Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
It’s Barrett....(Democrat Hysteria Game Thread)
Comments
-
These two are morons. I’ll stick with the one who won’t raise my taxes. Joe’s Adderall is wearing of now and he’s off message calling Trump a “racist.”
-
"Even if Amy Barrett is confirmed to SCOTUS, she’s still a statist who promotes forced vaccinations and indefinite lockdowns"
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.
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.
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.
https://naturalnews.com/2020-09-24-statist-amy-barrett-is-for-indefinite-lockdowns-forced-vaccinations.html
-
Natural Newz again? It's been a while.
-
Brother, I'm an OG shit-talker on the football message boards. I fought in the time of iDawg and royotis. I fought in the time of the tailgater. I vanquished my enemies in the great Cane wars of the late 90s. I don't dodge anything; for I am Achilles.WestlinnDuck said:
The dazzler likes to dodge easy questions. Don't be the dazzler. Should the people who want ACB disqualified from the Supreme Court because she is a practicing Catholic ban practicing environmentalists from deciding if the feds can regulate a pond in a farmer's backyard? That's my beef with the left. They are hypocrites and in this case there is a clear written prohibition from denying public office to a citizen because they don't practice your religion.creepycoug said:
My apologies. I left this for too long and couldn't come back to it. Meant to add the following:creepycoug said:
Yeah, sure.WestlinnDuck said:
Is it okay for an environmentalist to bring his moral view to bear on the question is a pond in a farmer's backyard a "navigable waterway". Everyone has a their own moral view. The issue is can they enforce the law with an opinion based in the law? Disqualifying Christians for being a practicing Christian should then also disqualify a practicing feminist from an abortion opinion. It's not conservatives that are arguing about an organic everchanging written Constitution and using feelings to make up non-existent Constitutional rights and then take away specific granted Constitutional rights.creepycoug said:alumni94 said:
The separation of Church and State was originally to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson
"In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." Hugo Black
So is this wall like Gortex where water can't come in but perspiration can go out? Like a one-way thing?
And by extension are you saying you're ok with Justices on the SCOTUS bringing religious views to bear in deciding cases? What are you going to say when the Muslim Justices get their guys in there? Let me know because I want to use this at my big-time lawyer cocktail parties.
=====
After requiring all federal and state legislators and officers to swear or affirm to support the federal Constitution, Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This prohibition, commonly known as the No Religious Test ...
And? What's your point?
I'm not administering a religious test. I feel like you're trying to talk me into confirming this broad. You don't need to do that. I'm not on a witch hunt here.
For the record, I do reject your categorical conflation of humanist concerns with religious as mostly rhetoric. Like Jefferson, I recognize a distinction between natural rights (to worship privately) and social duty. So, no, they're not the same to me. But like I said, we've litigated that one in the Tug.
Out of curiosity, would you pursue this point as feverishly as you are now if the appointee-to-be were some kind of non-Christian religious follower? How would a Muslim appointee feel for you? Or some other devout follower of old stories that didn't involve Jesus? You may remain consistent in your view, but I can read minds and some of your friends would be lying if they said yes.
And I've already answered this, but happy to do so again.
Answer to Question #1: No, she should not be precluded from serving on the court because of her religion. You confuse preference with baseline eligibility.
Answer to Question #2: I categorically reject and disagree with your conflation of traditional religion, which belongs in the category of mysticism, and humanist concerns, no matter how feverishly those concerns are pursued, and no matter my opinion of their rightness and wrongness. I reject it entirely and disagree with you entirely, and that rejection and disagreement is punctum est irriducible. I think what I think as an intellectual matter regardless of the specific example and whether I like it or hate it. I believe that you believe what you believe entirely for political reasons. We are at odds and will not reconcile. Nothing more to discuss. -
@HoustonHusky
You, or someone, is saying a lot here. A few responses:
First and foremost, how do you get around the establishment clause with this line of reasoning?
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
I'm also not clear what you mean by "NOT the religion from the state." Are you saying that the state can't interfere with the free exercise of religion in private life but CAN sponsor or reflect a preferred religion? How far do propose to go with that one? Easter on the WH Lawn? Sure. Ceremonial invocations of certain government events? Alright. And, of course, individual government employees, including the Pres, are allowed to worship as they see fit. Seems to me that if the Church is in the state, then the state is in the Church. At least some particular Church.
This notion you share of "all law is intertwined with religion" seems fuzzy and suspect to me. As if government doesn't spend a lot, if not most, of its time entangled with humanist concerns. I reject it. Tax law, securities law, administrative law, environmental law, voting law, etc. all originate from religious thought? Sorry man, that seems like a real stretch and back-into-it thinking from my standpoint. Sure, I'm willing to agree basic concepts of our moral code - stealing, killing, raping, fairness, fraud, etc. etc. derive from an evolution of religious thinking. But that means next to nothing to me. A devout atheist can subscribe to a moral code as readily as a religious zealot.
Is there anything in the constitution that says plainly "when we say religion we mean Christianity"? And by implication, are you saying those who are here who do not subscribe to a religion based on Judeo-Christian principles, or any religion for that matter, are not contemplated in the First Amendment? So, for example, could the Congress pass laws that discriminate against, say, Islam? Could a President direct the IRS to give Christians a tax break over non-Christians? It seems to me if this point were so compelling, the drafters would have at least mentioned "Christianity" or "Christ" or "the Messiah" somewhere in the text. They use the word "religion" two times.
And, at the end of the day, there are some pretty stark contrasts even amongst religions that fit under your preferred category of Judeo-Christian. Lots of differences that exist amongst Christian-based beliefs, and we haven't even begun to discuss the Jews rejecting the Christ Our Lord and the Mormons with all their wives and the Jehovas with their problem with with Christmas celebrations. Pretty big difference of opinions there. Which one are we gonna pick?
I think its pretty ignorant to blanket treat all magically sky fairy beliefs as equally compatible with western morals or the constitution. Agreed. That would be pretty ignorant of someone. Glad it wasn't me.
-
Too wordy and too many points to address when you write your novels. Be concise. You’re boring people.
Reminds me of LA_Coug or DuckNow on The Shed. Filibusters aren’t good internet. -
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams -
I stick with my swarthy friend on this one
-
It’s over your head anyway Duck.NorthwestFresh said:Too wordy and too many points to address when you write your novels. Be concise. You’re boring people.
Reminds me of LA_Coug or DuckNow on The Shed. Filibusters aren’t good internet.
-
"But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in the rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."Sledog said:Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams
Daddy is your revenge on expertise and "elites". He is neither moral nor religious.
