Not that Captain Swampdrainer is doing anything about it.

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

cinque said:

---

Is it wrong to ask if there are any Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or Muslims smart enough to be on the Court? Must they all be Catholic?

---

Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan said hello.

---

Ok, so that's three.

---

Yes, so stop insinuating they are all Catholic. Do you have a bias against Catholics deciding nerdy things concerning patent law?

---

Six are Catholic and a seventh is waiting in the wings. So my original question stands.

---

You answered your own question in the negative. Do you enjoy being tedious?

---

Why so many Catholics? And I ask while generally being a fan of Catholicism.

---

One might think they are reliably pro-life, but with Justice Roberts we never know.

---

Reliably pro life or pro birth?

---

Kinda like poop or feces. Whichever you prefer.

---

Should every Justice have to be reliably pro life by the generally accepted definition of some Christians?

---

It should not even be an issue for the Court to wade into. The matter should be solved by the States' Legislatures or the People, whom you now insist must have a role in selecting the replacement for Ruth Ginsburg.

---

Didn't Mitch insist that?

---

That happened long before Mitch was in the Senate insist the people have a say in the SC process?

---

Didn't Mitch in 2016

cinque said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

Yeah, we've all heard. I'm sure she's decent enough (not that that matters to Republicans at all) but being an adoptive mother doesn't mean you'll be a decent Supreme Court Justice.

---

What about:

-Attend Notre Dame Law School (full ride)
-Executive editor of their law review
-Graduated first in her class
-Clerked for Silberman and Scalia
-Spent 3 years working for law firms
-15 years teaching at George Washington and Notre Dame (received 3 professor of the year awards)
-Published in Cornell, Columbia, Virginia, Notre Dame and Texas law reviews
-Spent the last 3 years on the Seventh Circuit Court

Yep. Her resume sucks.

---

She couldn't be much more qualified for the job. She is exceptional and beyond qualified.

---

Amy Barrett is more than qualified for SCOTUS; if nominated, which I think is about 99% certain, you will not hear the Democrats say that she is unqualified. You will also not see them attack her personally as they did Kavanaugh because that opening will not be available.

You will here them complain bitterly about the process and about Barrett's philosophy.

FTR, because I post fairly frequently on political issue with a left of center perspective: Donald Trump is president and has the right to nominate someone to fill the opening. The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent. I think the framers intended that advise and consent role to be limited to an evaluation of the nominee's judicial temperament, academic qualifications and personal characteristics. i have no problem with Trump nominating her and the Senate confirming her--elections have consequences.

I have an enormous problem with the fact that the US Senate, formerly the "greatest deliberative body in the world" is run by a complete partisan hack and that his minions lie through their teeth. The remedy, however, is to vote out Senators, not to prevent qualified SCOTUS nominees.

---

Thought experiment: RGB has just passed away and President Clinton and Majority leader Schumer are set to nominate and confirm. Does that change your reasoning in any way?

---

No. Why would it? If. I have no problem with Trump and McConnell going forward, I would not object to Clinton and Schumer doing the same.

I have always been clear about this: every presidential judicial nominee deserves a judiciary committee hearing and, if reported out, an up or down vote. My objection is not that Trump's nominee will get a hearing and a vote, but that Obama's nominee did not. Its BS of the highest order.

---

So, you agree it would be "BS of the highest order" if Clinton/Schumer did the same thing?

---

Its impossible for Clinton/Schumer to "do the same thing."

The "same thing" is not considering the nominee of the other's party president but considering the nominee of your party's president.

I can't make it any clearer. I am not criticizing Trump here in any way, shape or form. I am not criticizing McConnell for considering Trump's nominee.

I am criticizing McConnell and his boot lickers for refusing to consider Garland "because its an election year" and then considering whoever is nominated by Trump in an election year..

---

Sorry for not being more clear in my hypothetical-
Suppose Clinton was now President, Dems controlled the Senate, and Schumer was majority leader. Would you be as critical of them for doing the same thing McConnell is doing now?

---

No.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. There is no "last year of a term" exception to the nomination and appointment process. My criticism is not what is going to happen to this pick, it is what didn't happen with Obama's last pick.

Trump did not have anything to do with Merrick Garland so I leave him out of it completely. I am pointing out that McConnell is a hypocrite of the highest order and that Grassley, Graham and many others are flat out liars.

This episode is yet another chapter of the intellectual dishonesty of the right. The 'conservatives" on this board complained incessantly about Obama's governance by executive action and deficit spending. They prattle on endlessly about the Democrats willingness to do anything for power. Then they stand around and watch Trump draw up EOs that Obama would never have dreamed of, double the deficit (that is before Covid BTW) and just lie about SCOTUS nominations.

