First part is a statement.  Assuming captured properly, is FACT.

Second part is an opinion. That latter part is what I hate about biased media these days, that weak minded folks will tend to remember and connect both as facts, when not true.  At least not necessarily. 

Yeah, I get that unbiased news is rare these days, but there are so many Americans that will just take what a "trusted source" reports as the truth.  It's no different than the propaganda machines of countries that many Americans think we're above.

The Second part is not just an opinion, it's a perfect example of SPIN.

The statement appears to reflect an acknowledgment that Barrett’s personal views on abortion could hurt her chances at confirmation.

"appears to reflect" tells you they are interpreting what she said.  Their interpretation is wrong.

She was not acknowledging that her personal views on abortion could hurt her chances.  That would mean she believes those views should / will be considered in her nomination process.  Nothing in her statement comes close to saying this.

A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.

To me, that looks like plain English.  She's stating that ANY judge's personal views should not lead them to make policy.  A judge should apply the law as written.  Period.

In other words, she believes in leaving one's views on abortion at the door, and in deciding cases on the merits of the case, the Constitution, and the existing precedences.

Don't trust what she said.  Listen to what I'm telling you she said.   

The Second part is not just an opinion, it's a perfect example of SPIN.

"appears to reflect" tells you they are interpreting what she said.  Their interpretation is wrong.

She was not acknowledging that her personal views on abortion could hurt her chances.  That would mean she believes those views should / will be considered in her nomination process.  Nothing in her statement comes close to saying this.

To me, that looks like plain English.  She's stating that ANY judge's personal views should not lead them to make policy.  A judge should apply the law as written.  Period.

In other words, she believes in leaving one's views on abortion at the door, and in deciding cases on the merits of the case, the Constitution, and the existing precedences.

Don't trust what she said.  Listen to what I'm telling you she said.   

omni's reply will be:
"but, muh feelings..."

omni's reply will be:
"but, muh feelings..."

As he frantically pokes at his iFag for more arguerment talking points.

To me, that looks like plain English. 

Of course, feelings and emotion are what matters to liberals, not clear speech or facts.

True, I think the most important part of this article is the fact she signed off. All judgements should be based on that fact not the authors opinion.

Tell that to RBG's supporters as it applies to her gun control agenda.  She believed the 2nd Amendment was 100% relegated to the militia, and that the people, apart from serving in a militia, had no right to keep or bear arms.  She said that the Heller decision was WRONG.

Never mind that pesky clause that says, "being necessary to the security of a free State."  That's the part that says we need to be able to protect ourselves from tyranny, both foreign AND DOMESTIC.  Logically, if only the state (militia) has the means to apply force, then the people are no longer free.  "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".  The people, not the militia nor the state, has the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

Yet, she applied her personal opinion on the 2nd Amendment to cases every chance she had.

I don't see Barrett coming close to this "shining example".

I love that everyone here conveniently ignores the one thing I pointed out and bandwagons the one thing I said was wrong...don't read the article for the author but just read it for the ONE FACT that she signed off on an anti abortion groups ad.  Fuck the liberal author spin etc,  I didn't link it because of the bias of all authors left or right.  Facts dont lie.  Please don't ignore them folks.  Don't be a sheep.

Tell that to RBG's supporters as it applies to her gun control agenda.  She believed the 2nd Amendment was 100% relegated to the militia, and that the people, apart from serving in a militia, had no right to keep or bear arms.  She said that the Heller decision was WRONG.

Never mind that pesky clause that says, "being necessary to the security of a free State."  That's the part that says we need to be able to protect ourselves from tyranny, both foreign AND DOMESTIC.  Logically, if only the state (militia) has the means to apply force, then the people are no longer free.  "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".  The people, not the militia nor the state, has the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

Yet, she applied her personal opinion on the 2nd Amendment to cases every chance she had.

I don't see Barrett coming close to this "shining example".

Ummm are you assuming I support RBG?  I don't and FYI I never did...not sure why you are trying to explain why she is bad on 2a.  I already know that.  I am focusing on the present, RBG is dead, end of story. 

As he frantically pokes at his iFag for more arguerment talking points.

Also FYI rob,  I use an android device.  Might be a lil hard to keep up with the times.   They are devices that came up after your flip phone.

I love that everyone here conveniently ignores the one thing I pointed out and bandwagons the one thing I said was wrong...don't read the article for the author but just read it for the ONE FACT that she signed off on an anti abortion groups ad.  Fuck the liberal author spin etc,  I didn't link it because of the bias of all authors left or right.  Facts dont lie.  Please don't ignore them folks.  Don't be a sheep.

facts don't lie
 
"A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold."

facts don't lie
 
"A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold."

That's true,  you seem to have a lot of faith in her ability to do this. I should expect she recuses herself from all abortion rights cases then?   If she said that in public I would more than be ready to support her.   She hasn't yet and that is my only worry.

