Article six of the constitution, and the first amendment outlining the bill of rights within the United States constitution, affirms that every American citizen has the unassailable right to practice their religion in accordance with their own beliefs; no litmus tests are permitted. However, under the doctrines of Marxism religion is a threat to state control.
Modern Democrats are Marxists. In a push-back to the preferred doctrine of modern democrats U.S. Senator Josh Hawley gives a passionate opening remark during the senate committee hearing for Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett. WATCH:
If Judge Barrett were a Muslim, the Ds and most of the Rs would either be playing on their smart phones or praising diversity.
If she were a Muslim she could take the “takfir” route and just say that Obamacare is constitutional, thus defusing the Dems’ more important attack (“pre-existing conditions”).
In fact, she should do just that. She can always “change her mind” later.
Is “pre-existing conditions” even a correct concept or word usage? If it is pre-existing, it does not exist yet, so how could an Insurance company turn you down? No one would know about it, because it is not there yet.
‘Existing conditions’ makes more sense to me. Course, I do realize that it is coded that way as ‘pre-existing before contract to insure’, but it still sounds weird. Is President Trump a pre-existing president or a existing president before the November 3rd vote?
And of course I realize that this is might not be exactly germane to the existing conversation at hand, but it might have been pre-germane to the pre-conversation, don’t you pre-think?
Who cares? It was the issue that Dems ran on in 2018 when they took the House. It’s the issue that they’re going to try to hammer in the Industrial Midwest. I’m a pro-life Catholic, but Republicans like Hawley accusing Dems of religious bigotry are refuting a democrat argument that basically wasn’t made today. If Barrett wants to make it onto the court (and not kill the president’s re-election chances) she’s going to have to walk back her comments implying that Obamacare was unconstitutional. She gave Dems that ammunition (before she was nominated) and now they’re going to be running ads in PA, MI, WI & MN about how Trump’s nominee wants to take away the health insurance of … (insert picture of downtrodden person here). The Dems have been prepping for how to fight ACB for years, and they’re not stupid enough to run that “dogma lives loudly” crap again. She needs to find a way to defuse the “pre-existing conditions” issue STAT. If that means playing fast and loose with the truth, so be it.
It’s like generals fighting the last war, not the one they must fight now.
Pre-existing condition means a condition existing prior to a point in time, not a point in time prior to the existence of the condition.
amber…really something to think about! This will be on my mind and beyond most of the day.
An English absolutist nazi? It is “pre-existing” to getting insured and YES that is a correct term in usage and tense.
We should wonder why Barrett’s Catholic faith has the Left in fits while Ilhan Omar’s Muslim faith doesn’t?
Be careful what you wish for — would you want a litmus test for a Muslim nominee?
No. I’d hope the Senate judges a Muslim nominee on how they ruled on the bench just like any other candidate. A radical leftist judge that is also Muslim/Jewish/Atheist/Catholic/etc. is going to be a no vote.
Yes. Sharia or constitutional?
Yes, I would be fine with a litmus test for a Muslim nominee. We are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles, not Muslim principles. I am more than happy to allow American Muslims to practice their religion in any way that they see fit. I don’t necessarily want them making life-and-death decisions for the country. Muslims don’t have the Ten Commandments. Muslims don’t have the Golden Rule. They are the tenants our civilization was founded on. Not their’s.
Islam is a murder cult that poses as a religion. I despise the cult and hope that every member escapes its grasp, either in this life or the next.
In case you are unaware of their nefarious plans to dominate all infidels, particularly America, I suggest you look into the Exploratory Memorandum the FBI found hidden in an underground basement after catching several muslims taking pics of bridges in NJ back in 2004. They want to use our laws against us. Here is a sneak peak of their ultimate plan:
“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
Here’s a link to a part of a series where I cut and pasted this quote.
We better wake up. FAST. Think Ellison, Tlaib, Omar to name a few.
https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2010/10/26/fbi-captured-muslim-brotherhoods-strategic-plan/
Lying is part of their “religion” =Taqqiya.
Islam has been quiet for a while, but they will be back.
Why are they there in the first place????
A judge must be able to totally compartmentalise their beliefs from their interpretation of laws. If they are unable to do that then they must not be a judge. So anyone – muslim, buddhist etc – who can compartmentalise can be a judge.
