Featured An Anonymous Poll

That's only a small part of it, and not even the main thrust of my objections. You seem to be purposely deaf to anything you don't like.

Because they have largely supported religious liberty and the separation of church and state. The current specific religious liberty issues with Obamacare have not made it to the Supreme Court yet, as far as I recall.

So what are your objections to Merrick Garland, other than Obama nomninating him?

He seems like a good nominee to me, quite strong on religious liberty and other First Amendment issues. He also has a background in prosecuting terrorists and has worked closely developing prosecution on several cases.

And why do you characterize him as an "Activist"?

Please note, I haven't listened to ANY talking heads or news programs about the nominee, I have only looked at his questionnaire and profiles of him online. I'm sure Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or other reliably anti-Obama people have skewered this candidate for being nominated, but what do you find objectionable?

You have asserted this, but provided no evidence. Positions contrary to conservative Christian opinions and practice are NOT a declaration of war. We do not have - and have never had - a Christian government.

And again, this is not really about Hillary Clinton for me.

And why have you not answered my question regarding what should be done with "enemies of America"?

If we are truly enemies of America, then the proper thing to do would be to act. What should be done with people like me?


NOTE: If you are willing to say you were wrong about your "enemies of America assertion" (I've noticed you have stopped repeating it), then I'll let it go.

 

Insane beliefs: you need to wear tinfoil hats to protect yourself from CIA mindreading; the Holocaust was faked; Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer have largely supported religious liberty.

You might want to review the votes of the Four Activists on every religious liberty issue. You might want to heed Justice Alito who this past week commented, after the Four Activists refused to hear a religious liberty case (letting stand a lower court ruling forcing pharmacists to provide abortion-inducing drugs), "If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern.”

Garland is a male version of Ginsburg.

Right, forcing Christians to participate in things contrary to their beliefs isn't an infringement on religious liberty. Taxing Christians to teach Atheism (and opposing vouchers, especially at religious schools) isn't an infringement on religious liberty. Etc. Maybe you could tell me which of Hillary's positions expands religious liberty?

#NeverTrump followers are enemies of America. I think one of them is nothing but a troll.

 

I was taking a much longer view than just the current Justices since you made an extremely broad claim about Democrats. I'll go back and take a specific look at these specific four Justices and review my opinion.

You base this on what? Garland is well-respected by both Republicans and Democrats and is a centrist. Ginsburg is a long way from being a centrist. Please provide evidence instead of assertions.

What are you talking about? Teaching atheism is a violation of religious liberty.

Now, NOT teaching Christianity or teaching evolution is NOT the same thing as teaching atheism., in case that's what you are referring to.

Opposing voucher systems is a protection of religious liberty for religious schools and taxpayers. As a taxpayer that pays an inordinate amount of school taxes and has no children, my tax money goes to education other people's children. I don't mind that at all. However, I would mind if my taxes went to the local Roman Catholic high school to pay for their religious indoctrination. Moreover, religious schools who receive public money also receive government control of how the money is spent. Religious liberty is protected by separating church and state.

I think Ms. Clinton is fairly neutral on religious liberty. You made the assertion - that you haven't been able to back up - that she has "declared war" on religious liberty. You're asking me to do your work for you so you can just deny it. Since you haven't substantiated your claim yet, I will ignore it.

You keep repeating this garbage but refuse to answer my questions about it. What do you propose to do with the "#NeverTrump followers" who are "enemies of America"?

Persecute them?
Prosecute them?
Imprison them?
Execute them?

You seem to be too much of a coward to answer this question and just repeat it.

If you don't respond to my questions about your statement, it is clear you are trolling and are either fundamentally dishonest in this discussion or are a coward and don't have enough faith in your opinions to own them.

 

BB, you remind me of the Toy Company president from this old SNL video. You defend horrible things as good and you fault good things as dangerous.

The Democrat-appointed Activists on the Supreme Court, you insist, are champions of religious liberty. Vouchers, you insist, are a threat to religious liberty. Etc.

 

Uh, no. Instead of responding with reason or an explanation of your position, you simply throw out another accusation. Trump and his followers seem to be great at insults and accusations, but short on reason and information.

They're not perfect, but they have done a decent job. The overturning of RFRA and the recent refusal to hear the Storman's, Inc. v. Wiesman appeal are two notable examples where I have issues, but overall they have done a decent job.

FWIW, I took a preliminary look at the Ninth District Court's decision and Alito's dissenting commentary on the Court's refusal to review it this morning, and I tentatively agree with Alito. I need to spend some real time with it and read every word before I'll have a strong opinion.

The good thing about the decision is that with the votes apparently going the way they did, the Court DID NOT hear the case and set a legal precedent that will be almost impossible to overturn. This will continue to be fought in the lower courts will a new circumstance that is more clearly defined and it will eventually appear before the Court.

Not much comfort, but it could have been much worse.

Yes. I explained why. If you disagree, please explain why they are not - and don't give me a link, give me YOUR reasons without plagairizing it. You keep accusing me of getting my opinions from others - but I don't - so I want you to think for yourself as well.

Maybe, maybe not.

So I see you don't actually stand by your "#NeverTrump followers are enemies of America" rhetoric... Just more name calling I see. Jesus had something to say about people who are name callers (Matthew 5:22). That includes Trump and anyone who acts like him.