The only point you've made is that you don't like her because she is not afraid of commitment.

She's committed to her family, her faith, her occupation, and her oath of office. 

What you'd PREFER is someone who shares your ideologies and will follow those ideals above her obligation to follow the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress.

Ideologues like yourself are afraid of people who act according to principles, because you don't want to be held to the same standards as everybody else.  You want to have an advantage. 

As such, you ASSUME that everyone else thinks like you do. What Liberals expect is for "Liberal" judges to follow their ideological beliefs, as opposed to Conservatives who want the have judges be consistent and constitutionally faithful.

p.s.  The payout location is irrelevant.  The Hawaii laws concerning gambling say wherever the bet is places, either the bettor's end or the bet takers location, makes it illegal if either is in Hawaii.  Look up Internet Gaming laws as they exist for Hawaii.

If the gaming server is in Barbados, and you are in Hawaii playing Texas Hold'em for money, you are breaking the law -- even if the money is changing hands via non-US-based banks.

if you are going to try to dodge laws, you should do more research, genius.

You got me i don't want someone with ideology I don't agree with to be put in.  Someone who doesn't have the same ideology as the Constitution with clearly says separation of church and state. 

There are 4 other Catholics on the Supreme Court.  She will make 5. ...

37% of the House of Representatives are Roman Catholic.  These are the people who actually draft, amend, pass, reject and repeal the laws the Supreme Court interprets. 

Only approximately 22% of the U.S. population is Catholic.
That would be 56% of the Supreme Court and 37% of the House for Reps.
Would it be different if it were Muslims ?

P.S. I don’t know anything about her, am not for or against her, I need to read on stances and legal decisions.
Just these ridiculous arguments make me laugh.

The hypocrisy is the same people who are arguing for separation of Church and State are making an issue of a person's PERSONAL beliefs. So should justices have no faith / religion? They should be looking at their professional background not their personal.

The hypocrisy is the same people who are arguing for separation of Church and State are making an issue of a person's PERSONAL beliefs. So should justices have no faith / religion? They should be looking at their professional background not their personal.

I'm just saying if because of your religion you openly believe something it might not be best if you work in a mandatory non biased job. 

If you have religion all you have to do is have it not influence your opinions on how to do your job.   

That Twitter kingdom of God quote clearly shows she does not have that.  That's all in saying. 

The hypocrisy is the same people who are arguing for separation of Church and State are making an issue of a person's PERSONAL beliefs. So should justices have no faith / religion? They should be looking at their professional background not their personal.

Exactly.  The Senate's job is to decide whether or not the nominee is QUALIFIED for the position based solely on knowledge, experience, character and demonstrated ability.  Anything not related to the job's requirements should be left alone.

Her qualifications would be extremely difficult to match.  Even Democrat Harvard lawyers have nothing but glowing praise for her abilities as a judge.

That means the only thing they can throw at her will be personal attacks.  So far, her faith and her adopted kids have been targeted on Twitter, and as soon as that happens, people come out of the wings telling them to stop.  It only makes the Left look childish and desperate.

My opinion:  The ACA and Roe v Wade are going to be the top two (only?) issues being used to try and scare people against her.  Everything else will be seen as just more of the "Kavanaugh Effect". 

For the Dems to fight this nomination with no chance of blocking her gains them absolutely nothing.  Unless they can delay the vote and use the SCOTUS issue to win the Presidency and the Senate majority, they agains win nothing.

Therefore, they will be trying to delay the confirmation vote at all cost.  It's their only play.

I'm just saying if because of your religion you openly believe something it might not be best if you work in a mandatory non biased job. 

If you have religion all you have to do is have it not influence your opinions on how to do your job.   

That Twitter kingdom of God quote clearly shows she does not have that.  That's all in saying.

The person who cuts my hair is a lesbian. She cuts my hair the way I like it and does a very good job. I don't care who she married - she cuts hair really well so she gets my business.