---

I understand where you're coming from. There was a time - not really that long ago- when I thought honesty and integrity were to be highly valued. Sadly, I've learned that the regressives start from a postmodern deconstructed nihilist position that essentially weaponizes the core values and assumptions of Western civilization against itself. So, the net result is it no longer matters to me whether or not politicians are hypocritical. Just need to know what their platform is and how it aligns with my overall philosophy. Winning is all that matters at this point. Sad state of affairs really. But, there it is.

---

Never thought I'd see the day when evangelicals would define Christianity by the political positions they hold.

---

Not even sure what that means relative to my comment. FWIW, I self identify as AngloCatholic.

The same women who CHEERED for Kamala Harris.

Reason #702 why Feminism has nothing to do with empowering women, only "certain" women.

NY Times:
Promises of a Woman for Ginsburg's Seat Draw Mixed Feelings From Women

Quote:

---

"We need more women in power. It's crucial," said Eileen Letts, a former co-chair of the American Bar Association's commission on diversity and inclusion and a partner at the firm Zuber Lawler. "But in the situation of the Supreme Court, one has to be more careful and more vigilant because a woman of certain ideological beliefs may not be the best person for other women."

"We always like to see more women at every decision making-table in the country," said Stephanie Schriock, the president of Emily's List, a group that works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights. But she said that when it came to elections and political appointments, the focus should be on "finding the right person" who is best qualified to protect "the rights of all of us."

---

Barrett looks good on 2d Amendment and qualified immunity.

Saw several posts suggesting she was against Miranda but they are mostly based on opinion pieces that never quote her correctly from a Boston University law review article. She cites Miranda four times and nothing she says worries me in the least.

curtpenn said:

---

cinque said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

Yeah, we've all heard. I'm sure she's decent enough (not that that matters to Republicans at all) but being an adoptive mother doesn't mean you'll be a decent Supreme Court Justice.

---

What about:

-Attend Notre Dame Law School (full ride)
-Executive editor of their law review
-Graduated first in her class
-Clerked for Silberman and Scalia
-Spent 3 years working for law firms
-15 years teaching at George Washington and Notre Dame (received 3 professor of the year awards)
-Published in Cornell, Columbia, Virginia, Notre Dame and Texas law reviews
-Spent the last 3 years on the Seventh Circuit Court

Yep. Her resume sucks.

---

She couldn't be much more qualified for the job. She is exceptional and beyond qualified.

---

Amy Barrett is more than qualified for SCOTUS; if nominated, which I think is about 99% certain, you will not hear the Democrats say that she is unqualified. You will also not see them attack her personally as they did Kavanaugh because that opening will not be available.

You will here them complain bitterly about the process and about Barrett's philosophy.

FTR, because I post fairly frequently on political issue with a left of center perspective: Donald Trump is president and has the right to nominate someone to fill the opening. The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent. I think the framers intended that advise and consent role to be limited to an evaluation of the nominee's judicial temperament, academic qualifications and personal characteristics. i have no problem with Trump nominating her and the Senate confirming her--elections have consequences.

I have an enormous problem with the fact that the US Senate, formerly the "greatest deliberative body in the world" is run by a complete partisan hack and that his minions lie through their teeth. The remedy, however, is to vote out Senators, not to prevent qualified SCOTUS nominees.

---

Thought experiment: RGB has just passed away and President Clinton and Majority leader Schumer are set to nominate and confirm. Does that change your reasoning in any way?

---

No. Why would it? If. I have no problem with Trump and McConnell going forward, I would not object to Clinton and Schumer doing the same.

I have always been clear about this: every presidential judicial nominee deserves a judiciary committee hearing and, if reported out, an up or down vote. My objection is not that Trump's nominee will get a hearing and a vote, but that Obama's nominee did not. Its BS of the highest order.

---

So, you agree it would be "BS of the highest order" if Clinton/Schumer did the same thing?

---

Its impossible for Clinton/Schumer to "do the same thing."

The "same thing" is not considering the nominee of the other's party president but considering the nominee of your party's president.

I can't make it any clearer. I am not criticizing Trump here in any way, shape or form. I am not criticizing McConnell for considering Trump's nominee.

I am criticizing McConnell and his boot lickers for refusing to consider Garland "because its an election year" and then considering whoever is nominated by Trump in an election year..

---

Sorry for not being more clear in my hypothetical-
Suppose Clinton was now President, Dems controlled the Senate, and Schumer was majority leader. Would you be as critical of them for doing the same thing McConnell is doing now?

---

No.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. There is no "last year of a term" exception to the nomination and appointment process. My criticism is not what is going to happen to this pick, it is what didn't happen with Obama's last pick.

