So are Democrats going to try an unconstitutional religious test to block Catholic potential nominee Amy Barret? Feinstein tried to do so during her circuit court nomination...

I think the dems are fine with any justice’s religion. What they’re not fine with is that justice shoving their personal religious beliefs onto every single American by overturning case law that was settled and affirmed many subsequent times decades ago

@OP. Pretty sure Feinstein didn’t say that she was unqualified. Only that some of her quotes regarding religion and law (Notre Dame speech and one other, I think) were concerning. Feinstein later went back due to pressure and reiterated being against any religious test. Not a Dem defender, just wanted to be accurate about what all was being said.

I don’t think any of that is accurate...so, no, they will not

I hope so. About time the dems start playing dirty too

People of praise is NOT a catholic group or recognized by the Holy See and papal ecumenical council.

Whomever gets nominated will dodge this question bigly and will go through but we can enjoy some pointless posturing

Lol... that is the whole purpose of religion. You believe in their version of God and salvation in order to enter the gates of heaven. Same Dogma as Islam and Judaism and any other monotheistic religion. Also, Freedom of religion is protected under the constitution just in case some of you feel the inclination to discriminate against those who practice their personal faith privately.

The point worth arguing about isn’t whether her personal religious beliefs deem her fit to be a judge (justice Scalia was a devout Catholic and while he and RBG were ideological opposites in the Courtroom they happened to be close friends until he passed)

The issue is whether SCOTUS should appoint judges with the inclination to overturn previous precedents, if the ruling is determined to not be in line with the constitution-stare decisis.

As for abortion, the issue no longer is whether American agree it is legal. Even the most conservative state IA has legalized abortion up to 6 weeks. The issue is about the timing, oversight, the balance between the states interest (protecting the potentiality of life-fetus and defining what that means ) and a woman’s right to decide when to abort.
RvW as written is faulty and anachronistic for today’s realities (thanks to advances in medical science) and should be overturned and replaced.

It's pretty dumb to bring up approval polls too - constitutional questions are not referendums

Omg, I got a conservative asking for more government regulation on something that medical professionals have already came up with a mean on the latest to perform abortions. Half a percent of all abortions happen after 24 weeks and almost 100% of those are for life of mother. You act like women are having abortions for fun and that it's not one of the worst days of their lives.

I’ll start believing conservatives actually care about the lives of unborn children when they start supporting things like paid maternal / paternal leave, prenatal healthcare access for everyone regardless of preexisting conditions, mandatory vaccination, public education and pre K, comprehensive sex Ed, and birth control. Until then I will keep ignoring these disingenuous and ignorant arguments.

Carry on

Hahaha. “Basic Christian belief that only Christians go to heaven”

That is some fringe nonsense. Other religions that believe this are (rightfully) dismissed as crazies. I personally see it as largely incompatible with the first amendment. If you truly believe that your belief is the one true way, then it will be hard to respect others’ divergent choices and you are probably unfit to be a judge.

Okay so OP admits that is isn’t about religion at all - this is about screening for a nominee who will overturn a settled case that OP personally disagrees with (but 67% of Americans support)

TM1: The only yes there is mothers life. That is consistent since it is self defense for the mother... this isn’t complicated. Also, color me surprised that conservatives want laws banning murder... Cool attempted ‘gotcha’ with the regulation argument...

P1: You would have a point is 1 - Sotamayor wasn’t an Obama appointee. With her anti-dogmatic views I am surprised Sonia is still allowed communion. 2 - if Feinstein had any substantive disagreement with Barrett beyond saying the ‘Dogma lives in her’...

Not to mention you haven’t addressed Bernie trying to block a candidate for the basic Christian belief that only Christians go to heaven...

Here's the thing OP, fetuses aren't people just as an egg is not chicken. There is a point when an egg will only be an egg because it hasn't gestate to a point of becoming a chick. When you crack open 3 eggs for an omelet you don't say you're eating chicken. If I drop a dozen eggs I don't people I accidentally killed a dozen chicks. I have no guilt is egging my neighbors house but I'm sure I would never throw a dozen chicks at their door.

And before you get all haughty, no, we're not that different than chicken and as the great Mufasa said "That is the circle of life" so we make them into great bbq.

Ok, but the current law — that very many people agree with — says a fertilized egg isn’t a child. So you can believe whatever you want, but lots of people disagree with that position and therefore want Supreme Court justices that agree with them and not you

Haha can confirm, was quite drunk. But I stand by my point wholeheartedly

If you’re so concerned about child’s rights that you think it gives you the right to have control over what another woman does with her body, then surely you extend these draconian principles to all aspects of your principles when it comes to children’s well being.

The problem though, unfortunately, is that the conservative viewpoint is not at all about protecting the lives of children. By painting a picture of women as promiscuous sluts who like to use abortion when they find condoms inconvenient, conservatives like to paint abortion as this thing that people use en mass when there are other options available. The truth, far darker and uncomfortable but necessary, is that abortion is a tool that people use when they truly have no other options. I don’t think anyone would argue with you that abortion in an ideal world would be not only safe and legal, But also very rare. Nobody wants more abortions, but what they do why it is that this practice be legal and regulated so that when it’s necessary people can use it. Do you want to overturn Roe V Wade to save the lives of children and clutch your pearls? If that happens, the number of abortions are going to go down, but the number of women who survived the procedure when it’s needed will.

Look up and read the article called “the only moral abortion is my abortion“. I think it will open your eyes a little bit to the possibilities of when people need to turn to an unpleasant medical procedure that nobody is denying is not the most wanted thing, but some people have legitimate necessary reasons to do it. Your lack of imagination as to why someone might actually have a legitimate reason to terminate the pregnancy, and once the right to choose that decision for themselves and to make that decision, coupled with your lack of trust that your fellow humans can make that decision for themselves and that you know better for them, is frankly very saddening.

(Apologies for any typos - Siri sucks and I’m too lazy to go back and re-edit on my phone)

My point is that conservatives are not actually against abortion because it’s “murder” because that’s either a complete misunderstanding of biology or a convenient excuse for an ideology designed to demonize women’s sexuality and independence. I can’t decide which one you are, and i don’t care because You’re not on the Supreme Court (to get back to the point of your original question long ago)

I support any potential justice being disqualified if they espouse this bullshit and use their religion to justify it, and that’s what the senator was asking about in the prior hearing.

All That said, there are other catholic justices in our system, up to and including on the Supreme Court. Many of them have had widespread democratic support. So, your argument that this is some religious crusade against Christians is just not true anyway

EY1: She said she was unqualified when she voted against her... Not to mention her question was on taking a statement completely out of context and when ask directly about her views Barrett clearly stated that her jurisprudence is different from her personal religious beliefs.

You also have the example of Bernie trying to block a different nominee from the circuit court because he thought the judge was an “islamaphobe’ for having the basic Christian belief that only Christians go to heaven.

PWC1: So you think SCOTUS shouldn’t overturn previous case law that has been affirmed many subsequent times over multiple decades?