She said she would recuse if she might have some religious conflict...and the one she listed was some straight BULLSHIT
...Barrett co-authored a scholarly legal article with John H. Garvey, now the President of the Catholic University of America. They stated their conclusion quite bluntly:
"[W]e believe that Catholic judges (if they are faithful to the teaching of their church) are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty. This means that they can neither themselves sentence criminals to death nor enforce jury recommendations of death."
Catholics differ on this issue for theological reasons, but what matters is what Barrett believes. A full ten years before Pope Francis made clear that he considers all (not most) capital punishment “inadmissible,” Barrett was anticipating the change in Catholic teaching, and binding herself to it. Why? She cites a document of the Second Vatican Council:
"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent of soul."
TLDR; She was like "Whell... some commie Bishops said a thing, and it's not canonical, but I have so suck these Bishops' dicks sooooo I guess I'll have to sit this important decision out."
Catholics differ on this issue for theological reasons, but what matters is what Barrett believes. A full ten years before Pope Francis made clear that he considers all (not most) capital punishment “inadmissible,” Barrett was anticipating the change in Catholic teaching, and binding herself to it.
I'm pro-christianity and even pro-catholicism, but we can't have some fag in a white robe dictating laws in our country.
And it's not even a Catholic issue, Scalia never had this problem... It's ACB's personal retard interpretation. The church was ok with capital punishment for 2000 years, right up to a couple years ago when bergolio started literally started making stuff up to suit his commie agenda...and that was years after ACB wrote her dumb article.
The great thing about Lagoa is that politically she's actually a good replacement for two justices, Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Then when Wise Latina goes into her final diabetic coma, President Trump can nominate a solid right-winger to secure our liberty for thirty more years.
Bush appointee, some say she's weak on abortion and 2A.
I suppose my point would be that she doesn't have to be the best nominee ever, so long as we can get her through the process, secure the integrity of the election, and shut up the psychotic Democrats one more time.
LAGOA > ACB
SAY NO TO ACB!
She said she would recuse if she might have some religious conflict...and the one she listed was some straight BULLSHIT
Source: https://humanevents.com/2019/09/19/amy-coney-barrett-is-not-a-safe-pick-for-the-supreme-court/
TLDR; She was like "Whell... some commie Bishops said a thing, and it's not canonical, but I have so suck these Bishops' dicks sooooo I guess I'll have to sit this important decision out."
WE CAN'T HAVE SOMEONE WHO THINKS THAT'S OK!!
Don't worry. If Trump even gets a whiff of the word "recuse", he's going to take that magic marker and cross her name off the list.
Yep. With Sessions' "recusal" on purely political grounds, that word is heresy at this point.
Your fired
Women get soft on the most asinine reasons. They must go back to where they belong: the nurturing supporting role.
No softie chicks, ACB should not be considered at all.
I'm pro-christianity and even pro-catholicism, but we can't have some fag in a white robe dictating laws in our country.
Damn straight.
And it's not even a Catholic issue, Scalia never had this problem... It's ACB's personal retard interpretation. The church was ok with capital punishment for 2000 years, right up to a couple years ago when bergolio started literally started making stuff up to suit his commie agenda...and that was years after ACB wrote her dumb article.
NO ACB
The great thing about Lagoa is that politically she's actually a good replacement for two justices, Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Then when Wise Latina goes into her final diabetic coma, President Trump can nominate a solid right-winger to secure our liberty for thirty more years.
Is LAGOA not a solid conservative?
Bush appointee, some say she's weak on abortion and 2A.
I suppose my point would be that she doesn't have to be the best nominee ever, so long as we can get her through the process, secure the integrity of the election, and shut up the psychotic Democrats one more time.
This all revolves around abortion does it not? That's gotta be important