I'm just saying if because of your religion you openly believe something it might not be best if you work in a mandatory non biased job. 

If you have religion all you have to do is have it not influence your opinions on how to do your job.   

That Twitter kingdom of God quote clearly shows she does not have that.  That's all in saying.

Are you saying that nobody can do a job without being a slave to their perceptions, beliefs and experiences?

We seat thousands of jurors every day who have something in their background that MAY influence their ability to reach an objective decision based on the law and the evidence presented. 

Jurists include both Judges and members of juries.  Both have the same responsibilities.  We trust judges to recuse themselves if a conflict actually comes up.  Jurors, also, get excused if they have conflicts.  Otherwise, we trust that a person's OATH to do their job fairly and as expected will be how things will be done.

That's the system.  You don't have to agree with it, but we trust it every single day.  Your fear of a religious woman becoming a judge after she's been doing that job for 3 years just one level lower in the federal judicial system is irrational.

The person who cuts my hair is a lesbian. She cuts my hair the way I like it and does a very good job. I don't care who she married - she cuts hair really well so she gets my business.

That's exactly what I am saying.  Thats what should be happening.  Now what if because she was a lesbian she only gave certain haircuts that her culture approves?  And showed a bias unbecoming of her job?

This exactly like those "pharmacists" or something a little while back that refused to do their job because of their religious beliefs.  Do your job and keep your beliefs out of it.  Whether you cut hair, dispense medicine or judge law, if you can't you are not qualified for the job.


In 1998, soon after finishing law school, Barrett co-authored an article titled “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” which ultimately concluded, “that Catholic judges (if they are faithful to the teaching of their church) are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty.” <--- this is what i am worried about

That's exactly what I am saying.  Thats what should be happening.  Now what if because she was a lesbian she only gave certain haircuts that her culture approves?  And showed a bias unbecoming of her job?

This exactly like those "pharmacists" or something a little while back that refused to do their job because of their religious beliefs.  Do your job and keep your beliefs out of it.  Whether you cut hair, dispense medicine or judge law, if you can't you are not qualified for the job.


In 1998, soon after finishing law school, Barrett co-authored an article titled “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” which ultimately concluded, “that Catholic judges (if they are faithful to the teaching of their church) are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty.” <--- this is what i am worried about

Got any actual cases to support your FEAR!!??

Fear is an emotion.  Without a rational basis for a fear, we call it a phobia.

I'm sure in the time she's been on the appellate court and as a law professor, there must be one time she's been in trouble for applying her religious beliefs where they were inappropriate.

Take your time.  Just one instance is all you need.

Ginsburg made no attempt to hide her disdain for the 2nd Amendment, yet she never recused herself from gun-related cases.

Obviously, it's not a stretch to trust our judges will make fair decisions without being controlled by their beliefs.

Ginsburg on the 2nd Amendment.....

"In the wake of the fierce, nationwide debate over gun rights and gun control, Justice Ginsburg also
explained the historical basis for her view on the Second Amendment.

"The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia ... Historically, the new government
had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias," she said. "The states required men
to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their
home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire
purpose of the Second Amendment."

Ginsburg said the disappearance of that purpose eliminates the function of the Second Amednment. [sic]

"It's function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those
soldiers will own," she said. "I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need
to support a militia. So ... the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become
obsolete."

https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2013/10/justice_ginsber.php


So wrong.

The idea was to rely for our defense primarily through an armed citizenry that can be called up as a militia. If the people themselves are the military power of the state, then that power cannot be used against the people. That’s what they meant when they called this system “necessary to the security of a free state.” 

The purpose was not only to protect the state from foreign powers.  It was to protect "the people" from tyranny -- both foreign and domestic.

Maybe Ruthie should have printed a copy of her oath of office to remind herself now and again what she was appointed to do:

SCOTUS Justices take 2 oaths of office.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL OATH:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
So help me God.”

