What “fairly extreme” religious beliefs might those be?
The poster you are responding to has no idea…
I suspect that person is just regurgitating a talking point…
The libs on the court have injected their personal beliefs (instead of following the constitution) into rulings since they have been on the court.
The libs show no concern about that. In fact they seem to approve.
I suspect that you are right about the talking pts.
i’m guessing math ain’t your strong suit
your assumptions ain’t worth squat. I was raised catholic, attended catholic school, was an altar boy and I can affirm for you now I am neither catholic nor religious in any sense of either word. Gorsuch is Episcopalian, not catholic. Your insistence on attempting to claim he is catholic and insistence on describing it as a “sect” as if its some offshoot of Christianity displays an anti catholic bias. Judging by your posts I’m surprised you’re not calling them “papists”.
The leftist masters have not supplied that part of the opinion they must hold yet.
Perhaps extreme was the wrong word. How about “unusual.” Learn a little about “People of Praise,” which formerly referred to women as Handmaids, and who still restrict women in leadership roles. The handmaid label was changed to “woman leader” for obvious reasons. Woman leaders are still restricted to “woman reacted matters.” Members of People of Praise are encouraged to reside in close proximity to each other, leading to allegations of cult-like practices. PofP have been criticized by Catholic philosophers as holding beliefs that are inconsistent with Catholic doctrine. All in all, there are beliefs of gender roles that are diametrically opposed to American law.
As to claims of my being anti-Catholicbased on the word “Sect,” that was not my intention. I substitute the word “demnomination,” which more accurately conveys my intent.
What sect is that?
As I’ve acknowledged, “sect” was the wrong word. The right word was “denomination.” As also discussed, there are currently 5 Catholics, 2 Jewish, and one who was raised Catholic and now attends an Episcopal Church. My point is that one denomination is being over represented on the Court (22% of Americans are Catholic; as opposed to 66% on the Court no matter which of the possible Trump shortlist is nominated). Furthermore, Trump is preferentially naming people from that same denomination. It really does not matter to me that the denomination is Catholic - I would have same issue if the preferential selection was Baptist, Methodist, Greek Orthodox, etc. My point is that so many co-religionists does not represent the American people. There’s no requirement to have a cross-section, and the history of the court certainly does not reflect diversity before the 1980’s. My concern is the singling out one group for preference.
Ginsburg actually suggested that SCOTUS take foreign law into account when ruling on cases. Can’t get any more personal than that.
WASHINGTON, April 1 - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court embraced the practice of consulting foreign legal decisions on Friday, rejecting the argument from conservatives that United States law should not take international thinking into account.Apr 2, 2005
That’s completely off-point. That was her legal opinion (belief, if you will). The issue that I raised was the superimposition of personal religious belief onto the laws of the US, and potentially the subjugation of law by those beliefs.
I love this post.
As opposed to the potential subjugation of law by RBG’s personal beliefs?
I don’t see how they’re different
Any other beliefs objectionable? Or just religious?
We are a secular nation, notwithstanding the attempts by the far right to change this. Religious dogma has no place in the interpretation of the law. Plain and simple. This is not a religious test - I do not see how ACB can be trusted to not inject her religious beliefs into law given PofP membership.
I was asking them because of a discussion we had yesterday. A good one.
Any other dogma or just religious? Just trying to find the edges.
Actually that’s not true.
I might have accepted “government” in some form.
If Democrats go into attack mode over the candidate that takes attention away from their complaint about any nominee being considered. Plus, they would be attacking a woman on TV, and one who has basically done nothing.
I don’t think it would make any political sense for them to go into attack mode. More likely, protests over the hearings being held.
That’s kind of a tough one for me. Article VI says that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust. On its face, to me it seems that this is a two-way street, that religion should not be a qualifier OR a disqualifier from holding public office. I admit I’m not much of a Constitutional scholar, so I’ll put this question out: What evidence do we have as to the ORIGINAL INTENT of this Article? Was it meant to inhibit the establishment of a state-sanctioned religion? Or was it meant to allow public officers to be influenced in their position by their personal religious beliefs? Both?