Supreme Court Justice Amy Barrett faces calls to recuse herself from LGBTQ case

a reply to: Boadicea

By that logic quite a number of the SCOTUS would have to recuse for not being impartial. Didn’t RBG brag about officiating gay marriages before it was settled nationally, for example? And yes I know she is gone but others have as well.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Maxmars

Is she the only Christian on the Supreme Court?

Of course she's not. They're all either Jewish or Catholic, although I don't know about the latest one who can't tell what a woman is without a biologist. She may not know her own religion without a theologist.

a reply to: Maxmars


Are looney democrats also demanding that Thomas recuse himself from cases that involve women or soda/cola companies?

Or Kav for cases involving schizophrenic women?

Or Gorsuch for covid/mask cases?



Can we force all democrat justices to recuse themselves from cases about democrat party election theft?

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Boadicea

By that logic quite a number of the SCOTUS would have to recuse for not being impartial. Didn’t RBG brag about officiating gay marriages before it was settled nationally, for example? And yes I know she is gone but others have as well.

Yup. By those standards no one could hear any case about religion because everyone has some opinion about religion even if their opinion is that there is no God or they don't care if there's a God.

I did read the article and looked for any specific examples of the Justice putting her religion over the law, but didn't find any. I really don't see any foundation for demanding her refusal. Even privacy/secrecy isn't a valid cause for demanding her recusal.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
She should simply deny their request and do her job.

Exactly! That's what the conservative Justices did when the "No Cake for Gays" case was taken up by the Supreme Court a few years ago. They did their jobs without holding their finger up to see what wind was blowing.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Maxmars

They apparently think her faith is too "entrenched" against homosexuality for her to judge the law/Constitution impartially. From your OP source:

I am, I suppose, a strange person. If I were in the position she is in, I would have to ask, "Is my faith the object of your complaint?" Is your judgment of my faith suddenly a trump card in the law? Must we clear the law dockets to accommodate your sentiments about 'certain' spiritual observances? And, in actuality, are the objections you preemptively project not effectively what you're pretending I might theoretically do?"

But that's just me.

The reporting is generally suspect in its' presentation. Giving opinions as practical declarations of fact is a tell. And I point out that the presentation belies the predilection of (dare I say it) "entrenched" bias. Just because one voice proclaims a thing disturbing doesn't extend the observation as fact. Just because someone doesn't "see how" a person can separate their personal beliefs from the obligation of serving justice doesn't mean it doesn't happen every day all over the place.

My quote "Wait... how is this case a Supreme Court Case?" was a somewhat muddled attempt at pointing out the absurdity of elevating a simple case of compelled speech to a national-level debate. It doesn't work as an assertion that people should have to do business with someone they don't want to - for whatever reason; it's their income to lose. Particularly if you acquiesce to the notion that money is "free speech."

I find the free speech clause as a defense to be ridiculous. So the Supreme Court may rule they can "say" the words on a sign and post it... that doesn't change the law and putting those words into action is still a violation of Colorado law.

Frankly, the idea that a "Supreme Court" must be invoked to determine an outcome in this case seems to betray the state's rights elements at play here (similar to abortion.) This is not how laws are made. Bring to your lazy legislators and have them chew through it. That's how laws are made. "Trumping" local laws is not the same thing as fixing the problem.

Your alternative approach would seem much more apt to succeed than the route this group is forcing by what I believe is political fiat. But my legal legerdemain is very limited, so the nuances elude me.

This makes for good media... And when the media takes no responsibility for the opinions it must project as truth, we are in for an entertaining ride.

Stay alert everyone.

a reply to: Maxmars

This makes for good media... And when the media takes no responsibility for the opinions it must project as truth, we are in for an entertaining ride.

Yes, it does make for good media. But it's symbolism over substance that doesn't serve anyone well.

But it presses the buttons of those who also feel strongly about the subject. So instead of focusing on the law or the Constitution or the legal process-- all objective criteria which can be judged objectively (as the Supreme Court is literally confined to doing), it's all about the feelz. Everyone's feelz.

I refuse to play that game and give it energy.

But for what it's worth, folks can do as they please for themselves and by themselves, and/or with other consenting adults. (Freedom of assembly and freedom of association) That's where their feelings belong. Not in the law, not in the courts, not in other people's business.

a reply to: Maxmars

I have found that with some issues, it is generally the fashion to dismiss the argument of one's ideological opponents out of hand merely based on the presumption that he/she is religious; ergo, the only possible reason anyone could object to my position is over religion.

