Christmas Campaign: Financial Insights
Clicks343
DefendTruth
5

Barrett On Gay Pseudo Marriage: "I Do Not Discriminate Based On Sexual Preference"

During the Supreme Court confirmation hearing (October 13), Judge Amy Coney Barrett refrained from expressing a position on whether she agrees or disagrees with her mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, on gay pseudo marriage.

Senator Dianne Feinstein asked if she agrees with Scalia that “the U.S. Constitution does not afford gay people the fundamental right to marry.”

Barrett responded, “If I were confirmed, you would be getting Justice Barrett, not Justice Scalia.”

And, “So I don’t think that anybody should assume that just because Justice Scalia decided a decision a certain way, I would, too.”

“But I’m not going to express a view on whether I agree or disagree with Justice Scalia for the same reasons that I have been giving.”

Barrett referred to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said “with her characteristic pithiness” that a Supreme Court nominee during confirmation hearings should give “no hints, no previews, no forecasts” regarding potential future rulings.

“I’m sorry to not be able to embrace or disavow Justice Scalia’s position, but I really can’t do that on any point of law.”

Barrett also said during the hearing: “I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference, and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. Like racism, I think discrimination is abhorrent.”
Ultraviolet
Wrong @Baptist John. She's fully supported by the Catechism of The Catholic Church Paragraph 2258 Regarding homosexuals it says, "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. "

There's nothing "Masonic" about that. Since you're a Baptist and not a Catholic, @Baptist John , you were never taught such points of Catholic ideology. Just as obviously, you've never …More
Wrong @Baptist John. She's fully supported by the Catechism of The Catholic Church Paragraph 2258 Regarding homosexuals it says, "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. "

There's nothing "Masonic" about that. Since you're a Baptist and not a Catholic, @Baptist John , you were never taught such points of Catholic ideology. Just as obviously, you've never studied them. That's ignorance. Criticizing Judge Barrett from a position of ignorance is, however, stupidity.

You should educate yourself about Catholicism, since you insist on posting here on a Catholic media portal. Especially since you're criticizing real Catholics when they are, in fact, true to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

TL;DR: She's right, supported by the Catechism, and you're wrong. Go post on Baptist site, @Baptist John
Tesa
“I can’t pre-commit or say, ‘Yes, I’m going in with some agenda,’ because I am not,” said Barrett.
“I don’t have any agenda. I have no agenda to try and overrule Casey. I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.”
Instead, Barrett told Feinstein that she would “obey all the rules of stare decisis,” the legal principle of deference to the previous decisions of …More
“I can’t pre-commit or say, ‘Yes, I’m going in with some agenda,’ because I am not,” said Barrett.
“I don’t have any agenda. I have no agenda to try and overrule Casey. I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.”
Instead, Barrett told Feinstein that she would “obey all the rules of stare decisis,” the legal principle of deference to the previous decisions of the court.
“I will follow the law of stare decisis, applying it as the court is articulating it,” said Barrett. “Applying all the factors--reliance, workability, being undermined by latter facts and law, just all the standard factors.”
“And I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I’ll follow the law,” she added.
Tesa
Sen. Feinstein desperate.
Holy Cannoli
She was ready for the question. Regardless, it is an excellent answer proving that she is the smartest person in that room.

Barrett referred to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said “with her characteristic pithiness” that a Supreme Court nominee during confirmation hearings should give “no hints, no previews, no forecasts” regarding potential future rulings.
Tesa