Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Soph0571

(9,685 posts)
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 05:44 AM Oct 2020

The current SCOTUS nominee belongs to a sect which...

*Bans large belt buckles because they apparently draw attention the crotch?!?!
*Bans perfume and cologne because it demonstrates that they are attempting to lure with pheromones. Oh My!
*Ban single women from any knickers other than plain white cotton ones. (do you think the old men who run this cult do regular checks? )
*Believe that both reproductive rights and homosexuality may be accepted by human law but are rejected by divine law. If you are gay you need to pray it away, and when that fails you need to commit to a chaste life. Because of course.
*Banned from dating unless they are ready to get married. Obvs no intimate relationships before nuptials.
*Women must obey their husbands in everything, and even if you are single you do not escape having a man tell you want to do as you get a nominated a ‘head’ until such time as you marry then lucky old you – at that point - husbands act as the 'head' for their wives. Because of course women are incapable of making their own decisions.
*Mental illnesses are demonic possession. (Based on this, with America's mental health well being under such strain because of this administration, maybe the whole Trump thing is actually a demonic possession of the nation. Do the world a solid and do an exorcism on Nov 3rd.)
*Until recently in all of the ironies female leaders were referred to as handmaids.

This is what the Republicans are trying to put on the highest court in the land. A member of a sect that dictates the details of your life to the extent of the size of your belt buckle… that expect women to submit in all things to the head of their household and determines when and whom a single person can date and marry. This is a sect that very obviously see straight, male, pale and stale as living in harmony with the ‘Lord’ and everything other than that has sin attached that needs to be managed within a very patriarchal construct. This is a woman who buys into all of this. Is a leader in this. Has grown up in and chosen to raise her daughters in this. This is the woman they are going to inflict on America for potentially the next 40 years. At this point they are showing the intent that theocracy with a false demi-God as titular head is the name of their game.


15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Mustellus

(328 posts)
1. So they are Biblical Slackers....
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 07:55 AM
Oct 2020

" Obvs no intimate relationships before nuptials. " ???? What?

God's law mandates execution by stoning for any sex outside the marriage bed. Pre-marital sex? Where do you think the phrase "shotgun wedding" comes from? That's the one out in the Bible. Marry Him Or Die.

Its been so long since any alleged 'Biblical' sect actually carried out God's Law.

Bettie

(16,095 posts)
7. That was my thought
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 08:51 AM
Oct 2020

but hey, Republicans prefer a man making decisions anyway.

That stance of mental illness seems disqualifying to me. But, we'll have Aunt Amy on the supreme court, to make sure that she closes every door that has been opened for women ever.

Rhiannon12866

(205,237 posts)
8. Even if it's not her unqualified husband, I'm willing to bet that the plan
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 08:54 AM
Oct 2020

Is she'll be taking orders from the men of the GOP.

Rhiannon12866

(205,237 posts)
10. She's not in the military and he's not her Commander in Chief
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 12:13 PM
Oct 2020

A Justice swears an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, not to any POTUS - and regardless of any personal religious beliefs.

Lonestarblue

(9,978 posts)
4. Theocracy and Dominionism have always been the goal of groups like this.
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 08:38 AM
Oct 2020

“Dominionism is the theocratic idea that regardless of theological camp, means, or timetable, God has called conservative Christians to exercise dominion over society by taking control of political and cultural institutions. The term describes a broad tendency across a wide swath of American Christianity. People who embrace this idea are referred to as dominionists.”

From http://www.politicalresearch.org/2016/08/18/dominionism-rising-a-theocratic-movement-hiding-in-plain-sight

There’s a secretive dominionist group that doesn’t publish lists of their members, but Betsy DeVos has been linked to them. They are wealthy white people who believe that God has given them the wealth and power and thus wants them to be the sole rulers of the country. And then there’s Opus Dei, of which Bill Barr is a member.

These people cannot be written off as religious nuts because they have made significant inroads into government power and thus into positions to thwart the will of the people and institutionalize their own beliefs.

Soph0571

(9,685 posts)
13. To be fair they are religious cray cray
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 05:40 PM
Oct 2020

BUT they cannot be dismissed. They are within a heartbeat of their dystopia.

AirmensMom

(14,642 posts)
5. I'm with her on the ban of perfume and cologne,
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 08:40 AM
Oct 2020

but not for that reason. These days, they are made from synthetic fragrance, toxic mixtures of petrochemicals that are harmful to health. I know this first-hand.

It's sort of strange that she brings religion into it because perfume is mentioned as a good thing in many stories. One example is the frankincense and myrrh brought to baby Jesus as a gift. I mean, her religion is based on Christianity, right? And the Bible? (Well, ostensibly ...)

The obsession of these religious nuts with sex and anything sexual is disturbing. I grew up with it, but not to that extent.


That argument aside, she is dangerous. I just watched part of the debate between turtle man and Amy McGrath and was horrified by his praise of this monster and how he is vilifying the Dems for opposing her.

I am so depressed about this whole fuckup that I am having trouble sleeping again. I might as well be pissing up a rope when you consider who my senators are in TN. But I write anyway and I subscribe to their emails just so I can respond to them. But they have the support of the ignorant mouth breathers in this state, which outnumber the rest of us. There's just no way they will listen to me.

calimary

(81,220 posts)
6. That's why there must be term limits for SCOTUS.
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 08:51 AM
Oct 2020

NO MORE lifetime appointments. And expanding the court. Supreme AND below.

Why should future generations have to be held prisoner to attitudes grounded in decades past? When a resounding majority of the country and of society has evolved beyond them? How’s that pay phone working out for ya, anyway? And you got here by horse ‘n’ buggy, right?

Soph0571

(9,685 posts)
14. And a proper process to get rid if they go beyond the Constriction at least
Tue Oct 13, 2020, 05:44 PM
Oct 2020

There should be an independent non partisan watchdog of judicial specialists to hold them to account. That are not appointed by the President.

calimary

(81,220 posts)
15. YES! My first instinct would be to start impeachment/removal proceedings against her.
Wed Oct 14, 2020, 05:07 PM
Oct 2020

But my next instinct says to hold off because she'll be portrayed as hugely sympathetic character and poor little victim that these mean ol' Democrats are picking on her! Which will be bad imaging for our side, and totally counterproductive. We have to diminish her appeal, NOT inadvertently or unintentionally build it up!

We have to go carefully on this. But a watchdog group to counter the CON version (Judicial Watch) is VERY MUCH needed! And noise should be made EVERY TIME she steps out of line, or makes a questionable ruling, or objectionable statement. EVERY time. We need to start building a case. Slowly, carefully, methodically, and RELENTLESSLY! AND LOUDLY AND PUBLICLY!!!

AND we need to expand the court. This will be an absolute MUST.

AND we also need to do away with this lifetime appointment stuff. Not in THIS day and age! I do NOT want to be shackled to the opinions of another "originalist" whose jurisprudence seems to be routed on us all going back to living the horse 'n' buggy life where only white men of property got to vote, and we had oil lamps to light the way after dark, and more women died in childbirth, and blacks knew their place (on the white man's plantation), and there was no minimum wage, and there was no internet and no TV and no radio and no advanced communication and no advanced medicine, no X-rays, no antibiotics, no prescriptions, and no pharmacies where you could get a prescription filled in a few minutes or so, and no airports or airplanes or flying machines of any sort, and no phone service, and if you wanted to send a message you had to hire a messenger on horseback, or tell the town cryer (or the neighborhood gossip).

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The current SCOTUS nomine...