• Welcome to TalkWeather!
    We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion.
    CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER

Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kory said:
I'm tired of the Left disparaging a lady, who has pristine judicial credentials, because of her Catholic faith. I never understood why the Left, in large, is so hostile toward Christians. Then they wonder why they can't win in Middle America.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/32739/limbaugh-democratic-partys-christian-problem-david-limbaugh
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, significant numbers of Christians have opened themselves up to accusations of hypocrisy because of their vocal support for Trump. It continues to be something that absolutely baffles me. I guess I took decades of Bible study and fiery sermons literally instead of figuratively, so I cannot understand the Trump adulation by Christians.
 
I wanted to raise this topic here because I know there are a number of practicing Catholics here. And, most of you have discussed religion with me in the past, and know that I have nothing but respect for Catholics and the Catholic faith. I laud the Catholic Church for its stand on abortion and the death penalty (just one of several key issues where Catholics have an approach that I find preferable to Protestantism) and I ignore/discount the schism/heresy rhetoric.

That said, convince me that I shouldn't care (or that it doesn't matter) that every SCOTUS Justice is either Catholic or practices Judaism (assuming Gorsuch's background). To be fair, I'd be asking the same question if Catholics were unrepresented on the court. And, Catholics have not always been fairly represented on the court. Although I believe a President shouldn't select someone on the basis of religion, race, gender, etc - - or refuse to select someone on that basis - - we know it isn't ignored. It just isn't. I'm interested in hearing Catholics here chime in. Ironically, a Catholic Justice is much more likely to help overturn Roe or critically oppose Trump's lack of grace and mercy than a random Protestant would. Ideologically, I don't share much in common with Protestants these days compared to Catholics. But, I'm still concerned about SCOTUS having a more representative and diverse group of people. Less Harvard/Yale and more Michigan, Georgetown, Notre Dame.

Again, interested in hearing Catholics weigh in. Would it matter to you if all Justices were Protestant and Jewish (as they were during certain periods of country's history)? Would you feel adequately represented by those on SCOTUS?

Just to provide some stats for anyone data minded:

Around 70% of Americans identify as being Christian. Around 46-50% of Americans identify as Protestant while 20-23% identify as Catholic. Be careful...not saying that the Catholic/Protestant breakdown is out of the 70% Christian - - it isn't! It is out of ALL Americans. Finally, around 2% of the country identities as Jewish (I don't know if they separate secular vs religious Jews).

Interested in responses, comments, etc.
 
This is disgusting and vile. Absolutely reprehensible:

 
Evan said:
Unfortunately, significant numbers of Christians have opened themselves up to accusations of hypocrisy because of their vocal support for Trump. It continues to be something that absolutely baffles me. I guess I took decades of Bible study and fiery sermons literally instead of figuratively, so I cannot understand the Trump adulation by Christians.
Click to expand...

I thinks it best summed up in the old phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend. "
 
gangstonc said:
I wonder if this will change that. I wonder if the abortion claim is true. I guess we will find out soon enough when the Cohen evidence comes to light.

https://usa.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/the-beeb-vs-the-donald/
Click to expand...

Not a chance. As long as the democrat party continues to veer farther leftward, the Republican Party can as well without causing too many issues. One of the main reasons I don't like the term "conservative". The more the democrats slide to the left, the more people will justify anyone who isn't as far according to their standards.
 
gangstonc said:
I’m concerned that trump could be picking a judge that could be deciding if he can pardon himself, if he is required to respond to a subpoena, if he can be indicted, etc.


These are not the actions of an innocent man.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/us/politics/trump-special-counsel-interview.html
Click to expand...
It appears as though Kavanaugh would be the protection pick if Trump decided to go that route. If he picks him, we know Trump is concerned with protecting himself.
 
gangstonc said:
It appears as though Kavanaugh would be the protection pick if Trump decided to go that route. If he picks him, we know Trump is concerned with protecting himself.
Click to expand...
I'm actually hoping its Ray Kethledge who gets the nod. Highly doubt it, but that is who I'd pick. I think Trump goes with Barrett.

Kethledge is a huge 2nd Amendment supporter and has grilled lower courts for not enforcing the precedent set by the Heller ruling. This is seen as leftist states have done NOTHING but trample constitutionally guaranteed rights.
 
Evan said:
I wanted to raise this topic here because I know there are a number of practicing Catholics here. And, most of you have discussed religion with me in the past, and know that I have nothing but respect for Catholics and the Catholic faith. I laud the Catholic Church for its stand on abortion and the death penalty (just one of several key issues where Catholics have an approach that I find preferable to Protestantism) and I ignore/discount the schism/heresy rhetoric.

That said, convince me that I shouldn't care (or that it doesn't matter) that every SCOTUS Justice is either Catholic or practices Judaism (assuming Gorsuch's background). To be fair, I'd be asking the same question if Catholics were unrepresented on the court. And, Catholics have not always been fairly represented on the court. Although I believe a President shouldn't select someone on the basis of religion, race, gender, etc - - or refuse to select someone on that basis - - we know it isn't ignored. It just isn't. I'm interested in hearing Catholics here chime in. Ironically, a Catholic Justice is much more likely to help overturn Roe or critically oppose Trump's lack of grace and mercy than a random Protestant would. Ideologically, I don't share much in common with Protestants these days compared to Catholics. But, I'm still concerned about SCOTUS having a more representative and diverse group of people. Less Harvard/Yale and more Michigan, Georgetown, Notre Dame.

Again, interested in hearing Catholics weigh in. Would it matter to you if all Justices were Protestant and Jewish (as they were during certain periods of country's history)? Would you feel adequately represented by those on SCOTUS?

Just to provide some stats for anyone data minded:

Around 70% of Americans identify as being Christian. Around 46-50% of Americans identify as Protestant while 20-23% identify as Catholic. Be careful...not saying that the Catholic/Protestant breakdown is out of the 70% Christian - - it isn't! It is out of ALL Americans. Finally, around 2% of the country identities as Jewish (I don't know if they separate secular vs religious Jews).

Interested in responses, comments, etc.
Click to expand...
For me, it comes down to the justices defending the Constitution (as an originalist) and Judeo-Christian values the Constitution was drafted upon whether that be done by a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, or a person of another faith. A lot of people want this separation of church and state, but that will NEVER fully happen. I'd love for the best person to be selected for the job...the best credentials, but when law has so much to interpret, it is hard to set that "who has performed best at their job?" I think it would be tough for me to accept a justice, who has expressed contempt for the Judeo-Christian values deeply rooted in our country's history, on the bench when so much of our law is based in that. The founding fathers didn't want a theocracy, but they often spoke frequently of religious values and morality...just take a look at George Washington's farewell speech.

So full circle, I'd be totally okay with a fully Jewish/Protestant court if they upheld those values/were originalists.
 
Weak pick by Trump. Kavanaugh reportedly said he'd "respect precedent on Roe v Wade." I wonder if he'd respect precedent of rulings such as Plessy v Ferguson, Dred Scott v Sandford, or Korematsu v. United States if he were presented with those?

Leave it to Trump to disappoint yet again.
 
Evan said:
Interested in responses, comments, etc.
Click to expand...

Me, personally, I just want them to do their job. I forget that they're all Catholic or Jewish until I read something about it. I'm not concerned with their religious background.
 
ghost said:
Could you explain why Kavanaugh would offer Trump more protection?
Click to expand...
Kavanaugh has said in his writings that a president should not be subject to investigation, indictment, etc. He believes a president should be able to end investigations against himself.

"A sitting President cannot and should not be indicted or subject to a criminal investigation or civil suit." https://t.co/vlKAz8nZFS
 
Last edited:
Kavanaugh has warmed up to me a little. Assault weapons bans are haphazard and riddled with loopholes.




Not sure I'd call this dissent "radicial" but it doesn't fit the liberals "OMG SCARY BLACK TACTICAL RIFLES ARE KILLING EVERYBODY" shtick.

In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns – the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic – are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semiautomatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
gangstonc said:
Kavanaugh has said in his writings that a president should not be subject to investigation, indictment, etc. He believes a president should be able to end investigations against himself.

"A sitting President cannot and should not be indicted or subject to a criminal investigation or civil suit." https://t.co/vlKAz8nZFS
Click to expand...
I have mixed views on this, but do you not think that any alternative to this would lead to political upheavel? We’ve had peaceful transitions of power for 242 years of our country’s existence. I think he makes a fair point here: "If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available," Kavanaugh wrote in the Minnesota Law Review in 2009. "No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress."

Let Congress handle it through Constitutionally laid out procedures while he is in office and then levy charges if warranted if/when he is removed.
 
Kory said:
I have mixed views on this, but do you not think that any alternative to this would lead to political upheavel? We’ve had peaceful transitions of power for 242 years of our country’s existence. I think he makes a fair point here: "If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available," Kavanaugh wrote in the Minnesota Law Review in 2009. "No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress."

Let Congress handle it through Constitutionally laid out procedures while he is in office and then levy charges if warranted if/when he is removed.
Click to expand...
I actually agree with the indictment issue. However, I don't think a president should be able to end an investigation into himself and that he should have to answer to subpoenas and civil lawsuits during his term.
 
Those who hold more power should be held to a higher standard than the average Joe. That's what makes Trump so frustrating to me. If one of my admins breaks a rule or acts a fool then they're going to get a harsher/more critical punishment than if a troll or newbie did it. They should know better and are representatives of the community.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top