In a reflection on the presidential election, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, emphasized that “in choosing presidents, we choose judges, too.”
Bp. Nauman is entirely correct.
If Hillary Clinton is elected, she will appoint perhaps two justices, making the supreme court overwhelmingly liberal, pro-abortion, anti-marriage, pro-executive, and very much inclined to simply do whatever she wants them to do.
If she’s elected, I think we’re in for winds of change that will make Obama’s look tame indeed. No individual will be able to stand up in that wind, not even the congress of the United States.
The Clintons do not forgive their “enemies”, one of which is now Bishop Nauman. But whether Catholics want to admit it or not, the Catholic Church is on the “enemies” list as well. When Hillary Clinton said we’re going to have to “change our religion”, she meant it.
Not to mention her morality (two words: no life). And still, Catholics and other Christians insist on voting for her. I don’t care who else you vote for, just not her!
I see you’re protestant. I don’t know what kind. But certainly evangelicals and fundamentalists have much to fear from Hillary in the White House. A lot. In fact, I would say even more than Catholics, because so many evangelicals and fundamentalists get awfully close to being “political” in the pulpits, whereas Catholic spokespersons largely refrain. (I do not agree with that approach, and wish they were more outspoken.)
Catholics should realize, though, that attacks on evangelicals and fundamentalists just mean they’re next in line.
Well, as for “kind,” I don’t identify as a Fundamentalist (I see Catholicism, for example, as a valid if different practice of Christianity) nor necessarily as Evangelical. I attend a United Methodist church but I don’t identify as a Methodist (not very relevant, but just for the sake of clarity).
Actually, I’ve never attended a church in which politics were spoken of outright by the pastor; yet I do see your point. I think that “social conservatism” would only follow from biblical morality (e.g., opposition to gay marriage). I don’t even know where some denominations get their understanding of homosexuality from!
Yes, it’s really the attack on all of non-liberal Christianity, it’s just a special focus on certain groups right now (especially as “intolerant”). The “ideal denomination” for a social liberal is probably something like the UCC or more liberal denominations.
As Clinton said, “cultural codes and religious beliefs have to change.” (Source)
No she didn’t. Fact checked as false.
When I saw her statement one thing I thought she could have meant was Americans can keep their religion but you just can’t force your religion on the rest of America when it comes to civil law. Believers of other faiths including other Christian communities have religious liberty too you know. It is a very sticky difficult matter though to balance rights to please us all. That’s for sure.
May happen with federal judges with a Democratic-controlled Senate. With SC justices they would have to pass a 60-vote threshold unless they change the filibuster rules at the onset.
“In my opinion, one of the most significant responsibilities of the president is the appointment not only of Supreme Court justices, but all federal judges. Since more and more public policy issues are being decided by the courts — not the Congress or the state legislatures — the selection of judges has become extremely important.”
his full comments are here
The idea that some folks who follow politics in the USA are saying that the Senate (which the GOP may not even control in a few months) would fight a Clinton appointee is absurd.
Frankly, I’m getting tried of these kinds of explanations that most of us know simply are not true.
It’s either Trump or Clinton. And there’s not going to be a “changed conversation”. How many mentions did Johnson or Virgil Goode (anyone even remember him?) get on Wednesday, November 7th 2012?
True, but most Senators will usually vote to confirm, otherwise the public gets jittery that the Senate isn’t doing its job. Also, Senators need to be more leery in an increasingly fluid electorate. Safety of their seats is not always what it appears, especially for Democrats.
That’s why the idea that neverTrump conservatives think the Senate would get in the trenches over an SC judge and fight for them is laughable.
I actually think (who am I to say but I’ll voice my opinion anyhow) that she will turn out to be - in general, perhaps with some notable exceptions - a stop-gap, “safe”, wet-blanket of a president, as opposed to the great oversized, all-powerful monstrosity you present her as about to become. I have a hunch that you may be mightily disappointed at how hum-drum and “continuity Obama” a candidate she will actually turn out to be.
She ain’t no Che Guevera.
Hillary is many things (including a lot of corrupt things) but a great, sweeping force for change she most certainly is not. Hence why a sizeable number of anti-Trump Repubs are placid in the face of her potential administration for four years while the GOP purges the Trump-madness and finds itself again to get its act together by 2020 and increase its Congress and state-level monopoly.
Sometimes when you speak about Clinton - almost like she were some sort of progressive ‘demi-god’ of awesome peril and a bastion of hard-leftism - I have to pause for a moment and wonder if you are actually referring to Hillary. I mean, she isn’t Elizabeth Warren. If Warren were the one about to be elected, I’d concede that you had a fair point. She is a modern American icon of progressivism, as far as I am aware.
But Hillary Rodham Clinton? She’s no revolutionary and she commands little enthusiasm on the real left in the US. Just ask Susan Sarandon who said that she “doesn’t vote with her vagina” and has no time for Hillary.
Clinton’s only true selling point in this election - and to my eyes its a strong one - is that she isn’t Donald Trump and that he is even less popular with Republicans outside his core than she is with Democrats. The spectre of a Trump presidency has actually made Clinton bounce with her own supporters, including the Sanders faithful, and make them flock to her in a way that would have been probably unthinkable had a moderate Republican like Jeb Bush or John Kasich been comandeering the reins of the GOP machine this Fall.
I was a Sanders faithful who flocked her way and although I would not have voted for Kasich primarily because I would not have wanted to be part of the Republican Party gaining control of all branches of government, given the closeness that someone like a Donald Trump has been in the polls, you might well be right about a moderate Republican like Kasich. It might indeed take a defeat this time for the GOP to find itself again. Although many on the conservative wing of the Republican plane have thought because Romney and McCain lost that it would take someone more conservative like a Cruz to win. So I guess time shall tell what becomes of the GOP.
That seems an accurate assessment.
Which is why we should’ve protested the GOP Controlled congress ignoring Obama’s nomination to the court, who is closer to the center than anyone Hillary will appoint.
They were warned about this, and Mitch McConnell ignored the warning.
I disagree with this assessment. Clinton isn’t all that different from Obama. Clinton’s one regret is that she wasn’t the one who implemented the radical reforms to our health care system. She headed the cause when her husband was president. However, her husband didn’t have the filibuster-proof Senate to get it done. Had Clinton won in 2008, she would have been just as radical, possibly more so, than Obama is.