General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould 5 Catholic men decide anything for women?
I don't get why we have 5 Catholic men on the court. That is absurd. I think a couple of them are Opus Dei which is even worse.
I've noticed that the court is often divided women against men now. What we need is to get a couple more women on the court. Then things will really get good.
What we need is to get a whole lot more women in everywhere. At least 50% of all Congress should be women.
Until that happens we will just continue to get these absurd, Catholic men decisions.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)4Q2u2
(1,406 posts)The stance of the Catholic Church is Pro Union, Pro imigration, and to work to improve the life of the Common man.
These justices not only do not follow the Law. They do not follow Church mandate in Human Rights and Treatment.
I will grant you that this ruling is in line with Doctrine, but they have failed an many others.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)How do we deal with that? We also saw this week unanimous decisions that were not very popular here either. We can hope that we are able to fill seats but that may not mean we will always have the decisions we want. I know what you mean by your question though.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)It's important because these ultra conservative men simply are not qualified to make these important decisions for women. Women need to be the ones making these choices.
Actually, I don't think men should have any say in this stuff. These are women's issues and women need to be in control of this stuff.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Made by 7 men...some Catholic.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)and she dissented from Hobby Lobotomy.
IronLionZion
(45,457 posts)IronLionZion
(45,457 posts)not sure how much of America is Jewish, but its not much. You'd think protestants would be bothered by an exclusively catholic and jewish court.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)practice birth control. They tend to just be practical about the whole thing.
IronLionZion
(45,457 posts)W thought he could win some Catholic votes for GOP by appointing Alito and Roberts since running against a Catholic John Kerry. Many catholics traditionally voted Dem (urban types, latinos, northeast, etc) while GOP has been anti-catholic before when it was associated with immigrants from Ireland and Italy who had different cultural traditions than the mostly protestant germans and english and others who came over before them.
Religion has been a big part of the GOP campaigns for the past few decades and they pretend that the Dems are oppressing religion and catholics in particular on the issue of denying a woman's right to choice.
The main reason a Repub ever appoints any sort of extreme right wing minority to anything is that any questioning or opposition from dems on policy will be immediately turned into "We are promoting diversity but those bigoted Dems are persecuting him because he's a minority!" It's scary to think someone might actually fall for that bullshit. GOP can never judge someone on the content of their character ever. It must ALWAYS be about their religion, ethnicity, gender, or whatever.
Stacking the court with a religion that is only about 1/4 of the general population was a politically strategic move.
CanonRay
(14,104 posts)WillowTree
(5,325 posts)They were all appointed by presidents and approved by the Senate. We can't allow discrimination on religious grounds and we sure can't allow discrimination on the basis of gender. So they're on the court and, constitutionally, they get to rule on the cases that come before them.
Nobody said that our government or our constitution is perfect. One more example.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Brigid
(17,621 posts)And that is dangerous for women. It isn't just the Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby. What about areas of the country where the only hospital for miles around is a Catholic hospital where a woman may be refused the care she needs if a pregnancy goes awry? I have heard more than one horror story about that. Women cannot allow men to have that kind of control over them. They simply cannot.
SamKnause
(13,108 posts)onenote
(42,714 posts)The two dissenters in Roe v Wade were Rehnquist (Lutheran) and White (Episcopalian). Or if a couple of the current Catholics were replaced by Southern Baptists would it matter?
Focusing on the religion of Justices is a slippery slope. No one should be "owed" a Supreme Court seat because of their religion, nor should anyone be disqualified because of their religion.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)Most of them are a whole lot more liberal.
onenote
(42,714 posts)Most still oppose abortion except in specific instances.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/01/16/religious-groups-official-positions-on-abortion/
leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)I didn't even think about abortion.
Are any churches more liberal on abortion other than the Unitarians maybe.
A long time ago I was at a meeting at a Unitarian Church here in KC and the abortion issue came up and completely split the group down the middle. It was very contentious even among very liberal people.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)But their god is just money.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)The court should reflect the views of all the diverse ideas in this country.
leftstreet
(36,109 posts)Chauffeur driven ambulance chasers tasked with keeping the lower classes in line and profits moving ever upwards
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Nice job.