Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died.

[Malthus]

Anyways it's widely reported that Trump is likely to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat - Trump was quoted as saying he was "saving her" for RGB's seat.

Dems have strong arguments to make on the procedural fairness issue - in particular if done during a lame duck session (why do they even have these?).  But I've all ready seen some stuff on Twitter that makes me fear Dems will go after Judge Coney Barrett for her religious faith (she's a practicing Catholic), which would be quite damaging and could drive some voters into Trump's arms.

Uhm, she's the most protestant catholic i've ever heard of

Ms. Barrett told the senators that she was a faithful Catholic, and that her religious beliefs would not affect her decisions as an appellate judge. But her membership in a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise never came up at the hearing, and might have led to even more intense questioning.

Some of the group's practices would surprise many faithful Catholics. Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a "head" for men and a "handmaid" for women. The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.

Current and former members say that the heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home, and how to raise children.

Legal scholars said that such loyalty oaths could raise legitimate questions about a judicial nominee's independence and impartiality. The scholars said in interviews that while there certainly was no religious test for office, it would have been relevant for the senators to examine what it means for a judicial nominee to make an oath to a group that could wield significant authority over its members' lives.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/amy-coney-barrett-nominee-religion.html

She sounds like a fruit loop who has no chance of impartiality.

Her group literally has "handmaids"? Sounds like a step towards my aunt's book. 😄

[merithyn]

I don't think it's crazy to push the "Roe v Wade" issue with her. It's a known quantity. It's not a question. It's come up with every USSC nominee since the 70s.

The woman believes that other women should adhere to her religious morals, regardless of their own. That's enough to not sit her on the Supreme Court.

You know that overturning Roe v Wade wouldn't make abortion illegal, right?  The issue would be left up to the states.

Overturning Roe v Wade I think would be like a dog that catches a car - Republicans would have no idea what to do with it.  They've gotten a lot of mileage over the right to life issue, but there's very little public support for a blanket ban on abortion.

Don't. Just don't.

States are already gutting women's reproductive rights with RvW on the books. So fuck you and your semantics.

So fucking tired of men saying shit like that. 

[Barrister]

I don't think it's crazy to push the "Roe v Wade" issue with her. It's a known quantity. It's not a question. It's come up with every USSC nominee since the 70s.

The woman believes that other women should adhere to her religious morals, regardless of their own. That's enough to not sit her on the Supreme Court.

You know that overturning Roe v Wade wouldn't make abortion illegal, right?  The issue would be left up to the states.

Overturning Roe v Wade I think would be like a dog that catches a car - Republicans would have no idea what to do with it.  They've gotten a lot of mileage over the right to life issue, but there's very little public support for a blanket ban on abortion.

Don't. Just don't.

States are already gutting women's reproductive rights with RvW on the books. So fuck you and your semantics.

So fucking tired of men saying shit like that.

Honestly, I'm curious what the states would do if RvW was overturned.  Support for abortion is approx 70% in the US.


Edit:

The "You know that... right?" formulation was condescending and I apologize.

The overall point stands though.

[Zoupa]

I assume BB would have no issue with a Supreme Court candidate from the Flying Spaghetti Monster Church then?

No questions are to be asked about the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!! It's my religion!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

FSM is such obvious parody I wouldn't give it a moments thought.

Better hypothetical would be a Scientologist.   

How dare you. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as real as your God 

YOu see, I try and deflect and turn this into a more interesting debate, and instead you just have to go and insult me.

I'm not insulting you... I'm saying the empirical evidence is equivalent.

[Valmy]

I don't think much would change initially if RvW got overturned. The states that are against abortion aready make it amost impossible to get one without crossing state lines. But it would open the door to federal legislation.

[The Brain]

I assume BB would have no issue with a Supreme Court candidate from the Flying Spaghetti Monster Church then?

No questions are to be asked about the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!! It's my religion!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

FSM is such obvious parody I wouldn't give it a moments thought.

Better hypothetical would be a Scientologist.   

How dare you. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as real as your God 

YOu see, I try and deflect and turn this into a more interesting debate, and instead you just have to go and insult me.

I'm not insulting you... I'm saying the empirical evidence is equivalent.

Facts can't be insulting? Have you seen katmai's weight?

[Barrister]

I'm not insulting you... I'm saying the empirical evidence is equivalent.

It actually isn't.  You're equating evidence with proof.

We have very good evidence for the existence of Jesus - namely written accounts (which were just the writing down of previous oral histories) written within a few decades of Jesus's life on earth.  Today we know them as the gospels.

Very few historians are of the opinion than no one named Jesus ever existed and that the events told in the gospels are entirely fictional.

[The Brain]

I'm not insulting you... I'm saying the empirical evidence is equivalent.

It actually isn't.  You're equating evidence with proof.

We have very good evidence for the existence of Jesus - namely written accounts (which were just the writing down of previous oral histories) written within a few decades of Jesus's life on earth.  Today we know them as the gospels.

Very few historians are of the opinion than no one named Jesus ever existed and that the events told in the gospels are entirely fictional.

Er... the evidence for spaghetti is overwhelming.

[The Brain]

I miss Catholic fahdiz. Guy was a riot.

[Habbaku]

I think he's a Trumpist now.

[Sheilbh]

I think he's a Trumpist now.

Oh no

I don't think much would change initially if RvW got overturned. The states that are against abortion aready make it amost impossible to get one without crossing state lines. But it would open the door to federal legislation.

Maybe, but what would be the basis of federal legislation.

The old Irish constitutional amendment on abortion was passed with a lot of support from American groups (in 1983) and the campaign for repealing it was opposed by lots of American groups, so it may give an idea of what could be proposed: "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

[Zoupa]

I'm not insulting you... I'm saying the empirical evidence is equivalent.

It actually isn't.  You're equating evidence with proof.

We have very good evidence for the existence of Jesus - namely written accounts (which were just the writing down of previous oral histories) written within a few decades of Jesus's life on earth.  Today we know them as the gospels.

Very few historians are of the opinion than no one named Jesus ever existed and that the events told in the gospels are entirely fictional.

I also have evidence of a dude down my street shouting that's he's the messiah. That's not evidence of God.

[Valmy]

Man I didn't expect a historicity of Jesus debate in this thread.

[viper37]

I'm not insulting you... I'm saying the empirical evidence is equivalent.

It actually isn't.  You're equating evidence with proof.

We have very good evidence for the existence of Jesus - namely written accounts (which were just the writing down of previous oral histories) written within a few decades of Jesus's life on earth.  Today we know them as the gospels.

Very few historians are of the opinion than no one named Jesus ever existed and that the events told in the gospels are entirely fictional.

Believing in Jesus the man, the preacher is one thing.  I do believe in that.  He wasn't the only Jew describing himself as a prophet, speaking for God.  Believing the gospel as they are is another.  There might have been a very, very strong guy in ancient Greece, going around and brawling with his friends.  There might have been people who said he was so strong he must be the son of Zeus and maybe he believed it himself.  Did he kill an hydra? Not too sure about it. 
I believe some of the events described actually happened but were heavily romanced.  But that's equivalent to saying the Illyad is real because we found the real Troy and there was a conflict there at the time describe in the book.

Also, the "biographies" of the time were not like today were authors (generally) try to stick to facts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Genre_and_historical_reliability
There are also some versions of the gospels that contain translation errors, and some gospels who were rejected, or simply lost until very recently.  We can not judge on the existence of Jesus the son of God who died on a cross to save us from our sin based on the partial, non contemporary texts we have.  I can not determine the validity of all that is written with certainty.  I have no way of knowing if he walked on water, if Moses parted the Red Sea, if he could feed a crowd with just a few fishes and bread and if he could make wine from water.  I'm especially interested in that last part... 

Now, I do not disrespect your faith, or anyone else faith.  I feel you should be free to exercise your religion as you are of your political activities: independent of your work.

If an officer of the law is unable to separate its faith from its decision making, like say, not believing a Jewish witness because he is a devout Muslim and his particular branch of faith it dictates that Jews are all liars, there that person incompetent to my eyes.  Same as if a judge would put more faith in the testimony of a Christian than a non Christian.
In the end, I do not feel that I would have to live by the guidelines established by someone else faith.  A judge saying her rulings are inspired by her faith instead of the law is a sure sign of religious radicalism.  It is just as detestable as political radicalism and should be frowned upon coming from any candidate.

[viper37]

Man I didn't expect a historicity of Jesus debate in this thread.

You never know what to expect on Languish.  That's the beauty of this forum.