Re: "Senate confirms Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court, cements 6-3 conservative majority"

On 10/27/20 12:24 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 10/27/2020 9:54 AM, David Hartung lied:
>> On 10/27/20 10:47 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 10/27/2020 8:41 AM, Yak lied:
>>>> On 10/27/20 11:34 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 10/27/2020 8:24 AM, Yak lied:
>>>>>> On 10/27/20 10:41 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/27/2020 7:34 AM, Yak lied:
>>>>>>>> On 10/27/20 10:21 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/27/2020 6:14 AM, [email protected] lied:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 27, 2020 at 9:11:01 AM UTC-4, 
>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 27, 2020 at 5:44:42 AM UTC-4, David 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-amy-coney-barrett-vote
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>> “Justice Barrett made clear she will issue rulings based 
>>>>>>>>>>>> solely upon a
>>>>>>>>>>>> faithful reading of the law and the Constitution as written not
>>>>>>>>>>>> legislate from the bench,” Trump said during a swearing in 
>>>>>>>>>>>> ceremony at
>>>>>>>>>>>> the White House on Monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As she should.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which wouldn't necessarily be in accordance with your reading 
>>>>>>>>>>> and poor understanding of it.  But if she had any shred of 
>>>>>>>>>>> decency in that religious freak body of hers, she'd recuse 
>>>>>>>>>>> herself from all cases until the next Potus is sworn in.  
>>>>>>>>>>> That way, she truly would come across as a fair-minded 
>>>>>>>>>>> Justice and not go along with looking like a used toilet rag 
>>>>>>>>>>> the Republicans swept her around as to stuff the court with.  
>>>>>>>>>>> Not only that, but to add insult to injury, she got sworn in 
>>>>>>>>>>> by phony black justice Clarence Thomas, who was sworn in 
>>>>>>>>>>> himself distastefully.  What, Justice Roberts not good enough 
>>>>>>>>>>> for her, or did Roberts see this for the sham that it is and 
>>>>>>>>>>> opted himself out of swearing her in, refusing to be 
>>>>>>>>>>> associated with such a judicial coup?  Of all people to swear 
>>>>>>>>>>> her in, the optics of pubic-haired Thomas doing it colored 
>>>>>>>>>>> the event with pure illegitimacy.  Seriously, I'd have more 
>>>>>>>>>>> respect for her, in proving her independence as a Justice, if 
>>>>>>>>>>> she did recuse herself from all cases over the next 3 months, 
>>>>>>>>>>> and I'm sure she'd have a broader respect from the public as 
>>>>>>>>>>> well, especially from the left. Otherwise, she's just another 
>>>>>>>>>>> right wing pawn on the court willingly playing the cheaters 
>>>>>>>>>>> game that Republicans only know how to play. But it certainly 
>>>>>>>>>>> would be a kick in my teeth if she ended up surprising 
>>>>>>>>>>> everyone by siding with Democrats almost as much as 
>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans in rulings.  But I'm just spinning a wild fantasy 
>>>>>>>>>>> there to try to start off my day right.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You know Joe Biden's a Catholic too, don't you?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Has Biden ever said that his role as a politician is to bring 
>>>>>>>>> about the "kingdom of god" on earth?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, he hasn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly right.  But Barrett has.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   Has Biden ever said or indicated he intends to subvert the 
>>>>>>>>> secular law based on his religious beliefs? 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Biden has not. Nor has Coney Barrett..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, she has.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was that during her speech when
>>>>>
>>>>> It's when she spoke to the Notre Dame law school commencement in 
>>>>> 2006. You can find it — shitbag Hartung did, so you can, too.
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing in that speech about subverting secular law based 
>>>> on her religious beliefs.
>>>
>>> False.
>>
>> Then quote the text which says that the secular law should be 
>> subverted based upon Justice Barrett's religious beliefs.
> 
> I already have.  It doesn't say it in so many words, asshole, but any 
> literate person with adequate reading comprehension can plainly see that 
> that's what it unambiguously means.  She intends to subvert our secular 
> law based on her religious beliefs, because that's what she understands 
> her beliefs to command her to do.  She doesn't even believe in secular 
> law in the first place.

Once again you are making things up.