Since you have just proven yourself to be completely insane,nothing you post in the future has any value.
Not a fan of Catholicism, I see.
Or Islam,or any other slave cult.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Both of Trump's SCOTUS justices Gorsuch & Kavanaugh, attended the same Jesuit high school. If one SCOTUS Jesuit is good, then two is better right?
It doesn't matter if they are Jesuits,or Thomas Jefferson and George Washington brought back to life,if Trump recommended them,you would hate them and find fault.
You are one of those sad people who just ain't happy unless you are mad.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
It doesn't matter if they are Jesuits,or Thomas Jefferson and George Washington brought back to life,if Trump recommended them,you would hate them and find fault.
Yup.
Hondo has been sporting his pink p***y hats and "I'M WITH ---> HER!" button loud and proud.
IF they reject him (as I expect), the NEXT picks will only be further RIGHT.
Rejecting Kavanaugh risks the next nominee facing a Dem majority in the Senate, or a slimmer GOP majority. If that happens, Trump could nominate conservatives until he leaves office and not get anyone approved.
There are currently 51 GOP, 47 Dem, 2 Ind (caucus with Dem).
At least 3 Dem senators are runnning for reelection in states that Trump won by 20 to 40 points. The liklihood is that Kavanaugh gets narrow Senate approval.
If post-election the GOP retains 50 or more Senate seats (likely), then the next nominee for an opening could well be Barrett, Hardiman, Kethledge, or Thapar.
It is very possible Trump gets to name a successor for Ginsburg or Sotomayor, and possibly Thomas at 70+ could resign to ensure a young, conservative replacement.
I did not offer an opinion. I quoted Kavanaugh verbatim from Heller II at the D.C. Circuit Court. Here is the full Opinion of the Court and dissents. The Kavanaugh dissent starts at page 46 of the pdf.
Catholicism isn't a slave cult. It's the largest human organization, the oldest continuous government on earth, and the source of Western civilization.
The Scofield prots have been beaten down, and they're loving it.
Catholics don't even know what "Scofield Prots" are. We simply have our set of interests and beliefs, and we want to see them enacted as the law of the land. Nothing more, nothing less.
We know, given that we're a minority, that we cannot get our way on everything, so we compromise as necessary in order to get, in the main, what it is that we most care about.
This isn't different from any other political grouping, like yours for instance.
Per the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Wanting to see my moral beliefs become the law of the land is not levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies.
So, your accusation of treason is un-American. You want to shoot me because you don't agree with my politics. That's not American at all. But hey, you do you.
At least 3 Dem senators are runnning for reelection in states that Trump won by 20 to 40 points. The liklihood is that Kavanaugh gets narrow Senate approval.
I think there are 9 or 10 total in states Trump won.
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
any other political grouping, like yours for instance
Who is "we", you and your reincarnated lizard? You're right about being a minority. You don't speak for the Church. That's a joy and a blessing for Catholics worldwide.
Many Catholics are aware of the Scofield denominations, aka prot nutjobs or rapture monkey zionists. Like your Catholic political group, they're a small subset of a greater traditional Protestant reformation.
Renowned Catholic theologian Fred Mertz might be able to confirm that you're a fringe k0oK Catholic?
But as far as the laws of the country goes, they're not perfect, but much of the structure we have is what I want to see. I'd like it to be more efficient, less ragged around the edges, less slapdash, but the fundamental structures that are in place are very much in keeping with what I want - and utterly the opposite of what you want.
So it would seem that, for whatever reason, the majority will of the country does largely (if imperfectly) provide me what I want, while it deprives you of what you want at every turn.
Eventually, the likes of you either have to compromise with people like me, to get something of what you want at least considered, or you refuse to compromise or talk, and just get plowed under, get nothing you want, but pay your taxes nevertheless.
Not much margin for you in this, but I'm fine with it all.
For clarity, by hoping you were "right" I hoped the letter of constitutional intent will be THE criteria for all future decisions (instead of emotional whims, a squishy Anthony Kennedy "moderate" clone, or intimidation/influence by Leftist thought.)
If so, frankly you betray Jesus Christ in a number of ways.
Pope Frankie is so clearly a Trojan Horse Communist, anti-liberty, and importantly, defiant of Christ-ian thought and rationale and intent that supporting this Pope boggles the mind.
Would Jesus Christ kiss the Koran? Support a counterfeit Palestinian instead of Israel? Advocate homosexual behavior -- much less "marriage"? Support the confiscation of one's toiled-over earned wealth?
