I was referencing GW Bush. Bush is not fighting for re-election, nor is he currently "elected by constituents" of a predominantly conservative state.
she hid her belonging to this group during her confirmation hearings 2 years ago. the details of this group are quite shielded from public exposure and knowledge even within the catholic church. not saying she is schismatic in her beliefs, but it does beg the question of who controls this judge? this is nothing like kavanaugh belonging to the knights of culumbus, and i seriously question where on her list of priorities does the constitution lie? to me this sounds kind of cultish, though perhaps my reading is tainted by ex members VS their own secrecy https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/prospective-supreme-court-nominee-puts-spotlight-people-praise Some ex-members describe an authoritarian atmosphere in which all of one's life decisions — career, marriage, where to live and more — are controlled by the leaders or 'heads.' And now she's worried because a woman deeply involved in the group is on a short list of nominees to the highest court in the land. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is reportedly a member — and likely a "covenanted" member — of People of Praise, which means she has entered into a marital-like promise of commitment to other members. The group's leader said "a pretty high fraction" of the 1,700 adult members are covenanted. Of particular concern is the group's practice of being accountable to a more spiritually mature personal adviser, called a "head" for men and previously called a "handmaiden" (now "women's leader") for single women. Married women — such as Barrett — are "headed" by their husbands. They may also receive spiritual advice from the head of their women's small group, which meets weekly.
History has shown us again and again that when the minority hold the majority repressed is how revolutions are started. It is not a surprise the country feels like a power keg with violence everywhere - the GOP is going to rue the day they have stopped to even pretend to be anything but power grabbing leaches. They are trading short-term gains for long term irrelevancy. It's just a shame that we have to live through the hypocritical repression that today's GOP represent (at least those of us that will survive the GOP's handling of Covid-19).
Replace AI with DI. It consumes less power, but requires more rawhide bones. The GPU runs at 3.6 terra-play-dead-flops
EXCLUSIVE: Supreme Court frontrunner Amy Coney Barrett hid her membership in the religious group that inspired hit TV show The Handmaid's Tale and teaches that wives have to obey their husbands in everything - even in voting Amy Coney Barrett and her husband Jesse are members of People of Praise, a small group that teaches that wives have to obey their husbands in everything Barrett, 48, concealed her membership from what has been described as a 'Big Brother' religious group from senators when she was before the Justice Committee in 2017 Barrett is Donald Trump's favorite to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Trump previously nominated her to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals The People of Praise religious group inspired the hit TV show The Handmaid's Tale, which depicts a dystopian world where women are oppressed All male and single female member of People of Praise are assigned a personal advisor of their own sex, originally called 'heads' for men and 'handmaids' for women The 'handmaid' title was dropped after the runaway success of the Hulu series and replaced with 'woman leader' Democratic senators are almost certain to bring up her affiliation if she is to be nominated and goes before the Justice Committee later this year https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...y-Coney-Barrett-hid-ties-religious-group.html
https://www.americamagazine.org/fai...t-people-of-praise-catholic-charismatic-trump Opinions are split as to whether Ms. Coney Barrett’s affiliation with People of Praise is a valid line of inquiry if she is considered for the Supreme Court. “Barrett’s nomination would raise an important new problem,” the theologian Massimo Faggioli wrote in Politico on Sept. 24, discounting the notion that anti-Catholicism animates such questions. “Is there a tension between forthrightly serving as one of the final interpreters of the Constitution and swearing an oath to an organization that lacks transparency and visible structures of authority that are accountable to their members, to the Roman Catholic Church and to the wider public?” But Rick Garnett, a colleague of Ms. Coney Barrett’s at Notre Dame, wrote a response to Mr. Faggioli, first saying that he agrees questions about a judicial nominee’s faith could be acceptable. “What should be off-limits,” he added, “are (a) misrepresenting or wilfully misunderstanding a nominee’s or candidate’s religious beliefs and (b) applying, without justification or warrant, greater suspicion and skepticism to a candidate’s or nominee's sworn testimony because of disagreement with that candidate's or nominee’s religious beliefs or affiliations.”
It says a great deal when one Catholic scares the living shit out of another Catholic.......just sayin’......
If those religious beliefs will be an influence or factor of a judge's rulings they need to be considered.
RBG was a devout practicing Jew and Im sure other justices may or may not practice religious convictions. As long as they interpret the constitution as a basis for their decisions and don't allow their convictions either religious and/or political (political no different), isn't that the job? These supreme appointee's are humans beings.
Seems to me that using membership in a religious organization as a reason to support or oppose a person's service in a government position would violate the religious test clause of the Constitution. Of much greater import (in my mind) is how she has actually ruled on questions of law. Has she demonstrated a willingness to allow religious convictions to influence her to the point of ignoring or overturning long-standing legal precedent? Have her rulings been repeatedly overturned on appeal? Has she written theses that have been inconsistent with constitutional law and/or SCOTIA rulings? Has she been derelict in her judicial responsibilities in any way, or behaved in a manner which makes her unqualified to serve? I honestly have no idea.
