http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/politics/11JUDG.html

And neo-conservatives have the gall to complain that their judicial appointees are blocked - BLOCKED!

This person is clearly an inappropriate choice for a judge.

One example the Democrats cited was a 1997 article that Dr. Holmes and his wife, Susan, wrote for a newspaper, Arkansas Catholic, about men, women and Roman Catholicism. The article said that "the wife is to subordinate herself to her husband" and that "the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man" in the same way that "the church is to place herself under the protection of Christ."

The same article went on to say, "It is not a coincidence that the feminist movement brought with it artificial contraception and abortion on demand, with recognition of homosexual liaisons soon to follow."

In 1980, Dr. Holmes, who would soon become a leader in the anti-abortion movement in Arkansas, minimized concerns about the effect on rape victims of a proposed constitutional amendment banning abortion. "Concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami," he wrote in a letter to the editor of a newspaper then.

And in an article he wrote in 1982, Dr. Holmes, assessing societal problems and responses to them, compared the abortion rights movement to the Nazis. "The pro-abortionists counsel us to respond to these problems by abandoning what little morality our society still recognizes," he wrote. "This was attempted by one highly sophisticated, historically Christian nation in our century — Nazi Germany."

Man, what a shame. Too bad he didn't make it. That was cool! Woo-hoo Dr. Holmes!!

This person is clearly an inappropriate choice for a judge.

Yes, of course, because all judges must be left-leaning, Bible- and Christian-hating (and misinterpreting), extremist feminist-supporting, abortion-on-demand (at any time for any reason) touting, homosexuality-promoting, mindless thralls of the Democratic party.

I personally see nothing wrong with any of what he said. I guess that makes me a woman-hating, homophobic, anti-choice extremist fundamentalist, right? Racist, too, probably.

You forgot to mention your support for slavery.

Today @ 11:14 PM post located here
Jinx72:



Yes, of course, because all judges must be left-leaning, Bible- and Christian-hating (and misinterpreting), extremist feminist-supporting, abortion-on-demand (at any time for any reason) touting, homosexuality-promoting, mindless thralls of the Democratic party.

Nothing substantial as usual. Makes rebuttal easy - "Is not!"

I personally see nothing wrong with any of what he said.

Of course you don't. Most fundies see no problem mixing their religious views into the laws of this country. But of course, if the shoe were on the other foot, they'd whine and moan loudly about the injustice of being bound up in the rules/regulations of someone else's religion.

Christianity is a breeding ground for blatant double-standards.

I guess that makes me a woman-hating, homophobic, anti-choice extremist fundamentalist, right? Racist, too, probably.

If you say so, who am I to disagree?

Typical of the Lizard Being to be blind to his own double standards. The only thing holding the Democrat party together is their support of abortion for any reason up to birth, including the especially grotesque "partial birth" abortion. And woe betide anyone who supports laws about parental notification for minors (although they would scream blue murder if a teacher gave an aspiring to a school pupil). Such extreme pro-abortion views are against the wishes of the vast majority of the public, yet they were imposed by black-robed judges, and supported by the dems.

As I said in my very first post on TWeb, it's not a question of whether we should impose morality and religion, but merely WHOSE morality and religion is imposed. Lizzie is happy for the immorality of his secular humanist religion to be imposed on helpless unborn babies.

Today @ 11:44 PM post located here
Socrates:

Typical of the Lizard Being to be blind to his own double standards. The only thing holding the Democrat party together is their support of abortion for any reason up to birth, including the especially grotesque "partial birth" abortion. And woe betide anyone who supports laws about parental notification for minors (although they would scream blue murder if a teacher gave an aspiring to a school pupil). Such extreme pro-abortion views are against the wishes of the vast majority of the public, yet they were imposed by black-robed judges, and supported by the dems.

As I said in my very first post on TWeb, it's not a question of whether we should impose morality and religion, but merely WHOSE morality and religion is imposed. Lizzie is happy for the immorality of his secular humanist religion to be imposed on helpless unborn babies.

Wow. A 100% content-free post. Typical of Sickroots.