Wrong. That’s a brainwashed position. Law has to be based on morality. Remember the old liberal screed, you can’t legislate morality? Of course you can. It’s the only reason to have laws. Because you can make anything legal. But you can’t make everything moral. A judge that looks at law without applying morality doesn’t deserve to be a judge.
Exactly right, Star.
Those raised on “Critical theory” believe everything is relative, facts trumped by “lived experience”, “morality” dependent on privilege status.
They must be rigorously excluded from the judiciary.
You have totally misrepresented my position there. I said nothing whatsoever about ignoring morality. You have leapt onto some preconceived notion of yours and read it into my words. You may retract your accusations.
Muslims cannot be American based on their belief system, you are either American or muslim, but that is a pesky little thing no one ever talks about.
Islam is a total package, a political system (sharia law) wrapped up in a religion. It’s fundamentally incompatible with a Constitutional republic under Judeo-Christian principles. Therefore, a practicing muslim that believes in sharia law would work to overthrow our current system or at best do nothing to promote it. Muslims have no place in our government.
I feel bad for Judge Barrett. At one point she looked as though she was almost crying.
I expect she got a pep talk from Justice and Mrs. Kavanaugh this weekend.
She got a pep talk from Ted Cruz several days ago.
Of these vile democrats get too vicious Senator Graham should bring the hearings to a close and send her nomination to the floor for a vote. No need to drag this out for a week of evil progressive theatrics!
Graham doing something like that?
Besides having bad teeth, Graham has no hair on his testicles……if he even has testicles.
Yeah, I know. Wishful thinking. 🙁
.
But he IS up for re-election next month.
..Bad teeth..hmmm..tooo much scotch ??????
To have hair on one’s testicles one must first possess testicles, which I don’t believe he has.
Schumer is claiming he has a plan to slow the nomination.
R U listening, Ms Lindsey ?
Your chance to shine here!
I am sure Barrett is made of stern stuff.
…But that’s just the thing, giving ACB a hard time is like clubbing a baby seal.
At least to me, that’s what it seems like.
Especially since her children have to sit there and listen to it all.
Good to see a “set” from a politician.
Josh is certainly a rising star. He has put out numerous on point videos.
“Schumer is claiming he has a plan…” Schumer needs to meet Mike Tyson.
mickey, ICWYDT… bravo ?
Mitch…I assume you are referring to Josh???
Thank you Senator Hawley!
We are tired of being bullied by the Left.
It’s halftime in America . . .
as President Trump’s first term comes to a close.
Oh Clint why did you have to go and endorse Bloomberg and ruin it all.
Proud that he is my Senator!
I hate to say it this way…me, too. He has really surprised a lot of folks in his home state of Missouri. Pleasantly. For a junior Senator, he his certainly making his mark.
We Kansans are jealous…
You Kansans delivered Pompeo. He absolutely shredded Hillary at the Benghazi hearings. Problem is deep state let her slide.
Isn’t that what has been done to all Christian? They closed the Churches, they’ve literally put muzzles (masks) on us AND, what is worse, people are thanking them for it. Masked pastors encouraging “virtual Churches”….makes me sick!
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Atheists read the bible too…….
Quoting the Bible is easy, but the Holy Spirit is needed for a real interpretation of the scriptures.
Stupid Repubs. They bring this on themselves by allowing the Pedocrats a forum to ply thire vile Satanic filth. Call for the vote. They can bet thire asses if the shoe was on the other foot it would have been a done deal. Use Romper Room tactics against VietCong tactics and you’ll lose every time.
Wonder if this is going to change the vote of “that senator who was a Mormon, the governor,” said Biden.
Seems pretty mild so far.
Harp on issues if they must and Democrats will. But beating up on Amy and religion is not a good strategy.
Mike…you are absolutely correct. The Repubs do not need the dems at all as they don’t have a voice in this decision. Hope the Senate deck gets a reschuffle soon.
Y’all see why Missouri sent Josh to DC?
He’s outstanding.
Now, if we could only clone him 20-30 times.
thought…wish he lived here in Arizona!!!
