Justice Thomas's concern about politicizing the SC.

You're ignoring that there are valid differences of interpretation of the constitution.

Instead, you'd like to think it's all just politics.

If it IS all just politics, then the SC might as well be disbanded as useless.

 

The religious makup of the SC is curious. Why all the Catholics? The POTUS' that appointed them weren't, except Biden, and he nominated a Protestant.

Religious makeup of the current Court
Name Religion Appt. by On the Court since
John Roberts (Chief Justice) Catholicism G.W. Bush 2005
Clarence Thomas Catholicism G.H.W. Bush 1991
Stephen Breyer Judaism Clinton 1994
Samuel Alito Catholicism G.W. Bush 2006
Sonia Sotomayor Catholicism Obama 2009
Elena Kagan Judaism Obama 2010
Neil Gorsuch Anglicanism / Catholicism[83][84] Trump 2017
Brett Kavanaugh Catholicism Trump 2018
Amy Coney Barrett Catholicism Trump 2020
Ketanji Brown Jackson nondenominational Protestant Biden 2022

 

Steeped in Trumpian irony as well.

 

So, are they following the constitution?

Or, are they following the Bible?

Which document do they see as superior?

 

There was NO QUESTION that Clarence Thomas was telling the truth.

Oh and there you go with the anti-Catholic hate again. I'd forgotten about how you are about Catholics and that Thomas is Catholic.

By all means, carry on, we've had this discussion before and I understand your commitment to your anti-catholicism, and as an American, you have every right to your views and to share them. I'm sure I'll never change your mind, and I'm good with that as well.

There is nothing unreasonable about Dobbs and unrestricted abortion for 15 weeks, which is more permissive than most of Europe, all of France and even more permissive than Roe. It's a very reasonable pro-choice position. Half the babies that are aborted are women, and they have a right to live, too, just like you have had an opportunity to.

 

Beautifully cloaked in reality.

 

Hence the depth and breath of the palpable (but obvious) irony^.

 

You have NO evidence that I dislike Catholics.

The point is that you can't tell me whether they are loyal to the constitution or loyal to the Bible.

The USSC has to be dedicated to honest interpretation of the constitution.

In this case, there is a very real conflict.

 

Alito's draft opinion is foursquare constitutionalism and textualism. Your claim that it refers to Catholicism and the Bible is disinformation.

I take a fairly absolutist view on freedom of speech and thought, I support your right to spread disinformation and only ask for the same right to respond to your disinformation with facts truth and logic.

 

I have produced zero disinformation.

But, you are not defending freedom of one's own body.

How much more fundamental could that right BE.

What is speech, if you don't have freedom of your body.

 

There are two bodies involved in the decision, mom and the baby, 15 weeks of unrestricted abortion is more permissive than most of Europe, all of France and even Roe.

If the draft majority opinion is the final one, it strikes me as reasonable balance between the mother's right to unhindered autonomy and the baby's right to be born. There is nothing more fundamental than that, there are no opportunities to enjoy rights or exercise choices if you aren't even given the opportunity to be born, like you, I and everyone else giving their opinion on this subject.

 

I see no conflict unless you find abortion somewhere in the Constitution. I'm not sure that it's in the Bible either. The Bible and the law both say that murder is wrong. The question is when is killing an unborn baby considered murder. Everyone has their own definition which is why it's a wedge issue. I'm not sure that it even has anything to do with religion. I'm not a religious man but I have my own idea of what it right.

To answer your question about which document they see as superior, a judge in this country must view the Constitution as the superior document. If they have moral issues with that, then they should resign. Do you have evidence that there has been a conflict? Even judges have the right to freedom of religion so simply belonging to a religion isn't evidence.

 

I saw more than one post with the anti-Catholic hate, now I see that is part of what is being fed by the Left that, of course, then gets repeated here by some:

Ruth Sent Us attacks Sen. Durbin, demands he deal with 'traitors' on the Supreme Court



"Durbin, there is a conflict of interest between your Catholic faith and your role as Chair of @JudiciaryDems, with sole discretion to hold hearings into corrupt Catholic Justices. We demand answers. Catholic @SenatorLeahy, speak up as well."

Clearly these folks aren't overly long on brains.

 

They were never close.

 

Sorry, but your narrative is false.

 

Freedom of ones own body? What about the body of the child inside the woman? Oh, that body doesn't matter because its not human huh? A case often made by Democrats back when slavery was still around. "A negro is not a human!!!" Democrats haven't changed. Just their targets.

 

Im saying that they DO make decisions based on their political belief systems. They are supposed to use the constitution to make their decisions, but it is their "interpretation" of that document that gets skewed by ideology.

3 current justices have claimed in their confirmation hearings that "Roe is settled law", yet we are seeing that Roe may get overturned. That is ideology trumping law, and true politics shaping decisions.

 

exactly, what was leaked showed that the court has become politicized.... the leak just made it public

 

It's not settled law because Congress never did it's job and made it a law. Just because 3 justices think, due to their political belief system, that it is, doesn't make it so. If people want it to be settled law, then they need to make it a law.

 

But it "was" settled law based on the challenges that allowed it to happen that were vetted against the constitution, and held up.

 

Well, first of all the constitution is the document the USSC must honor - NOT the Bible.

Next, it's irrelevant that abortion isn't mentioned explicitly. The issue is whether citizens have authority over their bodies.

 

First, you have to rescind you comments about hate.

And, the reason is that if you are writing off serious argument as "hate", then why the hell would I or anyone else listen???

 

Had the insurgents turned to the right and proceeded to the room were the confirmation was taking place, that would have ended the confirmation.

From there, there is no constitutional process on how to proceed.

Trump could have right declared an emergency in government and led our country as president on that basis.

From there, the outcome of the election would have been in his hands.

Instead, an official led the insurgents to believe that the proceedings were taking place in a room down the left corridor, not the right.

 

Your American history is failing you.

And, an embryo is part of the woman's body.

Not only that, but there are serious health issues that involve that woman's body and have a bearing on the viability of the woman and of the embryo.

Pretending that congress can (or has any right to) make those decisions is absurd.

 

It's not a serious argument to vent hatred on their religious affiliation rather than engage on reasoned discourse of their sound constitutional and legal arguments. I would do you a disservice if I engaged your anti-catholicism rather than the constitutional and law and I think too much of you to do that. Originally I thought this anti-Catholicism was your own beliefs, but, now that I see this is a left wing trope, maybe you are just repeating others. In fact, your inability to explain your anti-catholic statements supports the concept that you are just repeating the tropes of others, therefore, I accept your denial.