You must be the person that makes styrofoam packing material so wonderfully fluffly, yet empty and void of valuable content!

Jinx

Yes, of course, because all judges must be left-leaning, Bible- and Christian-hating (and misinterpreting), extremist feminist-supporting, abortion-on-demand (at any time for any reason) touting, homosexuality-promoting, mindless thralls of the Democratic party.

I personally see nothing wrong with any of what he said. I guess that makes me a woman-hating, homophobic, anti-choice extremist fundamentalist, right? Racist, too, probably.

Oh no. I am NOT going there with you again. Last time you undermined my righteous indignation with "limp-wristed" humor.


BUT... I'm curious, how one one "promote" homosexuality?

I have these silly visions of groups zeroing in on truck stops and Teamster Union halls with signs saying:

Gay is OKAY - Try it You'll LIKE it!

And I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant.

Today @ 07:25 AM post located here
Sauron:

Nothing substantial as usual. Makes rebuttal easy - "Is not!"

Since when is "clearly not a suitable candidate for the bench" or something along those lines "substantial"?
Substantially unsubstantiated, maybe.

Of course you don't. Most fundies see no problem mixing their religious views into the laws of this country.

That's the very point that you haven't made, actually. The snippet you provided showed us zero evidence supporting the notion that Holmes would mix his religous views with his handling of the law in the judicial setting.

But of course, if the shoe were on the other foot, they'd whine and moan loudly about the injustice of being bound up in the rules/regulations of someone else's religion.

On the contrary, if an atheist judge is willing to read the law in the context of original intent rather than reinterpreting it to suit the fancy of contemporary society, then he's got my approval.

Christianity is a breeding ground for blatant double-standards.

So you were or are a Christian?

Today @ 12:50 AM post located here
Captain Ochre:

Since when is "clearly not a suitable candidate for the bench" or something along those lines "substantial"?
Substantially unsubstantiated, maybe.

I believe I explained my position. Catch up.

That's the very point that you haven't made, actually. The snippet you provided showed us zero evidence supporting the notion that Holmes would mix his religous views with his handling of the law in the judicial setting.

You think the views he expressed were simply his private viewpoint?

Fine. If you think that someone who holds such viewpoints can restrict those views to the privacy of his home or church, and not mix them in with his judicial actions, then present such evidence. People who espouse such strident views usually also espouse the flawed "America is a christian nation" nonsense as well, and see no problems at all forcibly injecting their christianity into the legal system.

On the contrary, if an atheist judge is willing to read the law in the context of original intent rather than reinterpreting it to suit the fancy of contemporary society, then he's got my approval.

Translation: if the atheist judge agrees with what you think the original (theist) intent was, then you'll vote for him.

You'll excuse me if that bit of sophistry doesn't exactly impress me.

Today @ 08:56 AM post located here
Sauron:

I believe I explained my position. Catch up.

Here's the entirety of what you wrote on that topic in your initial post:

Another redneck judicial appointee

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/politics/11JUDG.html

And neo-conservatives have the gall to complain that their judicial appointees are blocked - BLOCKED!

This person is clearly an inappropriate choice for a judge.

Great explanation!

You think the views he expressed were simply his private viewpoint?

You have provided no evidence to this thread to suggest otherwise. If there's something relevant in the NYT article, feel free to include the relevant snippet.

Fine. If you think that someone who holds such viewpoints can restrict those views to the privacy of his home or church, and not mix them in with his judicial actions, then present such evidence.

Because if I don't you'll figure that you're justified in applauding a religous litmus test for judicial nominees?

Whatever happened to the freedom of religion is the US of A? Sauron apparently doesn't believe that it exists--or shouldexist, maybe.

People who espouse such strident views usually also espouse the flawed "America is a christian nation" nonsense as well, and see no problems at all forcibly injecting their christianity into the legal system.

So, Holmes is guilty by association with those who "usually" do such things (fat lot of evidence you've brought to bear!)? Most atheist heads-of-state have been bloodthirsty killers and oppressors. Okay if I make you ineligible for President on that basis?

