Search results

Y'all have little trouble -- at least for now -- with Biden claiming Roman Catholicism, so long as he doesn't actually hold to its teachings on life, sexual ethics and the like.

Concerning judicial drift and desirable diversity!

When the dogma live loudly "...Those who value our First Amendment right to religious freedom should realize that tests about belief are attacks on religious liberty. And positioning dissenting Catholics as “mainstream Americans” and believing Catholics as “extremists”—now a common and...

It was certainly too clever by half.

Kendi is a piece of work.

I don't expect I'd enjoy being at a party with Michele. Nor would I bank on getting any assistance from her if she walked by and I'm on the ground bleeding to death. Methinks she is not nice.

The Gorsuch position on the transgender case wasn't shocking if viewed theologically (he's a member of the theologically/socially liberal Episcopal Church). Again, Justices are people and people are full-orbed. Whether they admit it or not, their worldviews aren't reducible to judicial...

Good analysis -- and I think you are right. Gorsuch's liberal theology will have a play in things no doubt. Roberts is all about the prestige of the court and so he's in play. And the left may have some regrets in their attempts to destroy Kavanaugh. My suspicion is that he would have been even...

Wow...

From the article: "Some people might object to my conflation here of religious and nonreligious charity. One might argue, for example, that religious charity is more likely to take place for non-altruistic reasons than is nonreligious giving and volunteering: Religious people might give because...

If they are doing those things and are pro-life they are being consistent. If others are pro-right-to-abort and don't actually put skin in the charity game, yet act like they actually care, what are they being?

I fully agree that the treatment of Garland was wrong. But it's a non sequitur to say that therefore going through the nomination process now is illegitimate. Hypocritical? Sure. Call it that all you'd like and I'll join you, while still being happy that ACB is going through the process. But...

It'll be interesting to see what he does.

All sane accounts. All decent accounts. But I'll grant you, not all folk are sane or decent.

Question isn't about whether you like her or not or even about hypocrisy. Your point was one about "legitimacy." To nominate someone and to consider that nominee to SCOTUS right now is legitimate.

Yep.

Woohoo! SCOTUS with 25 judges coming our way. What fun that will be.

Blah, blah, blah. It's fully legitimate. You just don't like it.

Sometimes it's just hard accepting the truth.

What's fascinating in all this is that Barrett seems to be the anti-Trump. By all accounts, she's brilliant and kind.