Author Topic: BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme C (Read 1023 times)

alaric · « **on:** September 27, 2020, 09:23:49 AM »

And so it begins. Watch the attack on this nice Catholic family by the ((powers)) that be. Watch how they salivate and foam at the mouth, screech and scream about her "dogmatism", not that the dead Jєωess before her had any "dogmatism" of her own regarding any of her anti-Christian, anti-american, anti-goyism in ANY of the decisions she ever made regarding the dignity of human life, same-sex "marriage" of the sovereignty of the United States on issues like immigration.

Nah, it will be the CATHOLIC MOM OF 7 that will be blinded to justice by her "belief system", aka CATHOLICISM.

Sit back and watch the proceedings, because the commie dems, the Jєω radicals-revolutionaries will show their hand and what they intend to do to Catholics/Christians AFTER THE ELECTION. Because the persecution is coming. IF WE LET THEM.

donald Trump and the Republicans allowed the AVE MARIA to be sung at the RNS, which THEY ALL STOOD IN REVERENCE while it was being sung. And now, through divine intervention I believe, the old Jєω, baby-killing wicked witch is dead, soon to be replaced by a pro-life, Catholic Mom of 7. I don not believe in coincidences. Catholics and DT in America have implored the help and aid of Our Lady of the Americas and Protector of the unborn. And Our Lady has answered.

The bloodthirsty, commie dems, atheists, homo's and Jєωs have no idea what or should I say WHO they're up against.

Sit back and watch, this ought to be good.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trump-officially-announces-his-third-scotus-nominee?utm_source=featured&utm_campaign=standard

BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court
The late Justice Antonin Scalia’s 'judicial philosophy is mine, too,' Barrett said.
WASHINGTON, D.C., September 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – President Donald Trump officially announced he intends to fill the open seat on the Supreme Court with pro-life Catholic Judge Amy Coney Barrett. If confirmed by the Senate, the 48-year-old will take the place of pro-abortion Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on September 18.
“I love the United States and I love the United States Constitution,” Barrett told the people gathered in the Rose Garden after Trump introduced her. “I am truly humbled by the prospect of serving on the Supreme Court.”

alaric · « **Reply #1 on:** September 27, 2020, 09:26:26 AM »

From the article, very interesting;

Barrett is widely regarded as a pro-life originalist. She was a member of Notre Dame’s Faculty for Life group, signed a 2015 letter expressing “solidarity with our sisters in the developing world against what Pope Francis has described as ‘forms of ideological colonization which are out to destroy the family,’” and is reported to have signed another letter published by Becket Law criticizing the Obama administration’s contraception mandate.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trump-officially-announces-his-third-scotus-nominee?utm_source=featured&utm_campaign=standard

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** September 27, 2020, 09:27:59 AM »

I heard she declared her intention not to let her Catholicism inform her judicial decisions.

How wonderful: Another Kennedy Catholic?

Or, perhaps she knows she needs to say things like that to get through the confirmation hearings?

LeDeg · « **Reply #3 on:** September 27, 2020, 09:29:56 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 27, 2020, 09:27:59 AM

I heard she declared her intention not to let her Catholicism inform her judicial decisions.

How wonderful: Another Kennedy Catholic?

Or, perhaps she knows she needs to say things like that to get through the confirmation hearings?

Exactly my thoughts when I researched her.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #4 on:** September 27, 2020, 09:43:00 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 27, 2020, 09:27:59 AM

I heard she declared her intention not to let her Catholicism inform her judicial decisions.

How wonderful: Another Kennedy Catholic?

Or, perhaps she knows she needs to say things like that to get through the confirmation hearings?

I’m leaning toward the latter explanation though. It’s hard to believe a mother of seven would not see moral issues from a Catholic slant.

I wonder if she vaccinated her children?

forlorn · « **Reply #5 on:** September 27, 2020, 11:25:56 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 27, 2020, 09:43:00 AM

I’m leaning toward the latter explanation though. It’s hard to believe a mother of seven would not see moral issues from a Catholic slant.

I wonder if she vaccinated her children?

