Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Politics and World Leaders => Topic started by: Cera on July 04, 2018, 03:34:10 PM
-
What are your thoughts about Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic mother of 7 on short list for Supreme Court? She is a Notre Dame law professor who is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
-
What are your thoughts about Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic mother of 7 on short list for Supreme Court? She is a Notre Dame law professor who is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
A real "Catholic mother of 7" wouldn't be anywhere around to be put on the "short list for Supreme Court."
:facepalm:
-
Very strong conservative and Constitutionalist like Antonin Scalia, but there's a caveat here. Actually, two.
1. Catholic, my tuches. She belongs to a Charismatic organization called "People of Praise" which is actively interecuмenical and heretical. Charismatics are Pentecostals who bought chasubles on the internet.
2. No federal judicial experience or judicial experience at all. Barely six months. Gorsuch had over a decade when appointed.
-
A real "Catholic mother of 7" wouldn't be anywhere around to be put on the "short list for Supreme Court."
:facepalm:
I agree - if she has children they should be her priority.
-
I agree - if she has children they should be her priority.
A law professor and a district attorney easily make a combined mid-to-high six-figures a year. Over $400k with her amount of experience and tenure.
People with that much money can easily hire a nanny and pay them very well. No, her children are not her priority, more than likely.
-
Well, despite it not being ideal, I would take that ... IF she's actually a strong traditionally-minded Catholic (in terms of morals in any case). But that's a big IF in today's Novus Ordo establishment. At the very least, despite her other faults, it seems like she wasn't limiting the number of children she had in the interests of her career. I'd take a John-Paul-II-minded (morally conservative for the most part even if a doctrinal trainwreck otherwise) individual on the Supreme Court ... even if he made for a deplorable pope. And, no, in the ideal world, I don't believe that women should be acting as judges. But it would be better than the scuм we have in place now.
-
Well, despite it not being ideal, I would take that ... IF she's actually a strong traditionally-minded Catholic (in terms of morals in any case). But that's a big IF in today's Novus Ordo establishment. At the very least, despite her other faults, it seems like she wasn't limiting the number of children she had in the interests of her career. I'd take a John-Paul-II-minded (morally conservative for the most part even if a doctrinal trainwreck otherwise) individual on the Supreme Court ... even if he made for a deplorable pope. And, no, in the ideal world, I don't believe that women should be acting as judges. But it would be better than the scuм we have in place now.
I agree. The ideal can be the enemy of the good. Maybe some trads would like her better if she were just a pro-life Protestant.
-
I agree. The ideal can be the enemy of the good. Maybe some trads would like her better if she were just a pro-life Protestant.
Amy Barrett is also only 46 years old. In terms of the Supreme Court, that's very, very young.
Combine that with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer being in their 80s and we have the potential for a majority Conservative court for generations.
-
I guess it is better than nothing; but I still really dislike the impression she gives that women successfully "can have it all" (career & family). The impression is really counterproductive because it is a lie; and it is especially dangerous in these times when girls are being corrupted by Feminism in an unprecedented level.
If she was single and childless, she would not give such negative impression. She was not limiting the number of children true, but was she actually there mothering them, as she was building her career?
-
I agree. The ideal can be the enemy of the good. Maybe some trads would like her better if she were just a pro-life Protestant.
Guess so, if "some trads" find Natural Law Relative and not Absolute...
-
Guess so, if "some trads" find Natural Law Relative and not Absolute...
Attached below is a source from Fox and an insider in the Administration claiming that Barrett is out of the running. So a Catholic mother of seven is likely not our next Supreme Court justice.
-
I guess it is better than nothing; but I still really dislike the impression she gives that women successfully "can have it all" (career & family). The impression is really counterproductive because it is a lie; and it is especially dangerous in these times when girls are being corrupted by Feminism in an unprecedented level.
If she was single and childless, she would not give such negative impression. She was not limiting the number of children true, but was she actually there mothering them, as she was building her career?
I would agree if she were only a movie star; however what we are talking about is not the "impression" someone gives but rather her potential to correct some of the corruption in the SC.
-
Guess so, if "some trads" find Natural Law Relative and not Absolute...
What a weird comparison. Natural law only enters into the topic when looking for a SC candidate likely to support it. In terms of fallen human beings, you will never find the absolute ideal. Thus, "the ideal is the enemy of the good" is true in regard to a SC candidate.
-
Very strong conservative and Constitutionalist like Antonin Scalia, but there's a caveat here. Actually, two.
1. Catholic, my tuches. She belongs to a Charismatic organization called "People of Praise" which is actively interecuмenical and heretical. Charismatics are Pentecostals who bought chasubles on the internet.
2. No federal judicial experience or judicial experience at all. Barely six months. Gorsuch had over a decade when appointed.
I thought I heard she was Novus Ordo Charismatic. I know... probably not much of a difference.
Anyone know anything about the Kavanagh possibility? Is he at least a conservative Novus Ordo Catholic (aka anti Roe v Wade)?
-
2. No federal judicial experience or judicial experience at all. Barely six months. Gorsuch had over a decade when appointed.
In my mind that, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. While almost all of the justices in the past few decades came from the ranks of the federal courts of appeals, historically, that was not the case. In the past, sometimes justices came from federal courts, sometimes from state courts, sometimes regular lawyers were appointed, sometimes academics, and sometimes politicians were even put on the court.
Personally, a think a court with varying experience in the law may be a good thing rather than everyone just being a promoted federal judge.
-
I thought I heard she was Novus Ordo Charismatic. I know... probably not much of a difference.
Anyone know anything about the Kavanagh possibility? Is he at least a conservative Novus Ordo Catholic (aka anti Roe v Wade)?
