IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Can someone explain to me why TF the cowardly Democrats think her religion is "off the table?"
FFS, SHE brought it up in her opening remarks.
I believe in the power of prayer, and it has been uplifting to hear that so many people are praying for me.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/11/amy-coney-barrett-opening-statement-supreme-court-428635

The questions we deserve to have answered would include:

1) You said you "believed in the power of prayer" in your opening remarks, would you "pray" over the decisions you'd be making as a Supreme Court Justice?

2) If your answer to my first question is, "yes" or "perhaps", would you then expect to receive guidance from whomever/whatever you are praying to in order to form your opinion? If so, which form of guidance would that take? In other words, before coming to a decision would you require auditory and visual hallucinations or just one of the two? And if you failed to achieve one or more of those hallucinations, would you be unable to render a decision?

3) Does this form of "prayer" whose "power" you believe in also come in the form of "speaking tongues" as at least some of your fellow "People of Pride"™ colleagues practice? Would you also seek out their counsel when coming to a judicial decision?

4) How many magical, imaginary deities speak to you and how often? Do all of your decisions rely upon guidance you receive that no one on earth can confirm and that you have absolutely no evidence to suggest you'd ever received it?

Apologies if those aren't polished. This is more of a rant. Only in America could a judge looking at a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land concede her strong belief in imaginary, magical friends and not be questioned sharply about those delusions and how they might affect everyone in the whole damned country.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Because it won't help
Everyone with a vote already knows if they want her on the court or not. Republicans don't give a shit what she says, they want to confirm her. Democrats are hoping to get her to say things that are alarming enough that voters will contact Republican senators and convince them their seat is on the line if they do.
--

Drew
New I pissed in the wind myself on that.
She's from Indiana. Indiana's brown shirts in the Senate are singularly disinterested in what I have to say. Since Indiana is a part of Jesusland, the majority of my fellow states folk probably applauded her citing "prayer" in her opening remarks.

I was speaking with one of my oldest friends the other day and I told him I found it remarkable that human beings hadn't outgrown christianity yet. The majority (at least in this country) are still clinging to Medieval, superstitious nonsense in the 21st century. FFS, how is it possible that there are still people alive who cannot see that it is quite obvious that human beings are non-essential life forms on this planet, let alone in the Universe. That fact is not something to be proud of, but neither should it instill fear and the consequent fantasies about eternal life and incredibly inflated valuation of humans. It's absurd.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New I say this as an atheist...
That's a "Don't throw me in that briar patch" comment. She (and the Republican party) WANTS the Democrats to make it about religion. Cornyn came out fearmongering about "secular cultural elites" - he'd love one of the Democrats to say something about her religion so they can play it up on FOX News and OAN.

Face it, us atheists are really unliked. I saw something a bit back about how parents ranked people from different religions and ethnic backgrounds as a preferred mate for their children, and atheists were at the absolute bottom. I think the second lowest was African-American Muslims. Sucks, but that's the way it rolls until people abandon religion en masse.
New I don't know what I'm worried about.
Five of the last six Supreme Court Justice nominees have been Catholic. I don't know what I'm worried about. Remember how well the Catholics did with the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition? Or look at the history of California with all the "education" of the native folk and building of missions. Or look at the purity of the early popes. Yeah, nothing to worry about. Catholics know all about justice.

I used to have an imaginary friend, too. But then I turned five and got over it.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Exactly
Best approach for the Dems is to ask questions around the consequences of the decisions everyone is assuming she will make:

- What will be the effect of removing coverage for pre-existing conditions? Will all protection be removed?
- States will be able to criminalize abortion?
- What happens to married same-sex couples?
etc.

More here from Jennifer Rubin:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/12/democrats-job-amy-coney-barrett-hearing-is-not-what-you-think-it-is/
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New Yes, that
Don't ask how she'll rule. All her to explain the impact of the rulings you assume she'd make.
--

Drew
New Re: Yes, that
She will respond "My responsibility is to make rulings that are in line with the constitution, and not to legislate from the bench." or some such nonsense and ignore the question.
New [sigh] I know you're right
My naive hope is that she could be a True Believer who is proud of her positions, or at least cares about how she's viewed by other True Believers.

But then I remember that there are major religions that teach that it's no sin to lie to non-believers.
--

Drew
New I just always assume my opponent will do the worst thing for me.
That way when they fuck up I'm pleasantly surprised.
New Raise the Federalist Society?
That should put the lie to not legislating from the bench given the whole set of "corporations are people" decisions and other work to implement the Heritage Foundation's utopia.
New Excellent! ..pity that zIWE isn't on most Pols' daily must-See-list: the fuels! [Insp. Clouseau OFF]
New Thus far you (mostly) have gotten that approach (my Hopes too)
Simultaneously, the [Pit and the Pendulum--Poe] is the damnable Black/Whitey and other set-in-concrete
dichotomies which got us where we Be..

Fine, penetrating Senators' rebuttals to this Lady and all who ride in her Shall be 'decided' via the raw-Power
of a Moron-in-Chief to sign the concluding-Fact:
KAFS ..keep a'Murica Fascist-Still.

I no words from there :-/



(It's only a nonentity-Planet*) of a boring G-star which shall --> bloom into a hi-temp ∑-solar-system clambake).
..in what will be a trice in Galactic-time.
* [Reminder: indeed we Do Lack 'Scale and Relativity'] as in Mr. G's bitchin summation within, "All and Everything"
--his magnum opus.
     Can someone explain to me why TF the cowardly Democrats think her religion is "off the table?" - (mmoffitt) - (12)
         Because it won't help - (drook) - (1)
             I pissed in the wind myself on that. - (mmoffitt)
         I say this as an atheist... - (InThane) - (9)
             I don't know what I'm worried about. - (mmoffitt)
             Exactly - (malraux) - (7)
                 Yes, that - (drook) - (5)
                     Re: Yes, that - (InThane) - (4)
                         [sigh] I know you're right - (drook) - (1)
                             I just always assume my opponent will do the worst thing for me. - (InThane)
                         Raise the Federalist Society? - (scoenye) - (1)
                             Excellent! ..pity that zIWE isn't on most Pols' daily must-See-list: the fuels! [Insp. Clouseau OFF] -NT - (Ashton)
                 Thus far you (mostly) have gotten that approach (my Hopes too) - (Ashton)

All gravitas is local.
54 ms