It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Making Sense of the Issue of the Day - RBG

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2020 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Had Fox News on.

Geraldo said something. This is all about abortion.

Democrats, leftists must know how crappy their arguments are. To have Constitutional Justices actually interpret the law might end up being a game changer.

But why would democrats be so upset if abortion was abolished? Predominantly minorities have abortions.

Imagine.

Maybe the black population might actually grow beyond 13% if abortions become illegal.

Maybe they can be part of the majority then.

Why would that frighten democrats and leftists?





posted on Sep, 21 2020 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Annee
Maybe not directly related, but my issue is Conservatives can’t/don’t/won’t keep God out of politics.

“On a court that in recent years has chipped away at religious freedom, granting religious privilege to those who would use their faith to discriminate, to exclude or to deny equality, Justice Ginsburg’s voice on behalf of one of America’s most important founding principles – and the vulnerable people it protects – was stalwart and clear. She consistently joined the opinion most protective of the separation of religion and government in virtually every case during her long tenure. www.au.org...



Why would they? Religious freedom is important for everyone.


Not if it takes precedence over freedom from.



In your eyes, just having any religion at all takes precedence over freedom from which means you have a litmus test that excludes the vast majority of people in this country. In your eyes, it wouldn't matter if someone were Wiccan, Hindu, Muslim, or Christian ... they're religious and that's just too much for you.


Separate of Church and State is not that complicated.



posted on Sep, 21 2020 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee


Not if it takes precedence over freedom from [religion].

Freedom of religion is freedom from religion. Who is forcing you to worship anyone or anything?

Seeing someone else worship in their own way is not harming you.

TheRedneck


The current Supreme Court is already pushing its limits on separation of church and state.

It’s gone beyond personal belief.



posted on Sep, 21 2020 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy
The abortion issue is a scam
Overturning Roe V Wade doesn't ban abortion
it leaves it up to each individual state, as it should be
experts estimate more than 30 states will keep abortion available in such a case
Democrats are manipulative liars



posted on Sep, 21 2020 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

Why do they want to perpetuate abortions when the majority of abortions are done on "people of color"?

You'd think that they'd be against abortions so us brown types might not be in the ####ing minority any longer.


edit on 21-9-2020 by DBCowboy because: Covid drank my beer



posted on Sep, 21 2020 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I'm sure that there are a percentage of people that aren't racist and just get off on killing unborn children.

I just can't find the correct percentage.



posted on Sep, 21 2020 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee


Not if it takes precedence over freedom from [religion].

Freedom of religion is freedom from religion. Who is forcing you to worship anyone or anything?

Seeing someone else worship in their own way is not harming you.

TheRedneck


The current Supreme Court is already pushing its limits on separation of church and state.

It’s gone beyond personal belief.


How so ?

Lots of cases I imagine 🙂



posted on Sep, 22 2020 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Seems to me that legally trump should appoint a new judge.

But since it's two months away from an election. I think for the sake of country unity that he hold off until he wins reelection.

Doing this now would only cause more division.



posted on Sep, 22 2020 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




Our Justices are now partisan.


Seems to me that is what a lot of people around here want.

We don't need someone that is going to judge based on anything except the constitution.
Their party and religious views shouldn't even be part of it.
edit on 22-9-2020 by scraedtosleep because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2020 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Annee
Maybe not directly related, but my issue is Conservatives can’t/don’t/won’t keep God out of politics.

“On a court that in recent years has chipped away at religious freedom, granting religious privilege to those who would use their faith to discriminate, to exclude or to deny equality, Justice Ginsburg’s voice on behalf of one of America’s most important founding principles – and the vulnerable people it protects – was stalwart and clear. She consistently joined the opinion most protective of the separation of religion and government in virtually every case during her long tenure. www.au.org...



Why would they? Religious freedom is important for everyone.


Not if it takes precedence over freedom from.



In your eyes, just having any religion at all takes precedence over freedom from which means you have a litmus test that excludes the vast majority of people in this country. In your eyes, it wouldn't matter if someone were Wiccan, Hindu, Muslim, or Christian ... they're religious and that's just too much for you.


Separate of Church and State is not that complicated.



And what legal US document or founding papers has the terms "Separation of church and state" in it as some rule that must be followed?

The USA is freedom OF religion. Not freedom FROM religion.



posted on Sep, 22 2020 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TheRedneck

It's actually rather telling when both sides can't agree on a Justice to interpet the Constitution.

It's partisan.

Our Justices are now partisan.

What would be so terrible about a justice that traditionally interpreted the Constitution?

I guess that's bad now.

We need "progressive" justices?


Exactly the point - EVERY SC Justice and every other judge should be a Constiutionalist.
The very idea that 'Progressives need to balance the court' is a nonsense.



posted on Sep, 22 2020 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee


Not if it takes precedence over freedom from [religion].

Freedom of religion is freedom from religion. Who is forcing you to worship anyone or anything?

Seeing someone else worship in their own way is not harming you.

TheRedneck


The current Supreme Court is already pushing its limits on separation of church and state.

It’s gone beyond personal belief.


I'd wager that Amy Coney Barrett will be a much better Justice than RBG, so relax, she'll uphold the constitution.



posted on Sep, 22 2020 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee


The current Supreme Court is already pushing its limits on separation of church and state.

Name a recent decision based on religion.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 22 2020 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

When the right thing to do legally and the right thing to do for the country are two different things, we have reached a very dangerous place.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 23 2020 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee


Not if it takes precedence over freedom from [religion].

Freedom of religion is freedom from religion. Who is forcing you to worship anyone or anything?

Seeing someone else worship in their own way is not harming you.

TheRedneck


The current Supreme Court is already pushing its limits on separation of church and state.

It’s gone beyond personal belief.


I'd wager that Amy Coney Barrett will be a much better Justice than RBG, so relax, she'll uphold the constitution.


Would she? I really don't know anything about this person.
I wonder how many others do? I wonder how many are just cheering her on because they do whatever trump wants them to do?

What do you know about her? What has she done that makes you think she would be a good scotus pick?
Is there maybe a link to all her judgements so far?



posted on Sep, 23 2020 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee


The current Supreme Court is already pushing its limits on separation of church and state.

Name a recent decision based on religion.

TheRedneck


The fact you can’t see a problem with religious leaning in the USSC — is the problem.



posted on Sep, 23 2020 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee


Not if it takes precedence over freedom from [religion].

Freedom of religion is freedom from religion. Who is forcing you to worship anyone or anything?

Seeing someone else worship in their own way is not harming you.

TheRedneck


The current Supreme Court is already pushing its limits on separation of church and state.

It’s gone beyond personal belief.


I'd wager that Amy Coney Barrett will be a much better Justice than RBG, so relax, she'll uphold the constitution.


I seriously doubt that.

When you’re a member of a religious group that the Handmaid’s Tail is based on — your decisions are going to be influenced by that.

Scalia’s decisions were influenced by his religious beliefs. She worked as his clerk. She was his “heir”.

Dominionism is a real threat to America.



posted on Sep, 23 2020 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee


Not if it takes precedence over freedom from [religion].

Freedom of religion is freedom from religion. Who is forcing you to worship anyone or anything?

Seeing someone else worship in their own way is not harming you.

TheRedneck


The current Supreme Court is already pushing its limits on separation of church and state.

It’s gone beyond personal belief.


I'd wager that Amy Coney Barrett will be a much better Justice than RBG, so relax, she'll uphold the constitution.


I seriously doubt that.

When you’re a member of a religious group that the Handmaid’s Tail is based on — your decisions are going to be influenced by that.

Scalia’s decisions were influenced by his religious beliefs. She worked as his clerk. She was his “heir”.

Dominionism is a real threat to America.



Oh dear, you fell for the Newsweek article , which has since been corrected - by Newsweek.
That's a bit embarrassing for you.

I'm just looking forward to a real Justice being on the court instead of a hack like RBG, who dishonoured the court right up to her dying day, even to her last words.

edit on 23/9/2020 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2020 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee


Not if it takes precedence over freedom from [religion].

Freedom of religion is freedom from religion. Who is forcing you to worship anyone or anything?

Seeing someone else worship in their own way is not harming you.

TheRedneck


The current Supreme Court is already pushing its limits on separation of church and state.

It’s gone beyond personal belief.


I'd wager that Amy Coney Barrett will be a much better Justice than RBG, so relax, she'll uphold the constitution.


I seriously doubt that.

When you’re a member of a religious group that the Handmaid’s Tail is based on — your decisions are going to be influenced by that.

Scalia’s decisions were influenced by his religious beliefs. She worked as his clerk. She was his “heir”.

Dominionism is a real threat to America.



Article VI
Clause 3
US Constitution


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.



posted on Sep, 23 2020 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee


The fact you can’t see a problem with religious leaning in the USSC — is the problem.

No, the problem is that you can't find a single case to back up your false claims.

Name a specific case where religious doctrine was used in the decision. I'll take one where religious doctrine was used in the dissenting opinion.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join