I find it quite ironic that the Dims condemn ACB’s religious convictions while simultaneously portraying the Law as antithetical to religious “dogma”. Surely they know, as most of us do, that Judeo-Christian ethics are fundamental to all Western Civilization’s structure of laws. The trouble with Dims is that in their fervent and perpetual push for expansion of “freedoms” beyond those explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution they bump into others rights. One cannot exercise their freedoms at the expense of others exercising theirs.
The DemoCommunists are not at all interested in any laws or rights that in any way threaten or diminish their grip on power.
They are not interested in expanding any freedoms that interfere with their ideology or their sole authority and power. That has been evident by the way DemoCommunist Governors have stomped on citizens freedoms using covid as a weak excuse, and the way those DemoCommunist Governors and Mayors have stomped on business and individual rights (example – McCloskeys) by permitting violent riots to destroy property and harm individuals.
The DemoCommunists detest the U.S. Constitution because it cannot be easily manipulated to their sole advantage. That is why they have been using the Article III Courts to legislate from the bench, and why they cheated at the polls and with fraudulent ballot harvesting to seize state power in California so that they could remove people’s rights through legislation.
Kinda like their Muslim Brotherhood comrades.
Democracy is like a bus. When you reach your destination, you get off. (Paraphrasing Erdogan, wannabe Sultan of the neo-Ottoman Empire.)
That is severely bad optics; the ‘defendant’ sits gagged (bound too, maybe?) allowed only to hear, forbidden to speak while invective fly through the air. But it is not only her on trial. At stake is an entire way of life.
That’s it. I couldn’t explain the feeling I had about her sitting there with the mask on. You described it perfectly.
When you say “severely bad optics” for one side or the other in particular?
I agree, and we know from previous hearings of all types, that she will be given a minimal amount of time to speak from the opposition.
Not being able to breath is a terrible thing. Gave me a headache.
ata boy… with respect…its a southern expression…hawley would appreciate it
While I agree with what Hawley is saying, the demonrats line of attack is focused on Obozocare being overturned, not on religion. The dimms know going down the religion bashing road will backfire on them.
I bet they get down that road when the obozocare whining runs out. I’m all for McConnell ending the hearing and putting the nomination to a floor vote. Yesterday.
My bet is that it never gets brought up. All we’ll hear about is Obozocare and abortion.
This Young Man is one to watch Well Done Sir!
His questioning of Comey was also very good.
(Starting at 2:44:15)
TY Orbanista and TY Josh Hawley!
That questioning and testimony will come back to haunt comey.
rick…aren’t we, when replying, suppose to reply to the person using their name? Hard to follow a reply with no reference or one made earlier. TY
the bigotry and anti-Semitism is out in the open with Gov Cuomo singling out the traditional Jewish communities, in NYC, for higher infection rate of covid and shutting down their gatherings. Dr. Michael Savage did a great segment on his radio show last week explaining other neighborhoods near the Jewish enclaves, had an even higher infection rate and Cuomo left them alone. Now it comes out that two of the photos Cuomo used were from 14 years ago. When is the DOJ going to stop this?
Cuomo is only attacking the Orthodox Jewish community because they support President Trump. He’s not laying a hand on the others!
JINOs.
Ann…cuomo is a most despicable person ever. There seems to be no end to his satanic rulings and should be in jail facing charges for murder. With all the devious cheating going on he will most like be “re-elected” when he runs.
Just curious because I’m at work and can’t watch these hearings, but has anyone brought up the Jacobson ruling from 1905? My guess is the dimms won’t because they agree with the decision and the GOP won’t because they don’t want to ask ACB any hard questions. Would like to hear her in her own words speak to that SCOTUS ruling.
Sadly, because everything is so polarized now, actual discussion on substantive matters gets shoved aside for “gotcha” questioning.
What? This is new to me! Democrats and Bigotry?
(And I mean that with every bit of sarcasm which can be expressed. Democrats ARE bigots! Their long history is of bigotry! They are the KKK. They are the Jim Crow! They are the anti-civil rights!)
Wonderful, Senator Hawley.
Just wonderful.
Thank you!
The Democrats wanted Merritt Garland who would have been the 5th Jewish Justice on the Supreme Court. Sotomayer is Jewish although she was cleverly marketed as a Hispanic.
Not being religious, but growing up around mostly Catholics, going to Catholic school I just see them as “normal” people. What assumed issues singles them out from other religions or denominations?
I just see it as such a joke when you can’t attack anyone these days for anything, except religion and being Republican, I guess.
I suspect that one day we will be supporting Senator Hawley as the republican presidential nominee. He never fails to impress
definitely a contender worth noting..
At the very least verbal wrangling with Hawley would be a dangerous tactic for an opponent.
I know some people don’t like the mask on ACB, but, wow, she is a complete blank slate other than what she is going to say.
When the Democrats get down and dirty into character assassination and lies, something that might provoke a wry smile from us, they’ll get in return… nothing. Just a mask. Her judicial, professional mask, underneath it all and a physical mask to quash fleeting emotions across her face.
I say let the Democrats scorn her for a week; she’ll survive stronger and more resolute. No doubt, she possesses an excellent memory and will forever recognize a Democratic shit-show when one comes before her. I welcome the opinion of the mother of five who strongly believes in our God Almighty and has proven her interest in teaching outside of her home. I trust she can add a good bit of perspective alongside eight others.
At her confirmation hearing, did anyone ask RBG about her religion?
No. She removed it when she had her chance to speak..
Marxist Harris married Douglas Emhoff who is a partner at DLA Piper LA / DC and ACTIVELY JEWISH. Someone on this committee needs to smack-down this arrogant, conniving unpresidential puppet with this hypocrisy! How can she attack ACB for her Catholic views when she and hubby embrace the Hebrew faith…
Hebrew is a language.
“Actively Jewish” in caps?
– – That’s supposed to make it true?
– – Hint: marrying Kamala disqualifies the “actively”
All we know about her husband is that he came out of a Jewish womb and was (presumably) circumsized.
And that’s supposed to – what ? – mellow this Kamala creature…?
So “abolish” Obamacare doesn’t abolish healthcare. The Catholic and Protestants started hospitals in America. Everybody in the room was born in a hospital started by a church. Obamascare had put some hospitals out of business.
Dems don’t want anybody with a conscience or a strong moral or ethical code. Come on man!
I would agree with what you say, but it is not just the having to wear a mask. Here we have a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing for a Supreme Court nominee where the nominee has to quietly sit, gagged from saying a single word(with or without a mask) for 4 hours of members pontificating and expressing anything they want before she even gets to make a 10 minute opening statement. Why make a nominee sit through all of that except to preen and bask in your own power to lord over someone else?
The Congressional Committee hearings are all centered around the members and their ‘powerful positions'(and ego), not the subject or person the hearing is about. I find this as disrespectful, unproductive, and unprofessional as the current crop of so called journalists that make the interview about themselves instead of the person they are interviewing.
Oops! This reply was meant to go under ‘rrick’s’ 2:51pm post.
Sigh.
It was after reading only your first sentence that I thought you were responding to my earlier comment. So be assured, it was understood where you meant your comment to go.
Quite, indeed, it is exactly the preening of those others who like to hear themselves talk. It is ego and bluster. And truly do they seek to lord over others. It is why I do not pay much attention to these so-called hearings. In public, if I were to ever meet one of these, I would certainly show them my disdain and contempt.
I have met some of these type politicians in years past. In each case I had noted the smallness of their minds is proportionate to their supposed importance. None are worthy of the position, all have defaced the office. Let no American exclaim the presence of these fools nor welcome them. Surely, they are fools.
I’ll also say, in response to others expressing affirmation of this or that beloved politician, be very careful of what you wish. I became politically minded at age 17. I am now 62. Every politician has let me down. They had let me down not in some small ways which may be allowed for none are perfect; but in large, significant, substantial ways for which no excuse could be given. That is every politician. My country continues to pay the price for the dishonesty and self-aggrandizing manners coupled with enriching backroom deals which characterize the slimy bastards.
Those Senators attacking Judge Barrett due to her religion also violated federal law.
“Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. “ CHECK
“The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.” CHECK
“It is illegal to harass a person because of his or her religion for example, offensive remarks about a person’s religious beliefs or practices. CHECK
The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.” CHECK
https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination
of his or her religious beliefs. “ CHECK
“The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.” CHECK
“It is illegal to harass a person because of his or her religion for example, offensive remarks about a person’s religious beliefs or practices. CHECK
The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.” CHECK
https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination
Senator Hawley is simply outstanding! He impresses each time he speaks.