But he's cornered the Dems by doing so. IF they reject him (as I expect), the NEXT picks will only be further RIGHT.
Correct... Trump ain’t no dummy.
I liked the other choice better (he was a duplicate of Gorsuch)... but I’ll take every judge chosen by Trump over any pick Kuntlary and Commie Sanders would have picked.
We don’t need any more man hating, gun loathing, tree hugging rug munchers on the bench.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
For clarity, by hoping you were "right" I hoped the letter of constitutional intent will be THE criteria for all future decisions (instead of emotional whims, a squishy Anthony Kennedy "moderate" clone, or intimidation/influence by Leftist thought.)
Just for the record, I am not a grand supporter of original intent, but rather original meaning (Scalia was a proponent of this predominant branch of originalism).
What “originalism” is—and is not — Originalism, explains Scalia, is a “manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people.” He clarifies that this is not synonymous with “strict constructionism”: “I do not think the Constitution, or any text should be interpreted either strictly or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably.”
Scalia also rejected the notion of “original intent.” As he explained,
You will sometimes hear [originalism] described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the Framers of the U.S. Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.
I do the same with statutes, by the way, which is why I don't use legislative history. The words are the law. I think that's what is meant by a government of laws, not of men. We are bound not by the intent of our legislators, but by the laws which they enacted, laws which are set forth in words, of course.
What substantive due process is is quite simple — the Constitution has a Due Process Clause, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Now, what does this guarantee? Does it guarantee life, liberty or property? No, indeed! All three can be taken away. You can be fined, you can be incarcerated, you can even be executed, but not without due process of law. It’s a procedural guarantee. But the Court said, and this goes way back, in the 1920s at least, in fact the first case to do it was Dred Scott. But it became more popular in the 1920s. The Court said there are some liberties that are so important, that no process will suffice to take them away. Hence, substantive due process.
Now, what liberties are they? The Court will tell you. Be patient. When the doctrine of substantive due process was initially announced, it was limited in this way, the Court said it embraces only those liberties that are fundamental to a democratic society and rooted in the traditions of the American people.
Then we come to step three. Step three: that limitation is eliminated. Within the last 20 years, we have found to be covered by due process the right to abortion, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years; the right to homosexual sodomy, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years. So it is literally true, and I don’t think this is an exaggeration, that the Court has essentially liberated itself from the text of the Constitution, from the text and even from the traditions of the American people. It is up to the Court to say what is covered by substantive due process.
What are the arguments usually made in favor of the Living Constitution? As the name of it suggests, it is a very attractive philosophy, and it’s hard to talk people out of it — the notion that the Constitution grows. The major argument is the Constitution is a living organism, it has to grow with the society that it governs or it will become brittle and snap.
This is the equivalent of, an anthropomorphism equivalent to what you hear from your stockbroker, when he tells you that the stock market is resting for an assault on the 11,000 level. The stock market panting at some base camp. The stock market is not a mountain climber and the Constitution is not a living organism for Pete’s sake; it’s a legal document, and like all legal documents, it says some things, and it doesn’t say other things. And if you think that the aficionados of the Living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again.
My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You think the death penalty is a good idea — persuade your fellow citizens and adopt it. You think it’s a bad idea — persuade them the other way and eliminate it. You want a right to abortion — create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society, persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and enact it. You want the opposite — persuade them the other way. That’s flexibility. But to read either result into the Constitution is not to produce flexibility, it is to produce what a constitution is designed to produce — rigidity. Abortion, for example, is offstage, it is off the democratic stage, it is no use debating it, it is unconstitutional. I mean prohibiting it is unconstitutional; I mean it’s no use debating it anymore — now and forever, coast to coast, I guess until we amend the Constitution, which is a difficult thing. So, for whatever reason you might like the Living Constitution, don’t like it because it provides flexibility.
As the Constitution says not a word about abortion, I believe five originalists on SCOTUS might overturn Roe finding a lack of federal jurisdiction, and return the issue to the states. Many here would not be happy with that result. They not only want the court to find that abortion is not constitutionally protected by an emanation from a penumbra, but they want the Court to find that abortion is prohibited by some constitutional provision emanating from a penumbra.
It is of no particular use to go back and find a 200 year old quote as to what some Framer may have intended. Nobody voted to ratify his intent. They voted to ratify the words themselves and the ordinary understanding of the words.
