HuffPost goes full bigot: Too many Catholics on Supreme Court

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    HuffPost goes full bigot: Too many Catholics on Supreme Court

    You scratch a progressive and you find an fascist. That has been the lesson learned from the Hobby Lobby decision. One of the most notable bits of fascist commentary appeared in the Huffington Post by an anti-religious bigot named Ronald A. Lindsay, The Uncomfortable Question: Should We Have Six Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court?


    if people have a problem with the Supreme Court ruling, it shouldn’t be because of the religion of the men and women on the court. Complain, if you like, that the court is too conservative; argue about the fact that there aren’t enough Democrats, or that there are too many Republicans, or that there are too many justices who have ideologies with which you disagree, or whatever. But don’t blame it on someone’s religion. Besides being a form of bigotry, that’s just cowardly and un-American.


    Besides: anyone who thinks Catholics hold a monolithic view about contraception—and that every person in the pew is automatically opposed to it—has not been paying attention to polls.  Put a Catholic on the court and there’s no telling what they’ll believe, or what you’ll get it.


    So the question asked in the article should be uncomfortable, not because you are asking a big-brained question but because you show yourself to be an imbecile. But we would also have the right to ask is it fair that a third of the Court is Jewish when they are only 2% of the population? How about two “unmarried” women  on the court? Do “unmarried” women rate their own justice? What about “unmarried” men… now that Souter is retired?  How about one sorta dense Latina? I know the mediocre need representation but do the last couple of sigmas on the intelligence curve also need their own justice?


    http://www.redstate.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.redstate.com/


     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: HuffPost goes full bigot: Too many Catholics on Supreme Court

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You scratch a progressive and you find an fascist. That has been the lesson learned from the Hobby Lobby decision. One of the most notable bits of fascist commentary appeared in the Huffington Post by an anti-religious bigot named Ronald A. Lindsay, The Uncomfortable Question: Should We Have Six Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court?

     

    if people have a problem with the Supreme Court ruling, it shouldn’t be because of the religion of the men and women on the court. Complain, if you like, that the court is too conservative; argue about the fact that there aren’t enough Democrats, or that there are too many Republicans, or that there are too many justices who have ideologies with which you disagree, or whatever. But don’t blame it on someone’s religion. Besides being a form of bigotry, that’s just cowardly and un-American.

     

    Besides: anyone who thinks Catholics hold a monolithic view about contraception—and that every person in the pew is automatically opposed to it—has not been paying attention to polls.  Put a Catholic on the court and there’s no telling what they’ll believe, or what you’ll get it.

     

    So the question asked in the article should be uncomfortable, not because you are asking a big-brained question but because you show yourself to be an imbecile. But we would also have the right to ask is it fair that a third of the Court is Jewish when they are only 2% of the population? How about two “unmarried” women  on the court? Do “unmarried” women rate their own justice? What about “unmarried” men… now that Souter is retired?  How about one sorta dense Latina? I know the mediocre need representation but do the last couple of sigmas on the intelligence curve also need their own justice?

     

    http://www.redstate.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.redstate.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.redstate.com/

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You forgot about the Uncle Tom.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: HuffPost goes full bigot: Too many Catholics on Supreme Court

    Here's one of my personal favorite wingnut rants:

     

    I hadn’t realized, till I read Diana Butler Bass’s lament, that if Elena Kagan, the president’s nominee for the Supreme Court, is confirmed by the Senate, there will be no Protestants on the High Court. Kagan is Jewish, as is Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The other five justices are Roman Catholics. Can you imagine going back in time and telling the Founders that the day would come when there were no Protestants on the Supreme Court? For that matter, can you imagine telling someone born 50 years ago that within their lifetime, they’d live to see a SCOTUS populated exclusively by Catholics and Jews?

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: HuffPost goes full bigot: Too many Catholics on Supreme Court

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Never go full ret@rd CLC.

    [/QUOTE]

    Typical progressive.  Just like your leader, Obama, using terms like ret@rd, special Olympics, in a derogatory fashion.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: HuffPost goes full bigot: Too many Catholics on Supreme Court

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As usual CLC, it only bothers you when the 'other side' does it ... HYPOCRIT!!!

    [/QUOTE]

    You are the same, just reverse the opinion. That makes you hypocrite squared.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: HuffPost goes full bigot: Too many Catholics on Supreme Court

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As usual CLC, it only bothers you when the 'other side' does it ... HYPOCRIT!!!

    [/QUOTE]


    Self awareness not being your strong suit, here is some help;

    You rant about "wingnuts" and hypocrits but you never ever address the substance. It would do you good to actually think,  instead of rant.