She definitely has a Vatican 2 idea of moral issues, like "no death penalty because the pope says so", but from all I've seen she sticks to those principles at least.

SperaInDeo · « **Reply #6 on:** September 27, 2020, 01:39:58 PM »

Can someone here explain to me how we consider a woman who goes to a pseudo-Catholic charismatic Protestant cult to be a practicing Catholic when we barely consider the Novus Ordo to be Catholic?

Perhaps we need to research “People of Praise” (her church) a little bit more before we take the Jєω media’s bait?

Thank you.

josefamenendez · « **Reply #7 on:** September 27, 2020, 02:44:17 PM »

This Politico op-ed was surprising to me. It's by no means against abortion, and it is very "women's lib-y" but it seems like it is conceding something to this nominee, like it's a given she is a shoe-in and the libs now have to make lemonade out of lemons. Maybe motherhood ain't so bad? Pro-aborts usually don't give an inch. Very interesting

(Sorry about the big ugly pic of Schumer- couldn't delete without the whole article disappearing)

OPINION | ON THE BENCH

Amy Coney Barrett: A New Feminist Icon
Feminism is changing, and Barrett’s replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg will show how.

Getty Images
By ERIKA BACHIOCHI
09/27/2020 07:00 AM EDT

[size={defaultattr}]

Erika Bachiochi is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a senior fellow at the Abigail Adams Institute where she founded and directs the Wollstonecraft Project. Her new book, The Rights of Women: Reclaiming a Lost Vision, will be released in 2021.[/size]
Amy Coney Barrett has been praised for her topflight legal mind, even by those who disagree with her. At 48 years old, she is poised to help shape the court for a generation or more.
But that’s not all her elevation to the high court has the potential to accomplish. Barrett’s expected confirmation should serve as a catalyst for rethinking the most powerful social movement in the last half century: feminism.

Over the last week, as Justice Ginsburg’s body laid in repose outside the Supreme Court, the nation has rightly celebrated Ginsburg’s trailblazing 1970s legal advocacy, one which pushed both law and culture to reexamine the ways in which women had been pigeonholed as caregivers and men as providers. The late justice’s antidiscrimination wins opened up a new era in which both men and women could respectably and responsibly engage in both avenues of fulfillment, according to their personal talents and circuмstances.

But Ginsburg also viewed abortion rights as central to sɛҳuąƖ equality, and her leadership helped give rise to a movement that remains laser focused on abortion to this day. Yet rather than make women more equal to men, constitutionalizing the right to abortion as the court did in Roe has relieved men of the mutual responsibilities that accompany sex, and so has upended the duties of care for dependent children that fathers ought equally to share.
Barrett embodies a new kind of feminism, a feminism that builds upon the praiseworthy antidiscrimination work of Ginsburg but then goes further. It insists not just on the equal rights of men and women, but also on their common responsibilities, particularly in the realm of family life. In this new feminism, sɛҳuąƖ equality is found not in imitating men’s capacity to walk away from an unexpected pregnancy through abortion, but rather in asking men to meet women at a high standard of mutual responsibility, reciprocity and care.
At Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearing in 2017, Sen. Dianne Feinstein tellingly remarked, “You are controversial because many of us that have lived lives as women really recognize the value of finally being able to control our reproductive systems, and Roe entered into that, obviously.”