An example might be the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The words are clear enough to include anchor babies. The baby (regardless of the parents) is born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction (laws) of the U.S. Whether the framer did, or did not, consider the question of anchor babies has no effect on the meaning of the words that were adopted. If it had an unintended consequence, amend it.
If so, frankly you betray Jesus Christ in a number of ways.
Not in the slightest degree. We disagree at the most fundamental levels. You listed a litany of political issues, and you believe God to align with your political priorities. Nothing is going to persuade you otherwise, not even a lifetime of defeat. You expect that, opening your eyes after death, you will be vindicated. I expect the same thing for myself.
It would appear that there is no meeting of the minds on these things.
The interesting thing is that you see the Pope and the Church and Catholics believing and doing one set of things, but I see him and us believing and doing very different things.
So there's a disagreement both as to law and as to facts.
Doesn't seem to be any way to resolve it, so I guess we will just have to see how the game plays out.
As usual,you "got" nothing but bats flying around in your belfry.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Catholicism isn't a slave cult. It's the largest human organization, the oldest continuous government on earth, and the source of Western civilization.
HorseHillary!
On all counts.
The only reason you can't see that it's a cult is that you are a cult member.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
That is not Catholic be!ief.... Anyone that wants their religious beliefs enacted as our as our law of the land, ---- should be shot for treason...
Which is PRECISELY why the FF'ers made sure there would be no official religion in America.
History is full of examples of what happens when that happens.
As for Catholic Rule,seems to me there was a minor little war over Catholic control of the known world,called "The Reformation". Led by one of the greatest heroes of recorded history,Martin Luther.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
We don’t need any more man hating, gun loathing, tree hugging rug munchers on the bench.
HA! On the bench. Off the bench. Anywhere NEAR us. They belong in top-floor sanitariums.
I've posted articles and written about this; WOMEN IN POWER ARE DANGEROUS TO FREEDOM. Whether Europe or the USA. Most of these broads have yuge chips on their shoulders. Maybe GI or Liberator blew them off because we didn't want to tolerate their insanity.
Witchy ideologues are already polluting SCOTUS and the country! I am SICK of PC picks, AA, and "evening" things out. Sick of it. Trump. Must. Pick. THE BEST PERSON. PERIOD.
So yeah -- I just don't trust the ideology of last 30 years women who chose being a lawyer as a life-vocation. Or on the Supreme Court. Why would you or I trust a woman who puts the priority of being a high-powered lawyer ahead of being creative, but prioritizing being a wife, wanting to raise a family? It's just weird. I mean that's what it come down to, doesn't it?
Yes, we know there are exceptions. BUT from a conservative woman it's just generally NOT Priority One.
THE noble cause for OUR types of women is...nurturing. And being smart, compassionate and loyal.
For Dem women it's generally all about...A CRUSADE, a way to extract some kind of revenge. GENERALLY ON MEN. (Or their war on the so-called "patriarchy.") Or because they are crusaders yeah -- for Mutha-Earth or.... cats. I've met enough of these broads. Their causes are ALWAYS pathological. And the older they get, the more bitter. (One theory is that they were rejected as ugly from THE INSIDE. And don't even want to try to be attractive on the OUTSIDE.)
I’ll take every judge chosen by Trump over any pick Kuntlary and Commie Sanders would have picked.
Ab-so-lutely. (Tell me again why some people supposedly on our side don't think the election of Trump helped SAVE THE REPUBLIC??)
Witchy ideologues are already polluting SCOTUS and the country! I am SICK of PC picks, AA, and "evening" things out. Sick of it. Trump. Must. Pick. THE BEST PERSON. PERIOD.
Spot on...
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
That is not Catholic be!ief.... Anyone that wants their religious beliefs enacted as our as our law of the land, ---- should be shot for treason... Which is PRECISELY why the FF'ers made sure there would be no official religion in America.
History is full of examples of what happens when that happens.
As for Catholic Rule,seems to me there was a minor little war over Catholic control of the known world,called "The Reformation". Led by one of the greatest heroes of recorded history,Martin Luther.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal.
I waaant those enactrd into law and tpainee hates the declaration of Independence and the constitution.
Ever tried to explain this to people with no money and hungry children?
Dont even TRY to claim that organized religion feeds the poor. They only feed the poor if PAID to feed the poor by both the government and tax-free contributions,and even then they usually demand you play the role of a dancing monkey and join them in prayer.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
