Will whomever Trump ultimately nominates to fill vacancy on Supreme Court fight back?

[dderatz]

@WuWei

@dderatz

We are a secular nation

Actually that’s not true.

I might have accepted “government” in some form.

I accept your correction on this point.

[WuWei]

@DougBH

Plus, they would be attacking a woman on TV, and one who has basically done nothing.

I disagree. She has done ( R ) and religion. She is guilty.

[dderatz]

@BigDrew

@WuWei

Religious test?

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?

I believe that you are correct. Neither a qualifier or disqualifier.

[WuWei]

@dderatz

This is not a religious test -

No? Weren’t you counting religious heads earlier? Catholics, 7 out of 9, that sort of thing?

[gooddad409]

@markdido

@dderatz

@markdido

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.

As opposed to the potential subjugation of law by RBG’s personal beliefs?

I don’t see how they’re different

RGB’s interpretations were a nightmare to be honest.

[markdido]

Falls in line with liberal interpretation that the Constitution is a living, breathing document,

[gooddad409]

@markdido

Falls in line with liberal interpretation that the Constitution is a living, breathing document,

Yes. Which is BS of course.

[dderatz]

@gooddad409

RGB’s interpretations were a nightmare to be honest.

The point being that these were opinions based on law, or her legal philosophy. You can agree or disagree. I think you would find it difficult to find an opinion that is based on “personal” opinion. Whereas a legal opinion that is based on religious dogma is not acceptable. I could go on with why all conservative arguments against abortion cannot be sustained without reference to religious doctrine, but that’s for another conversation.

[NickN]

@DougBH

don’t think it would make any political sense for them to go into attack mode. More likely, protests over the hearings being held.

This attack mode is the new norm for how the Dems conduct themselves (whenever they are not in charge).

Keep in mind, that hearings are not mandatory here either-only that Senators ultimately vote when the Senate majority leader calls for it as defined in the Upper Chamber rules.

[DougBH]

Murkowski now says she may vote for the nominee.

[gooddad409]

@dderatz

@gooddad409

RGB’s interpretations were a nightmare to be honest.

The point being that these were opinions based on law, or her legal philosophy. You can agree or disagree. I think you would find it difficult to find an opinion that is based on “personal” opinion. Whereas a legal opinion that is based on religious dogma is not acceptable. I could go on with why all conservative arguments against abortion cannot be sustained without reference to religious doctrine, but that’s for another conversation.

Oh i think she usually ruled based on personal opinion rather than the constitution.

[Eagle-Keeper]

@dderatz

No, people are upset with the nominee if it’s Coney Barrett. I do not trust that she will be able to separate her is fairly extreme religious beliefs from her role on the Court. The injection of her personal beliefs is not acceptable, nor really should the beliefs of one sect have any influence. I am deeply concerned that the Court will now have seven members of the same sect. And no, this has nothing to do with which sect it happens to b

I’m sure you wouldn’t feel this way if the person were Muslim.

[dderatz]

If 66% of the SCOTUS was Muslim? Yes, that would be a problem. Wanted to interpret the Constitution according to the Qur’an, hadith and shira? Yes, a problem. Don’t project what you think you know about me, because you will be largely wrong.