Posted on 10/08/2018 4:58:09 PM PDT by knarf
“Why does she only have two black children? Clearly racist. /s”
No Hispanic kids?
She looked like she was wearing PJs and she had her hands all wrapped up - like maybe she was freezing or something. She’s not in good health that’s for sure.
The Dems would sick all the ZPGers & NPGers on her in having five natural children, claiming it leaves a larger footprint on Planet Earth than necessary...all as they fly their private jets to D.C. to appear before jibberish JINOS (journalists in name only)
Me too.
Did Dianne Feinstein accuse a judicial nominee of being too Christian?
September 7, 2017
For the second time in recent months, a senator on the left is drawing criticism for suggesting that a Trump administration nominee’s interpretation of their Christian faith may be disqualifying.
Controversy arose earlier this year when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) took issue with a nominee’s past comments on Islam and Christianity’s view of it. And on Wednesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) said a judicial nominee’s adherence to “dogma” was “of concern” to her.
What will the Rats try to destroy her with?
WIKI——President Donald Trump nominated Barrett on May 8, 2017, to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to the seat vacated by Judge John Daniel Tinder, who took senior status on February 18, 2015.[15][16] President Barack Obama’s January, 2016, nominee for the vacancy, Myra C. Selby, was blocked by the U.S. Senate due to the blue slip opposition of Senator Dan Coats (R-IN).[17] Selby’s nomination was denied a United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing and expired a year later.[18]
A hearing on Barrett’s nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee was held on September 6, 2017.[19] During Barrett’s hearing, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein questioned Barrett about whether her Catholic faith would influence her decision-making on the court. Feinstein, concerned about whether Barrett would uphold Roe v. Wade given her Catholic beliefs, followed Barrett’s response by stating “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern”.[20][21][14][22]
In response to Feinstein’s question, the conservative Judicial Crisis Network began to sell mugs with Barrett’s photo on them and displaying the Feinstein “dogma” quote.[17][23]
Senator Dick Durbin asked “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” He was criticized by the editorial board at his alma mater, Georgetown, a Catholic university, for his requesting a clarification of Barrett, regarding her self-descriptive terminology, “orthodox Catholic.” He contended her definition might unfairly characterize Catholics who may not agree with the church’s positions about abortion or the death penalty.
She responded, “litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, and that may be something that a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense.”
Barrett further opined that judges aren’t bound by precedent conflicting with the Constitution.[24]
The subject of Feinstein and other Democrats’ concern was a 1998 article by Barrett where she wrote that judges could recuse themselves from hearing matters if their faith conflicted with issues to be decided in cases they might otherwise hear.[17] Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, said Barrett’s law review article’s contention that judges could simply recuse themselves from a case if they have a religious concern constitutes, “...the very definition of putting faith ahead of one’s duties as a judge.”[17]
An article in the conservative National Review asserted, “Senators must inquire about these issues when considering lifetime appointments because ensuring impartiality and fidelity to precedent are critical for the rule of law.”[20][25][14] Feinstein’s line of questioning was criticized by some observers and legal experts[26][27] while defended by others.[28] The issue prompted questions regarding the application of Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution which mandates: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”[29][24][26][27][28] During her hearing, Barrett said: “It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law.”[26]
On October 5, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on a party-line basis of 11–9 to recommend Barrett and report her nomination to the full Senate.[30][31] On October 30, 2017, the Senate invoked cloture by a vote of 54–42.[32] The Senate confirmed her with a vote of 55–43 on October 31, 2017, with three Democrats – Joe Donnelly, Tim Kaine, and Joe Manchin – voting for her.[7] She received her commission on November 2, 2017.[2]
You would think it’d be hard to smear a woman for fear it’d alienate women in general. But, these are evil people who’ll stop at nothing. I’m certain should she get a nomination to serve on the SC, she’ll be ready for the circus that would soon follow.
The dogma is strong in her ...... thank God.
You should see her insides! Rotten to the core I tell ya..
I have nothing against Catholics or Jews, but isn't there a Protestant qualified and available?
The other female Justices would hate her for being conservative and prettier. I like it!
Big families actually take care of themselves.
One of those old bots would be better than RBG and more competent.
She really looked awful. Can’t we impeach her for lack of strength to rule on issues of import?
If you have a better candidate, tell us.
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.