Pence calls out Roberts

[Belsnickel]

EXCLUSIVE: Vice President Mike Pence calls out Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts by name. He says, "Chief Justice Roberts has been a disappointment to conservatives." Watch from my interview with @VP in Florida today. Full report on @700club Thursday + clips on @CBNNews pic.twitter.com/z6IANVONr5

— David Brody (@DavidBrodyCBN) August 6, 2020

[*Nately120*]

Can you imagine saying "Donald Trump is being expected/trusted/voted for to stack the SC with Christian/conservative judges" at any point prior to 2016? Just when you think our history can't get any wackier there is going to be a time when Donald Trump was deemed the man most fitting to take up the mantle of champion of Christian policy.

The mind boggles.

[*michaelsean*]

I don't have a problem with a general statement like that.

[Belsnickel]

(08-06-2020, 12:04 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't have a problem with a general statement like that.

I guess my problem lies with the general idea that the Justices owe anything to either political party. I mean, I am not naive enough to think the SCOTUS is apolitical, but the attitude being represented in that interview disgusts me.

[Dill]

(08-06-2020, 11:05 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Can you imagine saying "Donald Trump is being expected/trusted/voted for to stack the SC with Christian/conservative judges" at any point prior to 2016?  Just when you think our history can't get any wackier there is going to be a time when Donald Trump was deemed the man most fitting to take up the mantle of champion of Christian policy.

The mind boggles.

Just to be clear, "pro life" ideology is not "Christian policy."

It is not endorsed by all Christians nor supported by the Bible (so far as I can remember).  Abortion was debated in the early Christian church for centuries, with differing views on when ensoulment occured (conception or later) and whether abortion was a sin at all, and if so, to what degree. Augustine did not believe the fetus had a soul at conception, and neither did Aquinas, who adopted an Aristotelian view of development stages. (The Church's Medieval injunction was, in my view, an alignment with feudalism, with the conception of a population viewed like cattle, with no right to limit production of serfs/workers, an extension of the Roman view of abortion as the father's "right to choose.") The purist position we see now really didn't appear until after 1869.

In the 40s and 50s it was not an issue for Evangelicals at all. It became an issue as the Evangelical movement was steadily politicized. during the '60s and especially the '70s.

[Dill]

(08-06-2020, 12:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I guess my problem lies with the general idea that the Justices owe anything to either political party. I mean, I am not naive enough to think the SCOTUS is apolitical, but the attitude being represented in that interview disgusts me.

What Pence was openly stating was that Evangelicals should choose justices pretty much the way people vote for presidents or senators--to advance a party platform. NOT for their breadth of legal knowledge and track record of impartiality.

There is no sense that the law, and SCOTUS interpretation thereof, is supposed to be "independent" of party and regional interests, focused instead on the Constitution and precedents.  

[*Nately120*]

(08-06-2020, 01:38 PM)Dill Wrote: Just to be clear, "pro life" ideology is not "Christian policy."

It is not endorsed by all Christians nor supported by the Bible (so far as I can remember).  Abortion was debated in the early Christian church for centuries, with differing views on when ensoulment occured (conception or later) and whether abortion was a sin at all, and if so, to what degree. Augustine did not believe the fetus had a soul at conception, and neither did Aquinas, who adopted an Aristotelian view of development stages. (The Church's Medieval injunction was, in my view, an alignment with feudalism, with the conception of a population viewed like cattle, with no right to limit production of serfs/workers, an extension of the Roman view of abortion as the father's "right to choose.") The purist position we see now really didn't appear until after 1869.

In the 40s and 50s it was not an issue for Evangelicals at all. It became an issue as the Evangelical movement was steadily politicized. during the '60s and especially the '70s.

Neo-cons and neo-Jim Bakker style Christians.  I should have specified.  Today's christians would cheer the Romans beating Jesus to death for being a status quo challenging snowflake thug. 

Speaking of feelings?  Handing out free healings?  Love they enemy surrendering is so unappealing.  

[BmorePat87]

(08-06-2020, 12:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I guess my problem lies with the general idea that the Justices owe anything to either political party. I mean, I am not naive enough to think the SCOTUS is apolitical, but the attitude being represented in that interview disgusts me.

and Roberts has made it clear that he doesn't want to be an overly political or, as Pence and many others would have said years ago, be too activist. 

[Dill]

(08-06-2020, 04:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: and Roberts has made it clear that he doesn't want to be an overly political or, as Pence and many others would have said years ago, be too activist. 

That's true. He seems concerned with the court as a balancing institution, a branch of government whose value lies precisely in its separation from this or that movement/agenda/party. It's "check" function is about the fidelity of law to the Constitution, not to party--though of course a conservative is still going to "interpret" many issues differently from a liberal.

In other words, he is a traitor to Trumpism. Absolutely NOT to be relied on to protect the president.

[samhain]

Mike Pence's time is probably about over. If Trump loses, he's a lame duck, sold-out politician with zero personality or appeal. On the other hand, John Roberts will be around and making relevant decisions (many of which I won't agree with) for likely another decade. Pence calling out Roberts is like a division 2 DB calling out Patrick Mahomes.

I'd love to see someone in power with an agenda to completely remove evangelical influence from the court. It's a dying, corrupted movement that in time will sabotage itself. Young people will not continue to feed into it's ranks, and it will wither away from relevance in the next 50 years. At best they represent maybe a 3rd of the population, much of that number concentrated in the South. They should in no way control the court or anything else when it comes to how we're run as a nation.

[Dill]

(08-06-2020, 06:44 PM)samhain : Wrote:   Pence calling out Roberts is like a division 2 DB calling out Patrick Mahomes.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

I think John Roberts can say Trump and Pence have been disappointments, also.

[GMDino]

(08-06-2020, 06:44 PM)samhain Wrote: Mike Pence's time is probably about over.  If Trump loses, he's a lame duck, sold-out politician with zero personality or appeal.  On the other hand, John Roberts will be around and making relevant decisions (many of which I won't agree with) for likely another decade.  Pence calling out Roberts is like a division 2 DB calling out Patrick Mahomes.  

I'd love to see someone in power with an agenda to completely remove evangelical influence from the court.  It's a dying, corrupted movement that in time will sabotage itself. Young people will not continue to feed into it's ranks, and it will wither away from relevance in the next 50 years.  At best they represent maybe a 3rd of the population, much of that number concentrated in the South.  They should in no way control the court or anything else when it comes to how we're run as a nation.

MP is like a silencer on the gun that is Trump's mouth.

He sold his soul and if DJT loses will claim he did nothing wrong and go back to begging religious people to vote for him.