THE JUDICIAL OATH:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons,
and do equal right to the poor and to the rich,
and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________
under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Time for a new judge to correct that opinion from the bench.

You got me i don't want someone with ideology I don't agree with to be put in.  Someone who doesn't have the same ideology as the Constitution with clearly says separation of church and state.

Where in the FUCK does it say “Separation of Church and State” in the constitution? Let me tell you, it does not say that at all. You sir are not telling the truth. And you are showing your ignorance of this subject if you really think that the constitution says that. You have some very weird misconceptions of reality.

You have absolutely no proof that ACB doesn’t have the ability to rule per the constitution no matter her feelings about abortion. None. Zero. Zilch. And if she decides something PER THE CONSTITUTION, it does not prove she is deciding a case per her feelings. You are projecting your feelings onto her and that is not reality. And it certainly not fair to her. You are making that up just like you made up that “the separation of church and state” is stated in the constitution. You continue to make shit up.

But let’s discuss this in technical terms if you are capable of critical thinking. Rowe vs Wade was a decision determining legality of state laws as decided by SCOTUS per the constitution. It is not a right, it is not in the constitution and technically speaking, SCOTUS is not supposed to make any laws by deciding what each law the states are supposed to make. THIS IS A STATE ISSUE, NOT A FEDERAL/CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. That is what SCOTUS will decide IF (and that is a big IF) SCOTUS decides to hear whether Rowe vs Wade should be overturned. But there is no evidence (unless you can predict the future) that ACB will not vote to NOT rehear it. There are probably enough constitutionalist (and religious and conservative) SCOTUS justices (that would probably vote to overturn Rowe vs Wade) that will vote to NOT rehear Rowe vs Wade. Justice Kavanaugh has already stated he would vote to not rehear any cases like this. And he is one that would probably vote to overturn Rowe. If SCOTUS did vote to rehear it, and if ACB finds that it is illegal, which it is, and it is overturned, then what happens? Women DO NOT LOSE their right to get an abortion. How can they lose a right that they never had in the first place? What happens is that state law goes back into effect if Rowe vs Wade is overturned. Which is the way it was BEFORE Rowe vs Wade. And women were getting abortions long before that. So tell us all, what would actually change if Rowe vs Wade would be overturned?

You really should understand what you are talking about before you open your mouth. Otherwise you look foolish.

Where in the FUCK does it say “Separation of Church and State” in the constitution? Let me tell you, it does not say that at all. You sir are not telling the truth. And you are showing your ignorance of this subject if you really think that the constitution says that. You have some very weird misconceptions of reality.

You have absolutely no proof that ACB doesn’t have the ability to rule per the constitution no matter her feelings about abortion. None. Zero. Zilch. And if she decides something PER THE CONSTITUTION, it does not prove she is deciding a case per her feelings. You are projecting your feelings onto her and that is not reality. And it certainly not fair to her. You are making that up just like you made up that “the separation of church and state” is stated in the constitution. You continue to make shit up.

But let’s discuss this in technical terms if you are capable of critical thinking. Rowe vs Wade was a decision determining legality of state laws as decided by SCOTUS per the constitution. It is not a right, it is not in the constitution and technically speaking, SCOTUS is not supposed to make any laws by deciding what each law the states are supposed to make. THIS IS A STATE ISSUE, NOT A FEDERAL/CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. That is what SCOTUS will decide IF (and that is a big IF) SCOTUS decides to hear whether Rowe vs Wade should be overturned. But there is no evidence (unless you can predict the future) that ACB will not vote to NOT rehear it. There are probably enough constitutionalist (and religious and conservative) SCOTUS justices (that would probably vote to overturn Rowe vs Wade) that will vote to NOT rehear Rowe vs Wade. Justice Kavanaugh has already stated he would vote to not rehear any cases like this. And he is one that would probably vote to overturn Rowe. If SCOTUS did vote to rehear it, and if ACB finds that it is illegal, which it is, and it is overturned, then what happens? Women DO NOT LOSE their right to get an abortion. How can they lose a right that they never had in the first place? What happens is that state law goes back into effect if Rowe vs Wade is overturned. Which is the way it was BEFORE Rowe vs Wade. And women were getting abortions long before that. So tell us all, what would actually change if Rowe vs Wade would be overturned?

