Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
David Lee

Senate Democrats Demand Supreme Court Nominee Not Be Unduly Influenced By U.S. Constitution

Recommended Posts

Senate Democrats Demand Supreme Court Nominee
Not Be Unduly Influenced By U.S. Constitution

June 29, 2018

chucky-1024x580.jpg

 

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Still reeling from Trump’s previous Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, Democrats plan to scrutinize any new nominee to ensure that he or she isn’t yet another crony of something called “The Constitution,” Senate Democrats announced Friday.
 

“Time and time again, we find progressive laws getting struck down,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a Senate address. “And it’s always — always — the ones the Constitution is against. These right-wing judges don’t think for themselves, they just do whatever the Constitution says. And it’s time for that to end.”

 

Senate Democrats have vowed to make sure that any new nominee isn’t going to be beholden to outside influences like the Constitution, the founding fathers, or the rule of law. “We need judges to be advocates of progressive laws,” Senator Elizabeth Warren added. “Not people who will bow to the whims of the Constitution, pitting its extremist values of freedom of speech and freedom of religion against our agenda.”
 

“We’re sick and tired of the Constitution sitting in the National Archives, manipulating everything we do,” stated Senator Cory Booker, trying to emote for the cameras but failing. Booker then called a ten-minute recess for him to refresh his supply of fake tears before he could continue.
 

Asked about their concerns, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he “doesn’t care” and plans to “completely ignore” the Democrats in the nomination process since “there’s nothing they can do” and he is “literally unstoppable.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Democrats Demand Supreme Court Nominee Not Be Unduly Influenced By U.S. Constitution

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, David Lee said:

Senate Democrats Demand Supreme Court Nominee
Not Be Unduly Influenced By U.S. Constitution

June 29, 2018

chucky-1024x580.jpg

 

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Still reeling from Trump’s previous Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, Democrats plan to scrutinize any new nominee to ensure that he or she isn’t yet another crony of something called “The Constitution,” Senate Democrats announced Friday.
 

“Time and time again, we find progressive laws getting struck down,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a Senate address. “And it’s always — always — the ones the Constitution is against. These right-wing judges don’t think for themselves, they just do whatever the Constitution says. And it’s time for that to end.”

 

Senate Democrats have vowed to make sure that any new nominee isn’t going to be beholden to outside influences like the Constitution, the founding fathers, or the rule of law. “We need judges to be advocates of progressive laws,” Senator Elizabeth Warren added. “Not people who will bow to the whims of the Constitution, pitting its extremist values of freedom of speech and freedom of religion against our agenda.”
 

“We’re sick and tired of the Constitution sitting in the National Archives, manipulating everything we do,” stated Senator Cory Booker, trying to emote for the cameras but failing. Booker then called a ten-minute recess for him to refresh his supply of fake tears before he could continue.
 

Asked about their concerns, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he “doesn’t care” and plans to “completely ignore” the Democrats in the nomination process since “there’s nothing they can do” and he is “literally unstoppable.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Democrats Demand Supreme Court Nominee Not Be Unduly Influenced By U.S. Constitution

 

Are you sure this is satire???

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Uncle Siggy said:

Are you sure this is satire???

:classic_biggrin: - let's call it what they do, "truth that stings" (this piece is definitely heavy on "truth" about the alt-left position)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Supreme Court allows DACA protections to continue … for now

      By R. Mitchell - The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear appeals on lower court rulings that prevent the government from shutting down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA.) The Trump administration had asked the court to consider the case, but the justices have pushed off any DACA cases until the next term which begins on October 1. DACA gives legal relief to illegal immigrants who were brought here by their parents provided that they were under 16 upon arrival and that they did so before 2007. Both Trump and Obama, who created DACA in an executive order, said that the program should have come from Congress and was outside the president’s authority. Now, President Trump and congressional Democrats are locked in a battle over border funding and Trump has offered to extend DACA protections for 3 years if Pelosi and Schumer will approve funding for border barriers that the Border Patrol has said they desperately need. Pelosi refused Trump’s latest compromise and with the Supreme Court putting this decision off until late 2019, there is less pressure on her to negotiate in good faith. If instead, Trump re-opens the government with no compromise in-place, DACA recipients will likely lose their protection when the Supreme Court takes up the case. So for 10 months, they have legal relief – but only for 10 months – unless Pelosi decides to compromise. Supreme Court allows DACA protections to continue … for now is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Supreme Court Allows Trump To Temporarily Enforce Trans Ban