That's true,  you seem to have a lot of faith in her ability to do this. I should expect she recuses herself from all abortion rights cases then?   If she said that in public I would more than be ready to support her.   She hasn't yet and that is my only worry.

so how come you have no issue with jews and other catholics and other religions being on the supreme court and "possibly" having an issue with removing their personal beliefs from their rulings?

Ummm are you assuming I support RBG?  I don't and FYI I never did...not sure why you are trying to explain why she is bad on 2a.  I already know that.  I am focusing on the present, RBG is dead, end of story.

That's your problem.  I say one thing, and you try to read between the lines.  Just like when we correct your mistakes, you interpret the comments to fit your response rather than address the points directly.

Did I ever, even once, say you supported RBG?  Ever?  No, I did not.  I used her obvious bias and how her rulings in those related cases obviously indicated bias.  She never met a gun control law she didn't like.  When she sat down on that bench with the fervent understanding that Heller was decided wrongly, and that the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual right, then her rulings can be criticized as being tainted by her personal beliefs.

Amy Coney Barrett, while also being allowed to have her personal beliefs, has given no one cause to think her beliefs have influenced any of her decisions.

That's the difference.  You take what I said about RBG personally, even though I was using her history as a parallel to Barrett's. 

Stop reading into these posts what you want to see.  If you aren't sure, ask.  It's called "communication".

That's true,  you seem to have a lot of faith in her ability to do this. I should expect she recuses herself from all abortion rights cases then?   If she said that in public I would more than be ready to support her.   She hasn't yet and that is my only worry.

this doesn't mean she has to recuse herself
she has stated that she will only rule on the law

facts don't lie
 
"A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold."

so how come you have no issue with jews and other catholics and other religions being on the supreme court and "possibly" having an issue with removing their personal beliefs from their rulings?

And round, and round he goes. . .

Again, totally missing the point

this doesn't mean she has to recuse herself
she has stated that she will only rule on the law

So if someone is biased you think they can magically remove all bias and rule with no bias?  Then why would anyone ever recuse themselves?

Judges are not policymakers,

Seem to be an awful lot of activist "judges" that disagree with you.

Liberals have made judge-shopping into an art to force their agenda on us.

so how come you have no issue with jews and other catholics and other religions being on the supreme court and "possibly" having an issue with removing their personal beliefs from their rulings?

Unfortunately I have had no opportunity to have a say in who got picked, this is the first justice I have extensively looked at because her opinions can change a major law and swing the court.  I don't believe any religion should be  grounds of judgement, unless it induces marketable bias.   We can prove to some degree of factual bias on certain views because of her religion.  If she can prove they will not affect her decisions by recusing herself then she won't have bias. So far she has not.

Seem to be an awful lot of activist "judges" that disagree with you.

Liberals have made judge-shopping into an art to force their agenda on us.

Yeah all those activists trying to force their ideals of abortion and death penalty on people...I wonder who.

Swings both ways.  I think liberal activism is just as bad, but I refuse to turn a blind eye to the right. You must judge both sides.  Else you are just a blind opposite liberal.  You are what you hate.

That's your problem.  I say one thing, and you try to read between the lines.  Just like when we correct your mistakes, you interpret the comments to fit your response rather than address the points directly.

Did I ever, even once, say you supported RBG?  Ever?  No, I did not.  I used her obvious bias and how her rulings in those related cases obviously indicated bias.  She never met a gun control law she didn't like.  When she sat down on that bench with the fervent understanding that Heller was decided wrongly, and that the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual right, then her rulings can be criticized as being tainted by her personal beliefs.

Amy Coney Barrett, while also being allowed to have her personal beliefs, has given no one cause to think her beliefs have influenced any of her decisions.

That's the difference.  You take what I said about RBG personally, even though I was using her history as a parallel to Barrett's. 

Stop reading into these posts what you want to see.  If you aren't sure, ask.  It's called "communication".

You are trying to connect dots that don't exist.  Her belief on the second amendment has nothing to do with religion...All judges have personal opinions on laws.   That's literally every single judge.  But i feel those that have certain views because of a religion and can be influenced by a 3rd party (pope pastor etc) should be judged more thoroughly to be absolutely sure it does not affect their rulings on laws.

Interesting thing that I found when looking things up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Article_11

Aicarumba

So if someone is biased you think they can magically remove all bias and rule with no bias?  Then why would anyone ever recuse themselves?

What justice on SCOTUS isn't "biased"? That have all made public and published statements demonstrating preferred views on a whole variety of subject matters. If having a pre-existing value or preference is disqualifying, all the justices would have to recuse themselves from almost all cases before the court.

You're argument that "religious" values somehow deserve more scrutiny than "secular" values is vacuous.