I think this objection to Amy Coney Barrett is partially from that angle as well. It also smacks of the Christian Dominionism angle the press was bothered about with Ted Cruz and Romney's "magic underwear" that supposedly go with being Mormon. We had a member here at the time who was really into the Cruz/Dominionism angle which is very similar to this thing with Barrett. She was convinced that a vote for Cruz was going to doom us all because Dominionists believe in the End Times, and he would use his presidential power to counterfeit the Book of Revelation.

These people should call up their senators and ask them not to confirm Amy Barrett to the Supreme Court if they believe her faith creates a conflict of interest.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I don't think it should work either way. Those who have the honor and grave responsibility of sitting on the Supreme Court should be able to separate their moral and religious background from what is constitutional. Our moral foundation is important but this country is founded upon groups with varying moral and religious backgrounds. Often times, these beliefs contradict one another. The constitution rules supreme and we cannot impose our religious on others, lest we slip into a Theocracy. There is a difference between believing something is immoral and knowing it should be valid by the rule of law. In a constitutional Republic, the rule of law wins, thus protecting others from one groups belief system.

As average citizens, we have less responsibility to separate our beliefs from our lives/jobs. Those who sit in the Supreme Court have the utmost responsibility and urgency to do so. No one who sits in that office should cower from their job because of their beliefs. This type of weakness should have been vetted out by the legislative branch.

a reply to: ketsuko

If I were to look into all the varied practices and proscriptions of all religions, I would likely find that they all contain something objectionable from a non-religious perspective. I understand that a person's stance - openly proclaimed as based upon a point of faith - is contentious, for those not similarly faithful. It just seems these objections are projections of fear... not law.

originally posted by: dandandat2
These people should call up their senators and ask them not to confirm Amy Barrett to the Supreme Court if they believe her faith creates a conflict of interest.

I think these are just publicity opportunities to rehash all the objections we were treated to during her confirmation. As a Trump nominee she was not welcome. The effort may be to continue that campaign. I just wish the taxpayers didn't have to "pay" for it. And that every time something they present is a repeat from that process, they would hold up a sign that says, "Here we go again."

a reply to: Maxmars

Maybe I explained it poorly, but for someone irreligious or a-religious, there tends to be this idea, especially in immature ones, that they are mentally/intellectually superior for not believing. So, they either believe that when someone claims they object on religious grounds that they cannot possibly be spiritually serious (i.e. using the excuse of faith to mask something more objectionable - real hatred or bigotry), or that the argument against the irreligious person's preferred ideological position could only possibly be tenable logically and reasonably *if* you rely solely on your religious beliefs, and since those beliefs *obviously* are illogical and completely based on "stupid and magical thinking of the great sky daddy", then anything related to it can be dismissed out of hand and isn't even worth being considered.

Some people said something.

It is curious how some people can say something and there is an argument as if these few people matter at all.

In this case the chances of the some people saying something that results in something other than an argument are zero.

So we've reached the point in time where "news" people must go find people who will say something, then report that as if that has some more substantive meaning that all those people who say nothing.

Mob Rule by the vocal minority is really the most hopeless place to be, which is where we are. This occurs because people get their moral compass from TV, and Facebook, which, has many people who say something.

Begs the question how is that some people saying something is always available to create division no matter what the topic. Some people say, masks should be permanent, to keep others safe. Some people say, white people should kill themselves to make POC feel more comfortable.

Some people say = grotesque manipulation which is meant to divide, often based on "topics" that are as permanent and long lasting as sand castle in a hurricane.

As for should she "recuse herself?" The some people don't know how anything works.

Funny how no one is ever asked to recuse themselves over suspected connections to, say, Bohemian Grove, Bilderbergers, or certain foreign oligarchs or lobbyist groups.

But, yeah, Christians just can't be fair.

Well if that is the logic the left is using xuenchen, we Libertarians and those few real R's can say similar yet actually factual things about the leftists the NWO have appointed to the COTUS. There being LBGTQ should make them recuse themselves for one. They can't have it both ways like they try to do to us all the time, anymore.


Of course, that will not be tolerated. It must be one way for them. That appears to be look the other way about their own actions while attacking others for merely appearing to do that very thing they do.

originally posted by: xuenchen
🎺

October 6, 2020 -- Amy Coney Barrett served as a ‘handmaid’ in Christian group People of Praise

While Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has faced questions about how her Catholic faith might influence her jurisprudence, she has not spoken publicly about her involvement in People of Praise, a small Christian group founded in the 1970s and based in South Bend, Ind.

Barrett, a federal appellate judge, has disclosed serving on the board of a network of private Christian schools affiliated with the group. The organization, however, has declined to confirm that she is a member. In recent years, it removed from its website editions of a People of Praise magazine — first those that included her name and photograph and then all archives of the magazine itself.