"In May 2006, Kavanaugh stated he "would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully" and that the issue of the legality of abortion has already "been decided by the Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis)."[22] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh#cite_note-:2-22) During the hearing, he stated that a right to an abortion has been found "many times", citing Planned Parenthood v. Casey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey).[22] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh#cite_note-:2-22)"
-from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh)
If the potential to overturn Roe v. Wade is there and we don't take advantage of it, then valuable time has been wasted.
-
BREAKING NEWS FROM NBC: "BREAKING: President Trump is nominating federal appeals court Judge Brett Kavanaugh as next US Supreme Court justice - @PeteWilliamsNBC (https://twitter.com/PeteWilliamsNBC)" -Twitter
Remember, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are next!
-
BREAKING NEWS FROM NBC: "BREAKING: President Trump is nominating federal appeals court Judge Brett Kavanaugh as next US Supreme Court justice - @PeteWilliamsNBC (https://twitter.com/PeteWilliamsNBC)" -Twitter
Remember, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are next!
So Trump really has no desire to overturn Roe v Wade.
-
Brett Kavanaugh served in the neoconservative administration of George W. Bush and has stated in the past that he "would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully". On the face of things, he does not seem like a great supreme court nominee. I can only hope and pray that he has a change of heart.
-
BREAKING NEWS FROM NBC: "BREAKING: President Trump is nominating federal appeals court Judge Brett Kavanaugh as next US Supreme Court justice - @PeteWilliamsNBC (https://twitter.com/PeteWilliamsNBC)" -Twitter
Remember, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are next!
Well, in my opinion, this was the poorest choice... but now, the "Catholic mother of 7" may now consider her FIRST duties before God to be a wife and mother as God has called her to be. How could any Catholic in their right mind root for a "Catholic" mother to be sentenced to a life term playing in a role reserved for men in regards to interpreting and defining laws for the governance of a society.
-
Well, in my opinion, this was the poorest choice... but now, the "Catholic mother of 7" may now consider her FIRST duties before God to be a wife and mother as God has called her to be. How could any Catholic in their right mind root for a "Catholic" mother to be sentenced to a life term playing in a role reserved for men in regards to interpreting and defining laws for the governance of a society.
Trump is waiting for the next retirement, which is (probably) happening eventually. Ginsburg is hesitant to retire under a Republican president.
-
The correct legal action would be to not overturn Roe v Wade, but to have the Supreme Court decide it's a state's rights issue. The Feds have no business deciding moral, social issues. I think the Supreme Court could make this decision and think it's taking the 'middle road' between the "extreme" (as the liberals would call it) complete ban of abortion. From a purely practical standpoint, you can't just outright ban abortion from one day to the next - there would be chaos, rioting and destruction. Better for the Supreme Court to "punt" the issue to the states, where it belongs, and let citizens decide at the state level. If that happened, then you'd have over 50% of the states would ban it immediately. 25% would ban it soon thereafter and the last 25% would be in for a close fight.
Then maybe Congress would see that 'right to life' is the 'will of the people' and they would pass a "life begins at conception" law, which then, the Supreme Court would uphold. Game, set, match.
-
The correct legal action would be to not overturn Roe v Wade, but to have the Supreme Court decide it's a state's rights issue. The Feds have no business deciding moral, social issues. I think the Supreme Court could make this decision and think it's taking the 'middle road' between the "extreme" (as the liberals would call it) complete ban of abortion. From a purely practical standpoint, you can't just outright ban abortion from one day to the next - there would be chaos, rioting and destruction. Better for the Supreme Court to "punt" the issue to the states, where it belongs, and let citizens decide at the state level. If that happened, then you'd have over 50% of the states would ban it immediately. 25% would ban it soon thereafter and the last 25% would be in for a close fight.
Then maybe Congress would see that 'right to life' is the 'will of the people' and they would pass a "life begins at conception" law, which then, the Supreme Court would uphold. Game, set, match.
You just reminded me of something I heard on the Rush Limbaugh show on July 5th, here's an exerpt from the transcript from the show...
Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion does not automatically become illegal. States immediately are gonna pass laws to make it — All of this, that’s the straw dog. And so is this silly polling data, two-thirds the American people don’t want it overturned? I don’t buy that at all. Not for a minute.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Of course, there is one thing that could totally turn abortion law upside down. You know what it is? If the baby in the womb is ever decided to have civil rights. If some judge or if some court comes along and agrees with the premise that a fetus in the womb at certain stage has civil rights, and don’t think that there aren’t people thinking about taking it in that direction should things eventuate.
You’ve got some really committed people on this on the life side. And, by the way, the left knows all of that. The reason they are so panicked over this is they know Roe v. Wade is bad law. They know that it’s not really constitutional. Without some misguided leftist majority, it won’t survive a challenge. It’s not good law.
I mean, we should get into this at some point. The way it happened — it could be about any subject, abortion, anything else — it’s bad law. And it became bad law because of political preferences. The left knows all that. They know how precariously balanced this is. So that’s why the full-fledged abject panic.
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/07/05/all-the-latest-scotus-scuttlebutt/amp/ (https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/07/05/all-the-latest-scotus-scuttlebutt/amp/)
-
Well, in my opinion, this was the poorest choice... but now, the "Catholic mother of 7" may now consider her FIRST duties before God to be a wife and mother as God has called her to be. How could any Catholic in their right mind root for a "Catholic" mother to be sentenced to a life term playing in a role reserved for men in regards to interpreting and defining laws for the governance of a society.
I am a Catholic and have been active in pro-life since 1971. Sadly, the world we wish we live in is not the world we actually do live in. She was the most pro-life candidate on the short list.