Trump did not have anything to do with Merrick Garland so I leave him out of it completely. I am pointing out that McConnell is a hypocrite of the highest order and that Grassley, Graham and many others are flat out liars.

This episode is yet another chapter of the intellectual dishonesty of the right. The 'conservatives" on this board complained incessantly about Obama's governance by executive action and deficit spending. They prattle on endlessly about the Democrats willingness to do anything for power. Then they stand around and watch Trump draw up EOs that Obama would never have dreamed of, double the deficit (that is before Covid BTW) and just lie about SCOTUS nominations.

---

I understand where you're coming from. There was a time - not really that long ago- when I thought honesty and integrity were to be highly valued. Sadly, I've learned that the regressives start from a postmodern deconstructed nihilist position that essentially weaponizes the core values and assumptions of Western civilization against itself. So, the net result is it no longer matters to me whether or not politicians are hypocritical. Just need to know what their platform is and how it aligns with my overall philosophy. Winning is all that matters at this point. Sad state of affairs really. But, there it is.

---

Never thought I'd see the day when evangelicals would define Christianity by the political positions they hold.

---

Not even sure what that means relative to my comment. FWIW, I self identify as AngloCatholic.

---

Is Barrett part of the holy roller sect of the RCC?

cinque said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

cinque said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

Yeah, we've all heard. I'm sure she's decent enough (not that that matters to Republicans at all) but being an adoptive mother doesn't mean you'll be a decent Supreme Court Justice.

---

What about:

-Attend Notre Dame Law School (full ride)
-Executive editor of their law review
-Graduated first in her class
-Clerked for Silberman and Scalia
-Spent 3 years working for law firms
-15 years teaching at George Washington and Notre Dame (received 3 professor of the year awards)
-Published in Cornell, Columbia, Virginia, Notre Dame and Texas law reviews
-Spent the last 3 years on the Seventh Circuit Court

Yep. Her resume sucks.

---

She couldn't be much more qualified for the job. She is exceptional and beyond qualified.

---

Amy Barrett is more than qualified for SCOTUS; if nominated, which I think is about 99% certain, you will not hear the Democrats say that she is unqualified. You will also not see them attack her personally as they did Kavanaugh because that opening will not be available.

You will here them complain bitterly about the process and about Barrett's philosophy.

FTR, because I post fairly frequently on political issue with a left of center perspective: Donald Trump is president and has the right to nominate someone to fill the opening. The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent. I think the framers intended that advise and consent role to be limited to an evaluation of the nominee's judicial temperament, academic qualifications and personal characteristics. i have no problem with Trump nominating her and the Senate confirming her--elections have consequences.

I have an enormous problem with the fact that the US Senate, formerly the "greatest deliberative body in the world" is run by a complete partisan hack and that his minions lie through their teeth. The remedy, however, is to vote out Senators, not to prevent qualified SCOTUS nominees.

---

Thought experiment: RGB has just passed away and President Clinton and Majority leader Schumer are set to nominate and confirm. Does that change your reasoning in any way?

---

No. Why would it? If. I have no problem with Trump and McConnell going forward, I would not object to Clinton and Schumer doing the same.

I have always been clear about this: every presidential judicial nominee deserves a judiciary committee hearing and, if reported out, an up or down vote. My objection is not that Trump's nominee will get a hearing and a vote, but that Obama's nominee did not. Its BS of the highest order.

---

So, you agree it would be "BS of the highest order" if Clinton/Schumer did the same thing?

---

Its impossible for Clinton/Schumer to "do the same thing."

The "same thing" is not considering the nominee of the other's party president but considering the nominee of your party's president.

I can't make it any clearer. I am not criticizing Trump here in any way, shape or form. I am not criticizing McConnell for considering Trump's nominee.

I am criticizing McConnell and his boot lickers for refusing to consider Garland "because its an election year" and then considering whoever is nominated by Trump in an election year..

---

Sorry for not being more clear in my hypothetical-
Suppose Clinton was now President, Dems controlled the Senate, and Schumer was majority leader. Would you be as critical of them for doing the same thing McConnell is doing now?

---

No.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. There is no "last year of a term" exception to the nomination and appointment process. My criticism is not what is going to happen to this pick, it is what didn't happen with Obama's last pick.

Trump did not have anything to do with Merrick Garland so I leave him out of it completely. I am pointing out that McConnell is a hypocrite of the highest order and that Grassley, Graham and many others are flat out liars.

This episode is yet another chapter of the intellectual dishonesty of the right. The 'conservatives" on this board complained incessantly about Obama's governance by executive action and deficit spending. They prattle on endlessly about the Democrats willingness to do anything for power. Then they stand around and watch Trump draw up EOs that Obama would never have dreamed of, double the deficit (that is before Covid BTW) and just lie about SCOTUS nominations.

