

Just. One. Click.

Blue state paycheck, bay bee!
 
BlueTex said:
What part of Roe do you disagree with from a constitutional perspective?
Click to expand...
The fact that abortion is somehow inferred by the 14th Amendment with no justification.
 
Mashmont said:
The fact that abortion is somehow inferred by the 14th Amendment with no justification.
Click to expand...

The "right to privacy"? Is there a "right to marital privacy"?
 
Mashmont said:
How does that extend to killing a baby?

It's not just me who thinks Roe is unconstitutional and wrong for other reasons.
www.mccl.org

The three fundamental problems with Roe v. Wade

On Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S
www.mccl.org www.mccl.org
Click to expand...


What are the reasons Roe is unconstitutional? Is it the "right to privacy" recognized in the decision? If so, is there a "right to marital privacy" inferred by the constitution?
 

PoliticsPA

Pennsylvanias Political Community
www.politicspa.com www.politicspa.com

Even democratic randos aren’t attacking Amy‘s fam and cat-lickness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom