Posted on 07/09/2018 4:12:25 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
While we don't yet know the identity of Donald Trump's nominee to the US Supreme Court, media reports are clear that the front runners are alarmingly more conservative than outgoing Justice Anthony Kennedy. That is, alarming to those who don't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, depriving women of the right to control their own bodies, and the reversal of Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized same-sex marriage. And it's no exaggeration to say both of those rights are in peril depending on the views of the justice who replaces Kennedy.
For those like me who are gravely concerned about this possible development, the best chance we will have to get a sense of the nominee's views on these issues will be during the Senate confirmation hearings. However, as history has taught us, the nominees are well-coached to be evasive. We saw an example of this just last year with then-Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. When pressed by Senate Democrats regarding his views on whether he would vote to overturn Roe, he offered only vague answers -- such as Roe is the "precedent of the United States Supreme Court," and the "law of the land."
Expect the same from Trump's nominee this time.
If senators truly want to know who poses a threat to abortion rights and marriage equality, I have some suggested questions. First, ask the nominee if he or she supports or denounces the idea of making the Bible, rather than the Constitution, the supreme law of the land....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
“. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Shades of Clarence Thomas and “Natural Law”.
The Big Lie of this soon-to-be-circus of a Supreme Court nomination process is that if Roe v. Wade is repealed women will no longer be permitted to get abortions.
The truth is that if Roe v. Wade is repealed, each state will be able to determine whether to allow abortions or not, most of which will allow them.
If Donald Trump’s nominee were to explain this during his or her confirmation hearings, or if one of the Republican Constitutional scholars on the Senate Judiciary Committee such as Ted Cruz were to do so, the Democratic-incited hysteria would end.
If women were made to understand that Armeggedon was not upon them, it would be easier to get a Conservative justice approved.
If two women in particular — Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski — were to understand this, they would be more likely to approve a Conservative nominee.
So why do I fear that, as usual, NO ONE will bring this up at the hearings?
I think the likeliest nominee to do so would be Amy Barrett because she had the courage to stand up for her religion during her Appeals Court hearings.
But if any of the other finalists is nominated it promises to be “mumble, mumble, law of the land” when Roe v. Wade is brought up, and, even with a firm 5-4 Conservative majority on the Court, the prospects for genuine change will be minimal.
Any such question should be greeted with an immediate asking “Is this the religious test portion of this hearing?”
Since it makes it a lot easier to decide who to throw off roofs.
The constitution is only supreme in those limited areas it's been granted superiority.
The Constitution has NOT been granted superiority over God.
-PJ
The Constitution is Supreme.
#21. Tell that to Feinstein the Stupid. She’s a disgrace to we Jews, as is Schumer.
We call them “Treif” (unkosher/dirty, “Shisters” (shitty lawyer crooks) and “drech” (dirt, filth, trash, junk).
The only thing that matters is if they think God is Supreme. We are only here for a little while and then the ultimate Judgment by the Ultimate Judge!
For instance, Kavanaugh's feelings on abortion are irrelevant to the confirmation process. You might as well ask him who he thinks will win the NL East. His confirmation hearing should be limited to his ability to uphold the Constitution, and his qualifications under the Constitution.
The number one job of the Democrats is to lead Kavanaugh down the garden path of hypotheticals and "what ifs" and "what would you do". Primarily Kavanaugh must ensure that he is impartial and will not rule on a case until he hears it argued. The Democrats will try to elicit a response which implies that he has predetermined outcomes before even hearing a case. This could be fashioned into grounds for disqualification.
Like all demonrats and republicrats and their deep state operatives.
He should say, "I'm sorry. It is not appropriate for me to speak about cases that are likely to come before the Court."
That ought to get 'em.
Yes it is. There is a "supreme court."
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Revelation 20:11,12)
The unsaved dead will be judged by the books of the Bible. The Law will expose their sin. The Gospel will expose their condemnation for having rejected it. Their works of 'righteousness' will be found wanting. Only faith in the completed work of Jesus Christ on the cross would have saved them. They shall be cast into the lake of fire (the 2nd death -- see :14,15) where the smoke of their torment will rise forever.
The left is a death cult that worships buggery and baby-killing.
There is no right to kill the unborn or sodomite "marriage".
What the Court created, the Court can take away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.