    So you agree or disagree with the HuffPost article, that there are too many Catholics on the Supreme Court?

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: HuffPost goes full bigot: Too many Catholics on Supreme Court

        This post has been removed.

     

    Of course it has....

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: HuffPost goes full bigot: Too many Catholics on Supreme Court

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As usual CLC, it only bothers you when the 'other side' does it ... HYPOCRIT!!!

    [/QUOTE]


    Self awareness not being your strong suit, here is some help;

    You rant about "wingnuts" and hypocrits but you never ever address the substance. It would do you good to actually think,  instead of rant.

    So you agree or disagree with the HuffPost article, that there are too many Catholics on the Supreme Court?

    [/QUOTE]


    Geepers, it's got nothing to do with 'self-awareness' and everything to do with you trying to smear 'libruls' because one guy posted an OPINION ... all the while ignoring the many OPINIONS from the wingnuts of the same ilk on the same issue.

    I could care less about any of the OPINIONS from either side ... they're OPINIONS ... about relgion no less ... and everyone is entitled to them.

    You're the one who thinks OPINIONS should be debated ... but not on substance, rather on which political side they originated ... else you would be going after the wingnuts also. That's your hypocrisy.

    It's obvious you aren't aware of what 'self awareness' means.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: HuffPost goes full bigot: Too many Catholics on Supreme Court

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As usual CLC, it only bothers you when the 'other side' does it ... HYPOCRIT!!!

    [/QUOTE]


    Self awareness not being your strong suit, here is some help;

    You rant about "wingnuts" and hypocrits but you never ever address the substance. It would do you good to actually think,  instead of rant.

    So you agree or disagree with the HuffPost article, that there are too many Catholics on the Supreme Court?

    [/QUOTE]


    Geepers, it's got nothing to do with 'self-awareness' and everything to do with you trying to smear 'libruls' because one guy posted an OPINION ... all the while ignoring the many OPINIONS from the wingnuts of the same ilk on the same issue.

    I could care less about any of the OPINIONS from either side ... they're OPINIONS ... about relgion no less ... and everyone is entitled to them.

    You're the one who thinks OPINIONS should be debated ... but not on substance, rather on which political side they originated ... else you would be going after the wingnuts also. That's your hypocrisy.

    It's obvious you aren't aware of what 'self awareness' means.

    [/QUOTE]


    The usual "nothingburger"....

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: HuffPost goes full bigot: Too many Catholics on Supreme Court

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:



    In response to high-road's comment:
    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    In response to high-road's comment:



    As usual CLC, it only bothers you when the 'other side' does it ... HYPOCRIT!!!
     
    Self awareness not being your strong suit, here is some help;
    You rant about "wingnuts" and hypocrits but you never ever address the substance. It would do you good to actually think,  instead of rant.
    So you agree or disagree with the HuffPost article, that there are too many Catholics on the Supreme Court?
     
    Geepers, it's got nothing to do with 'self-awareness' and everything to do with you trying to smear 'libruls' because one guy posted an OPINION ... all the while ignoring the many OPINIONS from the wingnuts of the same ilk on the same issue.
    I could care less about any of the OPINIONS from either side ... they're OPINIONS ... about relgion no less ... and everyone is entitled to them.
    You're the one who thinks OPINIONS should be debated ... but not on substance, rather on which political side they originated ... else you would be going after the wingnuts also. That's your hypocrisy.
    It's obvious you aren't aware of what 'self awareness' means.



    The usual "nothingburger"....



    So why don't you pose the same question about the 3 wingnuts who stated the exact same questions and concerns about the SCotUS make-up and who went even further in their bigotry to include race and gender?


    Why aren't you calling them 'bigots'?


    Because you're a one trick pony and that trick is to keep your nose firmly planted ... regardless of reality.


    This is right up there with you posting numbers going back to WW2 showing the economy faired 40% better under Dems vs wingnut administrations ... and then declaring 'librul' policies a failure.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: HuffPost goes full bigot: Too many Catholics on Supreme Court


    The main reason that hobby lobby won is coz bill Clinton passed the religious protection act , that basically said that if the gov could find another less intrusive method of usurping religious rites than the gov has to do that. in this case they were abortion pills that are easily gotten by anyone cheaply

    this law was passed 97-3 or so, including Harry Reid the slug. 

    so Hillary has a problem with this? No her first purpose was to try and get both her fat feet out of her big mouth coz she was flat broke  rofl

    Of course these dirtbags want to make sure that the gov isn't in the bed room, but they want someone to pay for it. Hypocracy at its finest 

    but what can one expect from ? nothing they r all dirtbagsdirtbags

     

Share