Barrett’s life story puzzles older feminists like Feinstein because bearing and raising a bevy of children has long implied retaining a traditional life script — like staying home with the children — that Barrett has obviously not heeded.
To be sure, few mothers of seven could become federal judges, never mind Supreme Court justices. Barrett – “generationally brilliant,” according to her Notre Dame colleague, O. Carter Snead — is likely alone in this set. It all seems so unlikely: She has risen to the pinnacle of her profession while at once being “radically hospitable” to children, as Snead has described her. An enigma to many, she doesn’t easily fit into any ideological box.
If we’re really intent as a country on seeing women flourish in their professions and serve in greater numbers of leadership positions too, it would be worthwhile to interrupt the abortion rights sloganeering for a beat and ask just how this mother of many has achieved so much.
In a 2019 conversation at the Notre Dame Club of Washington D.C., Barrett was asked how, while raising so many children, two of whom were adopted from Haiti and one who has special needs, she has been able to balance family life with her demanding profession. Her response was as telling as Feinstein’s 2017 remark. Barrett immediately praises her husband (who is also an attorney):
We were open to either one of us staying home at different points… What’s really made it work is that it’s very much a team effort… Right now… Jesse is really doing much more of the heavy lifting… the cooking and kids’ doctor’s appointments during the day. We’ve gone in cycles and right now… he’s doing a little bit more of the home stuff…. We evaluated at every step whether things were working well for the family, for the job I was in… but it was always working and it worked well: the kids were very happy, I loved teaching.
MOST READ

Barrett says that for both parents, the needs of the Barrett children came first, their professions second – and yet both their children and professions thrived. Rather than assume caregiving is a woman’s “choice” to embrace or reject on her own, as Roe does, the Barretts recognize that both mothers and fathers are encuмbered by their shared responsibilities to the dependent children in their care. That’s the new feminism building upon, while remaking, the old feminism.
It’s not only the Barretts’ teamwork that has made all of this possible. In that same interview, she speaks with gratitude about the consistent child care her husband's aunt has provided for more than a decade. And she points to the flexibility of her workplace and credits the growing presence of women in the legal profession as giving rise to better working conditions than when she was a young lawyer: “As women are more present in law schools… on faculties, at law firms… the workplace bends to be more flexible as women seek those accommodations.” As women seek those accommodations… by bearing and raising children rather than sacrificing their very lives on the altar of the marketplace instead.
The sad truth is that nearly 50 years after Roe legalized abortion nationwide, the kinds of accommodations that make childbearing and family life manageable are only beginning to be implemented. Large numbers of companies still engage in rampant pregnancy discrimination. Studies show that women with caregiving responsibilities are often assumed to be less competent or committed to their work than their unencuмbered peers; and when mothers or fathers seek to return to work after caring for children, even a short time, their market absence is more greatly penalized by prospective employers than had they simply been unemployed. When a prominent corporate leader – and contender for presidential nominee of the Democratic Party -- is reputed to have told a pregnant employee to “kill it,” it’s no wonder women feel the need to hide that they are pregnant when they are at work.

When we belittle the moral status of the unborn child, treating the nascent human being in a near half century of Supreme Court case law as “potential life,” or in academic (and popular) arguments as something parasitic upon the pregnant woman, we ought not be surprised when our workplaces and other cultural institutions treat dependent human beings that way too. If pregnancy continues to be likened to any other lifestyle choice, or worse, a disability in a Hobbesian contest with wombless men — pregnant women and caregiving parents will never receive the cultural support they need.
To be sure, Justice Ginsburg’s 1970s’ wins paved the way for a woman of Barrett’s talent to emerge; at her nomination announcement, Barrett seemed immensely grateful for that. But Barrett knows the secret of a culture that fully supports family life: No professional work — even that of a Supreme Court justice — can best the essential work of a mother or a father, whether a parent has many children or only one.
In recounting how she decided to go through with their second adoption, Barrett said: “What greater thing can you do than raise children? That’s where you have your greatest impact on the world.” And when a justice of the Supreme Court showcases this truth by her very life, this long-abandoned insight can finally begin to reemerge across our culture.
When greater numbers of us understand the cultural priority of caregiving, a movement will grow strong enough to challenge the dominant market mentality that disfavors family obligation for both women and men. Justice Ginsburg’s brand of feminism will give way to something new, a society in which we will no longer fight over abortion because it will have become irrelevant.

SimpleMan · « **Reply #8 on:** September 28, 2020, 10:13:55 AM »

What is the "RNS" (as in the occasion or place where the Ave Maria was sung)?

Two questions about ACB:

Is she an improvement over Ginsburg?

Is she the best we can hope for, this side of the Three Days of Darkness/Great Monarch/Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary?

The answers are obvious.