Translation: if the atheist judge agrees with what you think the original (theist) intent was, then you'll vote for him.

I might vote for a judge for other reasons. I spoke of approval, not a vote. I tend to think that what I think is right is right. Maybe you're somehow more enlightened.

You'll excuse me if that bit of sophistry doesn't exactly impress me.

You've passed the part of the test that requires you to use a three syllable word inappropriately.
Please proceed to the next part of the test.

Whether or not you are impressed is unimportant to me. I'm interested in highlighting the fact that you airily dismiss the posts of others for not having content while stuffing your own with granfalloonish vacuum.
Thus far, you've been entirely cooperative to that end.

Today @ 12:04 AM post located here
Woman:

Jinx



I have these silly visions of groups zeroing in on truck stops and Teamster Union halls with signs saying:

Gay is OKAY - Try it You'll LIKE it!

Fact of the matter is that anyone who holds opinions as firmly as does this gentlebeing will inevitably find them colouring his legal decisions. Law is supposed to be neutral and impartial in its judgements, it is not supposed to have a half-hidden religious agenda.

Kiwimac

Today @ 11:15 AM post located here
kiwimac:

Fact of the matter is that anyone who holds opinions as firmly as does this gentlebeing will inevitably find them colouring his legal decisions.

Citation? Oh--nevermind, I forgot who you were for a moment.

Law is supposed to be neutral and impartial in its judgements, it is not supposed to have a half-hidden religious agenda.

Is it against the law for a federal judge to have strong religious convictions?
If not, how do you explain the half-hidden (anti)religious agenda of preventing persons with strong religious convictions from sitting on federal benches?

Sauron, how do you get the nerve to accuse others of having "Nothing substantial, as usual"? All you did was quote some things the guy HAS said in the past and assumed that everyone with intelligence would just "know" that the things quoted prove that the man couldn't be a good judge. It's like if I were to quote you thusly:

Sauron is a total idiot. Check this out, he was quoted as saying this:

"I do not believe that God exists."

I mean, can you believe this fool. nuff said.

You see, you totally failed to support the notion that the quoted portion shows ANYTHING substantial at all. Of course, Captain Ochre has already pointed this out to you.

I, however, do not fear a substantial reply, so I am going to defend what Mr. Holmes said. How do you like that?

"The article said that "the wife is to subordinate herself to her husband" and that "the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man" in the same way that "the church is to place herself under the protection of Christ."

Well, there is nothing wrong with that. Who said being subordinate was a bad thing? Perhaps it is actually meant to be respect for the woman. Not to mention the fact that it means ultimate responsibility for choices rests with the man, which is a heavy burden. It's not like Holmes said that women should get slapped around by guys or anything.

"It is not a coincidence that the feminist movement brought with it artificial contraception and abortion on demand, with recognition of homosexual liaisons soon to follow."

Well it did, didn't it? What's the point?

"Concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami,"

Well, although he is using exaggeration/hyperbole, it is true that rape leading to unwanted pregnancies is very rare and an extremely small percentage of abortions performed. Holmes rightly points out that we should not let rare exceptions guide the laws. It's like saying "Some dogs bite people, so we should kill all dogs". It's pointless to let exceptions guide the law.

Anyhow, if you actually want to debate on the topic of abortion, why don't you go to the older forum in the Religion 101 where everybody else stopped replying. Either that, or there is a new one up started by Inquisitor.

"The pro-abortionists counsel us to respond to these problems by abandoning what little morality our society still recognizes," he wrote. "This was attempted by one highly sophisticated, historically Christian nation in our century — Nazi Germany."

Well, abandoning morality certainly led to a lot of evil in Nazi Germany. Your (implied) argument assumes that abortionists aren't advising us to allow immorral behavior to take place.

"Most fundies see no problem mixing their religious views into the laws of this country."

Well, how do you know that Holmes counts as "most" fundies? Your arguments aren't even developed. You need to make a more coherent point next time you try to character assassinate an individual like Holmes.

Holy Moly!

I just took time to actually read the links here.

Thank God this turkey is not deciding the fate of our country!