      By Kevin Daley - The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will allow President Donald Trump to temporarily enforce an order barring transgender individuals from serving in the military. As is typical of orders of this nature, the Court gave no reason for its decision, though Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan noted their dissent. The Trump administration first petitioned the Supreme Court to decide directly on the legality of the trans-soldiers ban, after federal trial judges in California, Washington, D.C. and Washington state issued orders prohibiting its enforcement. The plaintiffs in those lawsuits argue the policy violates a range of constitutional rights including the First Amendment, equal protection, and due process. The government said the Court’s intervention was necessary because the lower court decision “require the military to maintain a policy that, in its own professional judgment, risks undermining readiness, disrupting unit cohesion, and weakening military effectiveness and lethality.” Subsequent to that request, the Department of Justice filed a second petition proposing an alternative: in the event the Court denied the first request, the administration suggested that the justices allow enforcement of the ban while litigation continues in the lower courts. The Court granted that request Tuesday. The president abruptly announced on Twitter that the military would not permit trans personnel to serve in the military. Thereafter, former Defense Secretary James Mattis convened a panel of military experts to conduct an independent review of the subject. Their findings served as the basis of Mattis’ February 2018 memo which implemented Trump’s request. That memo provides that individuals with a history of gender dysphoria — a clinical term referring to anxiety triggered by the conflict between one’s biological sex and the gender with which they identify — may enlist provided they are willing to serve in their biological sex and have not suffered gender dysphoria for a continuous three year period prior to recruitment. Active personnel who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria may continue to serve provided they do so in their biological sex. This is breaking news. This post will be updated Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Supreme Court Allows Trump To Temporarily Enforce Trans Ban is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Senate Democrat Accuses House Republicans Of Colluding To ‘Derail’ Mueller Probe, Calls For Investigation

      By Chuck Ross - A Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee is calling for an investigation of House Republicans he claims have colluded with the Trump White House to derail Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. Democratic Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse did not cite evidence to back up his allegations. But speaking to the hosts of the “Skullduggery” podcast, the Democrat said that an investigation should be opened into whether President Donald Trump’s Republican allies sought to “impede and throw sticks into the spokes of the Mueller investigation.” “It definitely needs to be investigated, in my view,” Whitehouse said on the podcast, which is hosted by Yahoo’s Michael Isikoff. “Whether it amounts to criminal conduct or not, clearly the efforts of the House Republicans were designed to impede and throw sticks into the spokes of the Mueller investigation.” While many Democratic lawmakers have criticized House Republicans for questioning the premise of the Russia probe, Whitehouse is the first Democrat to specifically call for an investigation of his GOP counterparts. GOP leaders like Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows have asserted that there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. They’ve also led an independent investigation into the FBI’s use of the unverified Steele dossier to obtain surveillance warrants against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The Republicans have accused FBI leaders of misleading the federal surveillance court by failing to reveal that the dossier was opposition research and was funded by the Clinton campaign and DNC. House Republicans have also led the charge against former FBI officials like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who were caught sending anti-Trump text messages while working on the Russia investigation. Of the Mueller probe, Whitehouse asserted that House Republicans sought to “discredit it, to slow it down, to foul it up, to provide alternative narratives, potentially even to communicate to potential witnesses and jurors their alternative narratives, and thereby influence the proceedings.” “If that is what they did, the only thing that stops that being a crime is the contact with Trump’s lawyers and the corrupt intent,” he continued. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Senate Democrat Accuses House Republicans Of Colluding To ‘Derail’ Mueller Probe, Calls For Investigation is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Trump Floats Immigration Compromise As Supreme Court Considers DACA Appeal

      By Kevin Daley - President Donald Trump proposed an immigration deal to reopen the government Saturday, which included a three-year extension of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Trump’s overture to congressional Democrats comes as the Supreme Court considers whether it will intervene in ongoing litigation over the president’s attempts to rescind DACA, an Obama-era amnesty initiative that extends temporary legal status to 700,000 foreign nationals who came to the U.S. as children. The administration initiated DACA’s termination in September 2017. Those maneuvers were immediately challenged in federal court. A federal district judge in California ordered the government to continue administering DACA in January 2018. At that juncture, the government broke from normal judicial process and appealed directly to the Supreme Court, instead of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The justices rejected that appeal, returning the case to the 9th Circuit with orders to resolve the case quickly. Over eight months passed without a ruling from the 9th Circuit, so the Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court in November 2018 and asked the justices to take their case. The government’s petition has been pending before the Court since that time. The 9th Circuit issued a decision upholding the district court’s order three days later. Challenges to the president’s attempts to rescind DACA are also pending before appeals courts in New York and Washington, D.C. In the short term, Trump might command a stronger negotiating position if the justices intervene in the DACA cases, since the government can reasonably expect to prevail in the high court. Therefore, Democrats might wish to strike a deal with Trump that includes DACA protections, lest the Supreme Court affirm the president’s power to end the program unilaterally. That the justices have not yet acted on the petition does not bode well for the administration, however. The high court hears arguments from October until April and disposes of its cases by June. As a general matter, the docket for each term is finalized in the middle of January. If the Court intended to grant the administration’s request and hear the case, it likely would have done so by now. As such, the prospect of Supreme Court action on DACA looks dim as of this writing. The high court will next announce action in pending cases on Tuesday. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Trump Floats Immigration Compromise As Supreme Court Considers DACA Appeal is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • A Federal Appeals Court Just Took A Big Swing At Planned Parenthood

      By Kevin Daley - The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction forbidding Texas from stripping Planned Parenthood of Medicaid Funds. The decision is also significant for its harsh criticism of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.  The case will now return to a federal trial court, where Planned Parenthood will have another chance to secure an injunction against Texas.  The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction forbidding Texas from stripping Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funds Thursday, while stridently criticizing the abortion-provider for its rhetoric and medical practices. “Planned Parenthood’s reprehensible conduct, captured in undercover videos, proves that it is not a ‘qualified’ provider under the Medicaid Act, so we are confident we will ultimately prevail,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement after Thursday’s ruling. The case arose after a pro-life group called the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood violating medical and ethical standards codified in federal law and state regulations. Texas terminated its Medicaid provider agreement with Planned Parenthood shortly thereafter, citing infractions documented in the videos. In turn, Planned Parenthood asked a federal court to restore its Medicaid funding. Thursday’s ruling — which related to a jurisdictional issue in that case — is especially striking for its numerous rebukes of Planned Parenthood. Judge Edith Jones, a Ronald Reagan appointee, delivered the opinion. Perhaps the most noteworthy of the decision’s reprimands is a graphic depiction of post-abortion fetal remains taken from a CMP video on the fourth page of the opinion. A small arm is visible in the picture. Texas cited the manner in which Planned Parenthood disposes of fetal remains as one reason for terminating their Medicaid eligibility. In another instance, the decision all but accuses Planned Parenthood of breaking federal law banning partial birth abortions. The ruling highlights a CMP video in which an administrator called Dr. Tram Nguyen said doctors at one facility could evacuate an intact fetus — thereby breaking federal law — provided they sign a form that they did not “intend” to do so. Such procedures allow researchers to recover organs like the thymus or the liver. Later in the opinion, the panel chides Planned Parenthood for failing to engage with Nguyen’s comments in court filings. “The plaintiffs’ briefing with regard to the substance of the discussions contained in the videos is curiously silent,” the decision reads. Planned Parenthood has denied that they intentionally alter abortion procedures for such purposes. The panel also dismissed Planned Parenthood’s claim that the CMP videos were “deceptively edited,” a soundbite that redounded across the press after the tapes first appeared. “The record reflects that [the Texas Office of Inspector General] had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited,” a footnote in the decision reads. “And [Planned Parenthood] did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage.” Finally the panel accused the judiciary of politicking on abortion cases. Ordinarily, providers like Planned Parenthood must challenge Medicaid termination decisions in an administrative forum and state court before seeking a federal court’s intervention. By allowing Planned Parenthood to skip directly to federal court — as the trial court did here — the 5th Circuit said that judges are engaging in ideological favoritism. “Had [Texas] terminated the Medicaid provider agreements of any other type of health care provider, the incongruity of allowing that provider to use patient litigation proxies to avoid administrative review and [reach] federal court would be obvious and unacceptable,” the ruling reads. The decision comes as pro-life activists gather in Washington in advance of Friday’s March for Life. The question before the 5th Circuit did not relate to abortion directly: after Texas disqualified Planned Parenthood from Medicaid eligibility, the abortion-provider sued, claiming the federal Medicaid statute allowed them to do so. A federal district judge agreed, allowed the lawsuit to proceed. The 5th Circuit had to decide whether that decision was correct. The federal appeals courts are divided over the answer to that question. Though the Supreme Court generally intervenes when the circuits disagree over the same question of law, the justices denied review in a related controversy from Kansas in December 2018, drawing a vigorous dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch which accused the Court of playing politics. In that instance, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined with the Court’s liberal bloc, effectively preserving a pro-Planned Parenthood decision in the lower court. The 5th Circuit’s Thursday decision concluded that they are bound by precedent to find that Planned Parenthood can proceed with its lawsuit in federal court under the Medicaid statute, though Jones wrote a concurrence to her own majority opinion urging the full 5th Circuit to revisit that question. However, the 5th Circuit gave Texas a partial victory, finding that the trial court assessed Planned Parenthood’s request for an injunction under the wrong standard. The panel lifted the injunction, and ordered the lower court judge to reconsider Planned Parenthood’s request under a different standard which is more accommodating of Texas. As such, the state has a much better chance of prevailing when the matter returns to the trial court for further proceedings. Texas awards approximately $3.4 million to Planned Parenthood affiliates through Medicaid annually. The decision notes this is a “smidgen” of the revenue Planned Parenthood’s Texas affiliates generate each year, which runs over $57 million. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] A Federal Appeals Court Just Took A Big Swing At Planned Parenthood is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.