---

I understand where you're coming from. There was a time - not really that long ago- when I thought honesty and integrity were to be highly valued. Sadly, I've learned that the regressives start from a postmodern deconstructed nihilist position that essentially weaponizes the core values and assumptions of Western civilization against itself. So, the net result is it no longer matters to me whether or not politicians are hypocritical. Just need to know what their platform is and how it aligns with my overall philosophy. Winning is all that matters at this point. Sad state of affairs really. But, there it is.

---

Never thought I'd see the day when evangelicals would define Christianity by the political positions they hold.

---

Not even sure what that means relative to my comment. FWIW, I self identify as AngloCatholic.

---

Is Barrett part of the holy roller sect of the RCC?

---

Please be so kind to have a little respect and refer to her as Associate Justice Barrett going forward. Thank you.

cinque said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

cinque said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

Yeah, we've all heard. I'm sure she's decent enough (not that that matters to Republicans at all) but being an adoptive mother doesn't mean you'll be a decent Supreme Court Justice.

---

What about:

-Attend Notre Dame Law School (full ride)
-Executive editor of their law review
-Graduated first in her class
-Clerked for Silberman and Scalia
-Spent 3 years working for law firms
-15 years teaching at George Washington and Notre Dame (received 3 professor of the year awards)
-Published in Cornell, Columbia, Virginia, Notre Dame and Texas law reviews
-Spent the last 3 years on the Seventh Circuit Court

Yep. Her resume sucks.

---

She couldn't be much more qualified for the job. She is exceptional and beyond qualified.

---

Amy Barrett is more than qualified for SCOTUS; if nominated, which I think is about 99% certain, you will not hear the Democrats say that she is unqualified. You will also not see them attack her personally as they did Kavanaugh because that opening will not be available.

You will here them complain bitterly about the process and about Barrett's philosophy.

FTR, because I post fairly frequently on political issue with a left of center perspective: Donald Trump is president and has the right to nominate someone to fill the opening. The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent. I think the framers intended that advise and consent role to be limited to an evaluation of the nominee's judicial temperament, academic qualifications and personal characteristics. i have no problem with Trump nominating her and the Senate confirming her--elections have consequences.

I have an enormous problem with the fact that the US Senate, formerly the "greatest deliberative body in the world" is run by a complete partisan hack and that his minions lie through their teeth. The remedy, however, is to vote out Senators, not to prevent qualified SCOTUS nominees.

---

Thought experiment: RGB has just passed away and President Clinton and Majority leader Schumer are set to nominate and confirm. Does that change your reasoning in any way?

---

No. Why would it? If. I have no problem with Trump and McConnell going forward, I would not object to Clinton and Schumer doing the same.

I have always been clear about this: every presidential judicial nominee deserves a judiciary committee hearing and, if reported out, an up or down vote. My objection is not that Trump's nominee will get a hearing and a vote, but that Obama's nominee did not. Its BS of the highest order.

---

So, you agree it would be "BS of the highest order" if Clinton/Schumer did the same thing?

---

Its impossible for Clinton/Schumer to "do the same thing."

The "same thing" is not considering the nominee of the other's party president but considering the nominee of your party's president.

I can't make it any clearer. I am not criticizing Trump here in any way, shape or form. I am not criticizing McConnell for considering Trump's nominee.

I am criticizing McConnell and his boot lickers for refusing to consider Garland "because its an election year" and then considering whoever is nominated by Trump in an election year..

---

Sorry for not being more clear in my hypothetical-
Suppose Clinton was now President, Dems controlled the Senate, and Schumer was majority leader. Would you be as critical of them for doing the same thing McConnell is doing now?

---

No.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. There is no "last year of a term" exception to the nomination and appointment process. My criticism is not what is going to happen to this pick, it is what didn't happen with Obama's last pick.

Trump did not have anything to do with Merrick Garland so I leave him out of it completely. I am pointing out that McConnell is a hypocrite of the highest order and that Grassley, Graham and many others are flat out liars.

This episode is yet another chapter of the intellectual dishonesty of the right. The 'conservatives" on this board complained incessantly about Obama's governance by executive action and deficit spending. They prattle on endlessly about the Democrats willingness to do anything for power. Then they stand around and watch Trump draw up EOs that Obama would never have dreamed of, double the deficit (that is before Covid BTW) and just lie about SCOTUS nominations.

---

I understand where you're coming from. There was a time - not really that long ago- when I thought honesty and integrity were to be highly valued. Sadly, I've learned that the regressives start from a postmodern deconstructed nihilist position that essentially weaponizes the core values and assumptions of Western civilization against itself. So, the net result is it no longer matters to me whether or not politicians are hypocritical. Just need to know what their platform is and how it aligns with my overall philosophy. Winning is all that matters at this point. Sad state of affairs really. But, there it is.