And, yes, she says what she has to say, and promises what she has to promise, to get confirmed. If she said "I intend to take instaurare omnia in Christo as my guiding principle, in union with the magisterium of the divinely-instituted Catholic Church, outside of which no one at all is saved", she might even lose some Republican votes. Politics is the art of the possible --- "never let the perfect be the enemy of the good".

AlligatorDicax · « **Reply #9 on:** September 28, 2020, 05:00:26 PM »

Quote from: SperaInDeo on September 27, 2020, 01:39:58 PM

Can someone here explain to me how we consider a woman who goes to a pseudo-Catholic charismatic Protestant cult to be a practicing Catholic when we barely consider the Novus Ordo to be Catholic? Perhaps we need to research “People of Praise” (her church) a little bit more [...]?

Perhaps even a lot more? Hmmm. Human-centered instead of God-centered? It sounds like a name that would be chosen by an overtly Protestant megachurch.

Quote from: peopleofpraise.org Web-site footer

The People of Praise is a charismatic, ecuмenical and covenant community with 22 locations in the US, Canada and the Carribean.

<https://peopleofpraise.org/about/who-we-are/>.

How "ecuмenical"?

Quote from: peopleofpraise.org Web-site

We are Methodists and Lutherans, Roman Catholics and Pentecostals, Baptists and Episcopalians. As an ecuмenical community, we strive to be a witness to our Christian unity even while we remain members of our various denominations.

<https://peopleofpraise.org/about/who-we-are/ecuмenical/>.

It's the professed "covenant" characteristic that raises the questions about characteristics of a cult. Here, it's soft-peddled, lacking relevant operational details:
<https://peopleofpraise.org/about/who-we-are/covenant/>.

Is that Justice-nominee Barrett 3rd from left in the top-of-page photos?

Furthermore, try links resulting from this search:
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22People+of+Praise%22+church+%22Amy+Coney+Barrett%22&ia=web>
(I assume there are CathInfo members "out there" who can allow themselves more time to read up and post on this topic than I can).

Incredulous · « **Reply #10 on:** September 28, 2020, 08:10:41 PM »

Evangelicals are nut-jobs who call themselves Catholic

Forced Vaccinations & Indefinite Lockdowns-Amy Barrett is Owned by the ZIONIST Cabal
by Admin · September 24, 2020

(Natural News) Conservatives are clamoring online, hoping that President Trump nominates Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States. As conservatives rush to nominate a Supreme Court Justice before the 2020 election, they may get the opposite of what they really want. Republicans are on the verge of electing one of the most egregious authoritarians, a woman who has a track record of defending the power of the state over the freedom of the individual.

Conservative darling Amy Barrett is for indefinite lock downs, forced vaccination
In order to get approval from conservatives, a Supreme Court candidate merely has to espouse disdain for one case, Roe vs Wade. This was the infamous ruling that led to modern day infanticide – unchecked, taxpayer funded abortions that conscript medical professionals to terminate human life from the womb.

While this case is important, what about all the other court opinions that have led to human abuses? In 2020, Judge Barret sided on behalf of J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois — giving him supreme authority to lock down the state for as long as he pleases. Judge Barrett gave in to the authoritarian left by hiding behind a 1905 ruling in Jacobsen v. Massachusetts. This ruling gave local Massachusetts authorities free reign to vaccinate and re-vaccinate every adult in their jurisdiction and fine those who did not comply.

Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (1905): “The board of health of a city or town if, in its opinion, it is necessary for the public health or safety shall require and enforce the vaccination and re-vaccination of all the inhabitants thereof and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever, being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars.”

Barrett is prone to side with the state in all matters of public health hysteria, disregarding individual liberty, medical privacy, informed consent and human rights. She concurred with the majority in Illinois Republican Party et al. v. J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois and agreed to hold down the people of Illinois through indefinite, illegal lockdowns and economic restrictions. If nominated, Barret would continue to allow Democrats to rip up the Constitution under the guise of safety and protecting the “greater good.” If nominated, Barrett would ultimately rule in favor of compulsory vaccination, giving government the power to force experimental covid-19 injections, faulty flu vaccines, and all other pharmaceutical products that are promoted as one-size-fits-all “public health” solutions.