You really should understand what you are talking about before you open your mouth. Otherwise you look foolish.

To augment, the 1st Amendment prevents the government from making laws which establish religion (like England did when they required top political officials belong to the official religion), nor can gov't prohibit the free exercise thereof.

People love to say this means anything that is part of religious doctrine can be prohibited in the context of government -- for example: no 10 Commandments plaques in courthouses, no Christmas displays, no Bibles used for taking oaths, etc.  That's not how it was supposed to be.

Let's say the Bible states that we are required to pay our taxes to the state (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's").  Using the separation concept, anyone who believes the Christian teachings is prohibited from paying taxes to any government under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.  Separation means just that.  The two may never cross each other's doctrine.

People love to pick and choose what parts of the Bible are forbidden to be incorporated in laws, but they always skip over the parts they agree with.  Since when does acceptance of a principal that's taught from religious text required to nullify it from the "separation" requirement?

The entire "separation belief system" crumbles when you realize the entire government was founded on Judeo-Christian ideas, and that the ideas are baked into the Constitution itself.  Trying to separate religion from government is not only what the 1st Amendment is NOT supposed to do, but it's impossible to even try.

It would be like trying to separate conjoined twins that share all of their vital organs.  Religion and government can only be separated if you are trying to kill both religion and the Constitution in the process. 

if you ask most people, we could do with a little more adherence to the ethical teachings of religion.  There's a lot of stealing, killing, and lying going around -- especially in an election season like now.

To augment, the 1st Amendment prevents the government from making laws which establish religion (like England did when they required top political officials belong to the official religion), nor can gov't prohibit the free exercise thereof.

People love to say this means anything that is part of religious doctrine can be prohibited in the context of government -- for example: no 10 Commandments plaques in courthouses, no Christmas displays, no Bibles used for taking oaths, etc.  That's not how it was supposed to be.

Let's say the Bible states that we are required to pay our taxes to the state (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's").  Using the separation concept, anyone who believes the Christian teachings is prohibited from paying taxes to any government under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.  Separation means just that.  The two may never cross each other's doctrine.

People love to pick and choose what parts of the Bible are forbidden to be incorporated in laws, but they always skip over the parts they agree with.  Since when does acceptance of a principal that's taught from religious text required to nullify it from the "separation" requirement?

The entire "separation belief system" crumbles when you realize the entire government was founded on Judeo-Christian ideas, and that the ideas are baked into the Constitution itself.  Trying to separate religion from government is not only what the 1st Amendment is NOT supposed to do, but it's impossible to even try.

It would be like trying to separate conjoined twins that share all of their vital organs.  Religion and government can only be separated if you are trying to kill both religion and the Constitution in the process. 

if you ask most people, we could do with a little more adherence to the ethical teachings of religion.  There's a lot of stealing, killing, and lying going around -- especially in an election season like now.

Well said, Flapp.  I am one of the non religious types, I not only agree with this, but I think religion is a necessary part of our culture and who we are as a country. It is the religious people in this country that do the most good for our country and for their fellow Americans. Generally speaking of course. To be non religious and to not accept religion at its face value is not reality.

Just for fun, for any fans of the egomaniac the notorious-indeed RBG:

Ginsburg’s stance on abortion seemed to edge toward eugenics during a New York Times Magazine interview in 2009 while opining about the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federally funded abortions. Ginsburg said, “Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

“...populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”? Gee, I wonder what population she was referring to? smh.

You really should understand what you are talking about before you open your mouth. Otherwise you look foolish.

Arguing with children/millennials having a smartphone and google may be humorous, but a bit ridiculous.

I suspect they view it like their precious video games, just a game to be "won". 

Where in the FUCK does it say “Separation of Church and State” in the constitution? Let me tell you, it does not say that at all. You sir are not telling the truth. And you are showing your ignorance of this subject if you really think that the constitution says that. You have some very weird misconceptions of reality.

Yup, the goal of Leftism is complete reliance on the State and so they have waged a hundred year war against the Judeo-Christian religious history and principles that this country was founded on.

Yup, the goal of Leftism is complete reliance on the State and so they have waged a hundred year war against the Judeo-Christian religious history and principles that this country was founded on.

The thing is I feel sorry for this Omnigun kid as he has been brainwashed by the media. His thinking that the constitution even says anything remotely close is the brainwashing by the media. But you can’t tell him that. It probably will hurt his feelings. His whole argument is feeling and emotion based and he doesn’t seem to care what the facts and truth is. Sad to see it in our own 2A community.

Well said, Flapp.  I am one of the non religious types, I not only agree with this, but I think religion is a necessary part of our culture and who we are as a country. It is the religious people in this country that do the most good for our country and for their fellow Americans. Generally speaking of course. To be non religious and to not accept religion at its face value is not reality.

This country was given a set of rules( Constitution) that presumed that ethical  men would follow those rules.
Ethics are dictated to us by God eg. the Ten commandments.  Ethics are what you practice
when nobody is watching you.  The founders knew the country would fail if un-ethical men got into
positions of power. They had faith that, that would not happen, but built in safeguards for such an
occurrence.  Those safeguards have been ignored for too long.
Professional ethics are man made rules. Professional ethics are ignored whenever
you can get away with it and it suits your purpose.
America is now run by people ruled by professional ethics,
Democrats, that ignore the Constitutional safeguards.
Ye reap, what ye sow.
.

This country was given a set of rules( Constitution) that presumed that ethical  men would follow those rules.
Ethics are dictated to us by God eg. the Ten commandments.  Ethics are what you practice
when nobody is watching you.  The founders knew the country would fail if un-ethical men got into
positions of power. They had faith that, that would not happen, but built in safeguards for such an
occurrence.  Those safeguards have been ignored for too long.
Professional ethics are man made rules. Professional ethics are ignored whenever
you can get away with it and it suits your purpose.
America is now run by people ruled by professional ethics,
Democrats, that ignore the Constitutional safeguards.
Ye reap, what ye sow.
.

One example of where the expectation of ethical behavior has been destroyed is Congress.  They have immunity for anything they say while acting in their official capacity.  That's why people like Reid, Schiff, Pelosi and Schumer have been able to lie with impunity.

In an interview with former Dem Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, he was asked if he regretted lying on the floor of the Senate when he said Gov. Romney had paid no income taxes -- a lie disproven when Romney made his returns public.  Reid grinned his little Grinch grin and said, "We won, didn't we?"

This is why nobody should believe a single thing the Dems in Congress say.  Ethics flow down from the top of an organization.  Look at the sham impeachment of Trump, the Russia-Collusion attempted coup, and all the lies told about Kavanaugh without a shred of evidence.

Hillary was not a member of Congress when she was using her illegal server to bypass the FOIA requirements of the Secretary of State position.  Her lies were not covered by the immunity she enjoyed as a former member of the Senate.  However, the corrupt FBI and DOJ refused to hold her accountable for violating federal laws.

This is one result of not believing in a higher power.  When you aren't concerned about the laws of your god, savior, or other deity, you start believing your personal situation takes precedence over any other concern.

@inspector and @flapp and @grovler
I swear don't blame everything on millennials.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state#:~:text=The%20most%20famous%20use%20of,between%20the%20church%20and%20state.”

Contrary to popular belief not all media is fake news.

I don't take any offense and hopefully no one here does of what I say.  I'm just an independent voter leaning libertarian in the sea of Republicans.  I'm not even atheist.