---

Never thought I'd see the day when evangelicals would define Christianity by the political positions they hold.

---

Not even sure what that means relative to my comment. FWIW, I self identify as AngloCatholic.

---

Is Barrett part of the holy roller sect of the RCC?

---

Couldn't say. I'm not Roman Catholic. Is there even such a sect?

Here we go...please go after this woman visciously for adopting 2 children from Haiti!

cinque said:

---

---

Why don't you take a break, champ.

curtpenn said:

---

cinque said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

cinque said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

Yeah, we've all heard. I'm sure she's decent enough (not that that matters to Republicans at all) but being an adoptive mother doesn't mean you'll be a decent Supreme Court Justice.

---

What about:

-Attend Notre Dame Law School (full ride)
-Executive editor of their law review
-Graduated first in her class
-Clerked for Silberman and Scalia
-Spent 3 years working for law firms
-15 years teaching at George Washington and Notre Dame (received 3 professor of the year awards)
-Published in Cornell, Columbia, Virginia, Notre Dame and Texas law reviews
-Spent the last 3 years on the Seventh Circuit Court

Yep. Her resume sucks.

---

She couldn't be much more qualified for the job. She is exceptional and beyond qualified.

---

Amy Barrett is more than qualified for SCOTUS; if nominated, which I think is about 99% certain, you will not hear the Democrats say that she is unqualified. You will also not see them attack her personally as they did Kavanaugh because that opening will not be available.

You will here them complain bitterly about the process and about Barrett's philosophy.

FTR, because I post fairly frequently on political issue with a left of center perspective: Donald Trump is president and has the right to nominate someone to fill the opening. The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent. I think the framers intended that advise and consent role to be limited to an evaluation of the nominee's judicial temperament, academic qualifications and personal characteristics. i have no problem with Trump nominating her and the Senate confirming her--elections have consequences.

I have an enormous problem with the fact that the US Senate, formerly the "greatest deliberative body in the world" is run by a complete partisan hack and that his minions lie through their teeth. The remedy, however, is to vote out Senators, not to prevent qualified SCOTUS nominees.

---

Thought experiment: RGB has just passed away and President Clinton and Majority leader Schumer are set to nominate and confirm. Does that change your reasoning in any way?

---

No. Why would it? If. I have no problem with Trump and McConnell going forward, I would not object to Clinton and Schumer doing the same.

I have always been clear about this: every presidential judicial nominee deserves a judiciary committee hearing and, if reported out, an up or down vote. My objection is not that Trump's nominee will get a hearing and a vote, but that Obama's nominee did not. Its BS of the highest order.

---

So, you agree it would be "BS of the highest order" if Clinton/Schumer did the same thing?

---

Its impossible for Clinton/Schumer to "do the same thing."

The "same thing" is not considering the nominee of the other's party president but considering the nominee of your party's president.

I can't make it any clearer. I am not criticizing Trump here in any way, shape or form. I am not criticizing McConnell for considering Trump's nominee.

I am criticizing McConnell and his boot lickers for refusing to consider Garland "because its an election year" and then considering whoever is nominated by Trump in an election year..

---

Sorry for not being more clear in my hypothetical-
Suppose Clinton was now President, Dems controlled the Senate, and Schumer was majority leader. Would you be as critical of them for doing the same thing McConnell is doing now?

---

No.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. There is no "last year of a term" exception to the nomination and appointment process. My criticism is not what is going to happen to this pick, it is what didn't happen with Obama's last pick.

Trump did not have anything to do with Merrick Garland so I leave him out of it completely. I am pointing out that McConnell is a hypocrite of the highest order and that Grassley, Graham and many others are flat out liars.

This episode is yet another chapter of the intellectual dishonesty of the right. The 'conservatives" on this board complained incessantly about Obama's governance by executive action and deficit spending. They prattle on endlessly about the Democrats willingness to do anything for power. Then they stand around and watch Trump draw up EOs that Obama would never have dreamed of, double the deficit (that is before Covid BTW) and just lie about SCOTUS nominations.

---

I understand where you're coming from. There was a time - not really that long ago- when I thought honesty and integrity were to be highly valued. Sadly, I've learned that the regressives start from a postmodern deconstructed nihilist position that essentially weaponizes the core values and assumptions of Western civilization against itself. So, the net result is it no longer matters to me whether or not politicians are hypocritical. Just need to know what their platform is and how it aligns with my overall philosophy. Winning is all that matters at this point. Sad state of affairs really. But, there it is.

---

Never thought I'd see the day when evangelicals would define Christianity by the political positions they hold.

---

Not even sure what that means relative to my comment. FWIW, I self identify as AngloCatholic.

---

Is Barrett part of the holy roller sect of the RCC?

---

Couldn't say. I'm not Roman Catholic. Is there even such a sect?

---

The literal definition of "Catholic" means "universal." The universal church. All true Christ-Followers, including Protestants, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Messianic Jews ... belong to the Catholic Church, in the literal sense.

The ~1.2 Billion Catholics that report up to the Pope in Rome are technically all Roman Catholic.

As I'm sure you can appreciate, non-Roman Catholics don't like being labeled Catholic even though they technically are, especially since the Roman church after Constantine loved playing words games with the moniker.

Basically though, It's just a matter of semantics and etymology. Anyone in the past 1,000 years that identifies as Catholic is technically Roman Catholic.

Insane

Got to hand it to the libs. They are never not able to find a way to be outraged and offended.

Obviously, you may assert anything you like and, of course catholic means universal. However, your pedantic response is mostly "just a matter of semantics". The Anglican tradition was well established over 1,000 years ago and is distinct from the Roman Church. Further, the Roman Church rejects the validity of Holy Orders among the Anglican communion. In turn, most of us Anglicans reject the authority claimed by the Bishop of Rome. So, no...I am not "technically Roman Catholic". Raised Southern Baptist, but chose the Canterbury trail in my late 40s for a reason. I did not choose to cross the Tiber. Lots of questionable assertions in your post, btw.

curtpenn said:

---

Obviously, you may assert anything you like and, of course catholic means universal. However, your pedantic response is mostly "just a matter of semantics". The Anglican tradition was well established over 1,000 years ago and is distinct from the Roman Church. Further, the Roman Church rejects the validity of Holy Orders among the Anglican communion. In turn, most of us Anglicans reject the authority claimed by the Bishop of Rome. So, no...I am not "technically Roman Catholic". Raised Southern Baptist, but chose the Canterbury trail in my late 40s for a reason. I did not choose to cross the Tiber. Lots of questionable assertions in your post, btw.

---

How do you get 1000 years from 1534?

curtpenn said:

---

Obviously, you may assert anything you like and, of course catholic means universal. However, your pedantic response is mostly "just a matter of semantics". The Anglican tradition was well established over 1,000 years ago and is distinct from the Roman Church. Further, the Roman Church rejects the validity of Holy Orders among the Anglican communion. In turn, most of us Anglicans reject the authority claimed by the Bishop of Rome. So, no...I am not "technically Roman Catholic". Raised Southern Baptist, but chose the Canterbury trail in my late 40s for a reason. I did not choose to cross the Tiber. Lots of questionable assertions in your post, btw.

---

Sorry, my bad. I was reading your angloCatholic as Anglo Catholic. Like, white Catholic. While I am aware of the Anglican history you referred to, I did not realize the Anglican Church referred to themselves as Anglo Catholic. My mistake and I apologize for offending. I will read up more on Anglo Catholic and Anglican. But I also did say "the 1.2 billion that report in to Rome." So you really should have seen the point of confusion. Do you and your church report in to Rome? No, of course not. You guys really should consider rebranding. You don't see the Lutherans calling themselves Luther Catholics anymore. My original point was to clarify that Roman Catholic is in fact, a thing, which was news to you.

curtpenn said:

---

The Anglican tradition was well established over 1,000 years ago and is distinct from the Roman Church. Further, the Roman Church rejects the validity of Holy Orders among the Anglican communion. In turn, most of us Anglicans reject the authority claimed by the Bishop of Rome.

---

I learned something. I was sure Henry VIII established the Anglican Church, but after reading some I now see what you are saying.
I won't nitpick your argument, but I learned something

If you have an interest in the Anglican tradition, I suggest you research the topic.

No worries. It's complicated. Americans who lean AngloCatholic tend to be some variant with Episcopal roots who either prefers a formal liturgical type of worship (as opposed to happy clappy worship), or people who oppose the liberal craziness that infests most of the Episcopal Church. In my case, I fall into both those categories, but many "high church" types tend to the liberal side ironically.

BearN said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Obviously, you may assert anything you like and, of course catholic means universal. However, your pedantic response is mostly "just a matter of semantics". The Anglican tradition was well established over 1,000 years ago and is distinct from the Roman Church. Further, the Roman Church rejects the validity of Holy Orders among the Anglican communion. In turn, most of us Anglicans reject the authority claimed by the Bishop of Rome. So, no...I am not "technically Roman Catholic". Raised Southern Baptist, but chose the Canterbury trail in my late 40s for a reason. I did not choose to cross the Tiber. Lots of questionable assertions in your post, btw.

---

Sorry, my bad. I was reading your angloCatholic as Anglo Catholic. Like, white Catholic. While I am aware of the Anglican history you referred to, I did not realize the Anglican Church referred to themselves as Anglo Catholic. My mistake and I apologize for offending. I will read up more on Anglo Catholic and Anglican. But I also did say "the 1.2 billion that report in to Rome." So you really should have seen the point of confusion. Do you and your church report in to Rome? No, of course not. You guys really should consider rebranding. You don't see the Lutherans calling themselves Luther Catholics anymore. My original point was to clarify that Roman Catholic is in fact, a thing, which was news to you.

---

Was questioning the existence of "holy rollers" in the Roman Church, fwiw.

curtpenn said:

---

No worries. It's complicated. Americans who lean AngloCatholic tend to be some variant with Episcopal roots who either prefers a formal liturgical type of worship (as opposed to happy clappy worship), or people who oppose the liberal craziness that infests most of the Episcopal Church. In my case, I fall into both those categories, but many "high church" types tend to the liberal side ironically.

---

Thanks for that clarification. I was actually thinking about that the other day, the irony of the churches with the most traditional music and liturgy having some wildly apostate views on modern morality.

curtpenn said:

---

If you have an interest in the Anglican tradition, I suggest you research the topic.

---

I did. Nothing persuaded me from 1534, thought maybe you had some insight to share. Guess not.

Guess your research skills are lacking then. GIFY.

curtpenn said:

---

Guess your research skills are lacking then. GIFY.

---

On the contrary, 1534 looks right on the money. You've had three chances to offer other evidence.

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Guess your research skills are lacking then. GIFY.

---

On the contrary, 1534 looks right on the money. You've had three chances to offer other evidence.

---

I've learned over the years that I only have a certain amount of energy I'm willing to devote to arguing for the sake of arguing. I will expend effort in the pursuit of educating others if they seem genuinely interested in learning. You don't impress me as the type who clearly is in search of knowledge. I'll leave it to you to do the deep dive if you truly care to become informed.

OTOH, I should at least offer a few clues for your dogged (no doubt) research:

St Alban
Bede
St Augustine
Celtic Christianity
1st and 63rd articles of Magna Carta
Ecclesia Anglicana

May your efforts be truly blessed.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ei2zEPBXkAcgoxe?format=jpg&name=large

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/25/trump-is-expected-to-nominate-amy-coney-barrett-to-fill-ginsburg-supreme-court-vacancy-.html

Barrett is the choice

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Guess your research skills are lacking then. GIFY.

---

On the contrary, 1534 looks right on the money. You've had three chances to offer other evidence.

---

I've learned over the years that I only have a certain amount of energy I'm willing to devote to arguing for the sake of arguing. I will expend effort in the pursuit of educating others if they seem genuinely interested in learning. You don't impress me as the type who clearly is in search of knowledge. I'll leave it to you to do the deep dive if you truly care to become informed.

OTOH, I should at least offer a few clues for your dogged (no doubt) research:

St Alban
Bede
St Augustine
Celtic Christianity
1st and 63rd articles of Magna Carta
Ecclesia Anglicana

May your efforts be truly blessed.

---

Already read about those, don't see a straight line to Anglicism. Churches seem to think that age equals more authority so they're willing to jump a gap or two to gain elder status.



The Celtic Church would get you over a thousand years but it was in and out of the Roman dominion. The Synod of Whitby seems like a fairly localized reconciliation with Rome; are you saying that the Celts elsewhere, by not being part of that, formed the root of Anglicism?

St. Alban was the first Christian to be martyred in Britain but his church would had to have been the Catholic Church inasmuch as that church recognizes him as one of their own; he was killed for protecting Amphibalus (a Catholic priest); and, he never attended a church, having been caught and killed days after his conversion. I get why the Church of England would venerate him, but he doesn't sound like a guy founding a new religious way.

Augustine was sent by the Pope and thanks to Whitby achieved the Pope's goal. The resulting church was Catholic but apparently it retained practices that would later appear in Anglicism. But they were under the Roman See until 1534.

Was there an early Christian presence in Britain? Sure, but it was Catholic. Was it distinctive because of its time spent separated from the mother church after Rome withdrew from Britain? Sure. I read How the Irish Saved Civilization and while that's a big claim those scribes preserved a ton of knowledge without papal knowledge or authority. Kudos to them but I don't see a new church, just an isolated one.

The first king of England was Alfred. I don't think you could argue he was Anglican given that he would have considered himself Catholic, as did Henry VIII right up until he wasn't. You might argue the supreme authority of kings as sovereigns, as Henry did, goes back to Alfred, but again Alfred would never have thought such sovereignty cut him off from Rome.

And Bede, the Benedictine monk in Northumbria (Synod of Whitby again). He was certainly Catholic, but again are you saying that the distinctives of the church there and then were such as to be proto-Anglican?

England fought a couple of civil wars between Catholics and protestants but I don't see any such conflicts before 1534.

The text of the Magna Carta certainly refers to the "Anglican Church". But since that language was drafted by the Pope's man Stephen Langton, (Archbishop of Canterbury thanks to the Pope) I think it is fair to say that use of "Anglican Church" referred to the Catholic Church in Britain, under the primate of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

1534 is also contemporary with the Reformation and Calvinism. It sounds like Anglicism was a third way, liturgical but separated from Rome.

I just don't see the dots connecting in a straight line outside of the Catholic Church.

BUbearinARK said:

---

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/25/trump-is-expected-to-nominate-amy-coney-barrett-to-fill-ginsburg-supreme-court-vacancy-.html

Barrett is the choice

---

Barring some Kavanaugh-like exposure of a lack of judicial temperament she should be confirmed.

quash said:

---

BUbearinARK said:

---

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/25/trump-is-expected-to-nominate-amy-coney-barrett-to-fill-ginsburg-supreme-court-vacancy-.html

Barrett is the choice

---

Barring some Kavanaugh-like exposure of a lack of judicial temperament she should be confirmed.

---

Agree with you, Sir.

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Guess your research skills are lacking then. GIFY.

---

On the contrary, 1534 looks right on the money. You've had three chances to offer other evidence.

---

I've learned over the years that I only have a certain amount of energy I'm willing to devote to arguing for the sake of arguing. I will expend effort in the pursuit of educating others if they seem genuinely interested in learning. You don't impress me as the type who clearly is in search of knowledge. I'll leave it to you to do the deep dive if you truly care to become informed.

OTOH, I should at least offer a few clues for your dogged (no doubt) research:

St Alban
Bede
St Augustine
Celtic Christianity
1st and 63rd articles of Magna Carta
Ecclesia Anglicana

May your efforts be truly blessed.

---

Already read about those, don't see a straight line to Anglicism. Churches seem to think that age equals more authority so they're willing to jump a gap or two to gain elder status.



The Celtic Church would get you over a thousand years but it was in and out of the Roman dominion. The Synod of Whitby seems like a fairly localized reconciliation with Rome; are you saying that the Celts elsewhere, by not being part of that, formed the root of Anglicism?

St. Alban was the first Christian to be martyred in Britain but his church would had to have been the Catholic Church inasmuch as that church recognizes him as one of their own; he was killed for protecting Amphibalus (a Catholic priest); and, he never attended a church, having been caught and killed days after his conversion. I get why the Church of England would venerate him, but he doesn't sound like a guy founding a new religious way.

Augustine was sent by the Pope and thanks to Whitby achieved the Pope's goal. The resulting church was Catholic but apparently it retained practices that would later appear in Anglicism. But they were under the Roman See until 1534.

Was there an early Christian presence in Britain? Sure, but it was Catholic. Was it distinctive because of its time spent separated from the mother church after Rome withdrew from Britain? Sure. I read How the Irish Saved Civilization and while that's a big claim those scribes preserved a ton of knowledge without papal knowledge or authority. Kudos to them but I don't see a new church, just an isolated one.

The first king of England was Alfred. I don't think you could argue he was Anglican given that he would have considered himself Catholic, as did Henry VIII right up until he wasn't. You might argue the supreme authority of kings as sovereigns, as Henry did, goes back to Alfred, but again Alfred would never have thought such sovereignty cut him off from Rome.

And Bede, the Benedictine monk in Northumbria (Synod of Whitby again). He was certainly Catholic, but again are you saying that the distinctives of the church there and then were such as to be proto-Anglican?

England fought a couple of civil wars between Catholics and protestants but I don't see any such conflicts before 1534.

The text of the Magna Carta certainly refers to the "Anglican Church". But since that language was drafted by the Pope's man Stephen Langton, (Archbishop of Canterbury thanks to the Pope) I think it is fair to say that use of "Anglican Church" referred to the Catholic Church in Britain, under the primate of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

1534 is also contemporary with the Reformation and Calvinism. It sounds like Anglicism was a third way, liturgical but separated from Rome.

I just don't see the dots connecting in a straight line outside of the Catholic Church.

---

It's clear to me. Sorry you don't/can't see it. Not my problem.

JettRink said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Will Democrats treat her like they did Brett Kavanaugh? I think they will, - only much worse. And it should be on display for all Americans to see before the election.

---

A wannabe small town county judge who came in dead last only garnering the votes of his immediate family opining on Supreme Court Justices is just so hilarious. I can't believe this site is free!

---

Hey there Buddy. Glad you still have internet privileges in your nursing home. Stay safe.