Judge Barrett would allow governors to restrict religious freedom

Furthermore, it seems that Barrett would restrict religious liberty. In Illinois Republican Party et al. v. J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois, she concurred that the governor “was not compelled to make a special dispensation for religious activities.” She agreed that the First Amendment Free Speech Clause did not prevent him from controlling religious exercise. “As in the cases reconciling the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, all that the Governor did was to limit to a certain degree the burden on religious exercise that [the governor’s executive order] imposed.”

Pennsylvania District Judge William S. Stickman refuses to hide behind the fragile precedent that continues to mock the original intent of the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution. Judge Stickman stood against the human rights abuses that followed the 1905 Jacobsen v. Massachusetts compulsory vaccination ruling. He ruled against Pennsylvania’s illegal lock down in 2020 and wrote, “Jacobson was decided over a century ago. Since that time, there has been substantial development of federal constitutional law in the area of civil liberties… That century of development has seen the creation of tiered levels of scrutiny for constitutional claims. They did not exist when Jacobson was decided. […]”

Just because Barrett worked as clerk for former Justice Antonin Scalia, does not automatically make her an honorable originalist who can interpret the law by following the Constitution. Her track record, especially during 2020, proves the opposite to be true.

Watch Robert F. Kennedy Jr. debate Alan Dershowitz on Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (1905), in regard to vaccine safety, informed consent and human rights.
https://www.brighteon.com/embed/9daa0286-e51c-4ec0-a9b5-61f1329bc89a

Sources include:
BigLeaguePolitics.com
Supreme.Justia.com
Brighteon.com

StLouisIX · « **Reply #11 on:** September 28, 2020, 09:32:41 PM »

Here's a good YouTube playlist that covers the history and heresies of the Charismatic Movement:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB9wsq--mkdMoFrQ0TUoqU3zjovFsda1S

Incredulous · « **Reply #12 on:** September 28, 2020, 09:59:40 PM »

Quote from: StLouisIX on September 28, 2020, 09:32:41 PM

Here's a good YouTube playlist that covers the history and heresies of the Charismatic Movement:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB9wsq--mkdMoFrQ0TUoqU3zjovFsda1S

The Old School, Bishop Sheen, who fell prey to modernism, stated that the Evangelicals represented the most dangerous group within the Catholic Church.

I would include Opus judei as the dominant, crypto part of that subculture.

Meg · « **Reply #13 on:** September 29, 2020, 10:21:17 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous on September 28, 2020, 09:59:40 PM

The Old School, Bishop Sheen, who fell prey to modernism, stated that the Evangelicals represented the most dangerous group within the Catholic Church.

I would include Opus judei as the dominant, crypto part of that subculture.

I agree.

Nadir · « **Reply #14 on:** September 29, 2020, 10:58:58 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous on September 28, 2020, 09:59:40 PM

The Old School, Bishop Sheen, who fell prey to modernism, stated that the Evangelicals represented the most dangerous group within the Catholic Church.

I would include Opus judei as the dominant, crypto part of that subculture.

Funny, Incred, you should mention Opus Dei.

The Court of God: How a Catholic Secret Society Took Over SCOTUS

https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-court-of-god-how-a-catholic-secret-society-took-over-scotus/271612/

Author Topic: BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme C (Read 1023 times)

alaric

BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme C

alaric

Re: BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme C

SeanJohnson

Re: BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme C

LeDeg

Re: BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme C

SeanJohnson

Re: BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme C

forlorn

Re: BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme C

SperaInDeo

Re: BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme C

josefamenendez

Re: BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme C

SimpleMan

Re: BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme C

AlligatorDicax

People of Praise/Re: Trump nominates [...] Judge [...] Barrett to Supreme C

Incredulous

Re: BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme C

StLouisIX

Re: BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme C

Incredulous

Re: BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme C

Meg

Re: BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme C

Nadir

Re: BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme C