buddha

what american law requires a belief in god or a particular religion?

depends what we get for it.

he may not start in detroit, but he'll end up there. and actually, i think the odds are pretty good he does start there.

what should be the basis?

the infant mortality rate in france was about 35% back then, so a lot of babies died. also, abortion was a felony punishable by death, so maybe a lot has changed under the sun? one could argue that all of our american conceptions of morality derive from christian religious dogma, but whatever. i'm not religious at all and would have no problem outlawing abortion after 15 weeks. i'm not that concerned about who is perceived to be the driving force behind the attempt to change a law if i think that law needs to be changed. and dont worry, overruling casey wont stop the baby killing. blue states will welcome abortion seekers with open arms.

The anti-casey/roe argument does not rest on a "mystical revealed truth," but rather on a different interpretation of an 18th century legal document. And its an historical habit of mind for lots of people to forget that many other people come to different interpretations of the same facts or beliefs as they do for perfectly logical reasons and not for the continuation of some nefarious plot to convert the non-believer. see the above paragraph.

clarence darrow and oliver wendall holmes' intellectual lovechild couldnt persuade you that youre wrong, what chance does a mere mortal like amy coney barrett have?

urgent care around here has a 3 or 4 hour wait to get in.

right. it was about the author of that piece's opinion that barrett should recuse herself from abortion cases based on an old law review article barrett wrote. its funny how liberals were all about how judges needed to bring their own personal opinions and experiences to every decision when sotomayor testified to such effect in her confirmation hearings when talking about her take on discrimination cases. not so much when its barrett talking about abortion cases. and the same is true of conservatives when the situation was flipped. i dont think you have to be an atheist to interpret the constitution or read a law. as i said before, plenty of religious justices have done so in ways that you presumably agreed with.

dink dunk dink dunk dink dunk

well....that was what the article you quoted that pfife posted was about. i figured you read it.

The packers currently hold the tie breaker over the bucs and rams, but not the cowboys. cowboys would be the top seed if they had an equal record.

lions could easily win this game. the seahawks are trash.

i dont see a scenario where a healthy edvinsson doesnt play in detroit next season.

Bednar in net for the czechs today.

and what was the "argument" they used against kennedy (and al smith, for that matter)? he was beholden to the pope. basically the same argument that g2 made about barrett and scalia not being able to be judges. i imagine g2 thinks barrett and scalia should not be on the supreme court because he thinks their opinions are wrong, which is a perfectly good reason for anyone to think they shouldnt be on the court. but because theyre religious? nyah. plenty of religious folks have been really good justices, both conservative and liberal.

but you dont really care about that statement, you care that she doesnt support casey or your version of how the establishment clause should be interpreted. there isnt anything about being a very religious practicing catholic that should prevent one from being a capable supreme court judge. ask william brennan.

ACB and scalia did swear an oath to uphold the constitution, so your problem with them is that you don't believe them because you think you dont agree with their legal rulings on some issues.

right. that's why we can't elect Al Smith or John Kennedy. they can't be trusted. do you think the same thing about Muslim judges (there is one now! lol) or just Catholics? Mormons? or - maybe the more appropriate question - do they just need to agree with you on abortion and your interpretation of the establishment clause?

right, no catholics allowed. they take orders from the pope and can't be trusted to obey our secular laws.

no catholics allowed!

does that make javy baez the shortstop with the pearl earring?

and let that be a lesson to you!

yeah, the article talks about that too. dems did the same thing in new jersey, left a seat in the gop in order to shore up their own seats. as opposed to illinois where they went full bore to create more dem seats, at the expense of a couple of their junior members.

correa turning down less than market value IN DECEMBER - very early in the signing process - is not a "bad look" for him at all. he's testing the market. his agent likely knows what he'll get offered. correa is the best talent on the market, why is it a bad look for him to turn down less than what seager took?