If representative Omar was going to be appointed for the rest of her life to the Supreme Court after spending her entire life promoting extremes sharia law (again, not saying she does say this or not, just using this as an example) that conflict with the core principles of our constitution then I too would have an issue with that nomination.
So, to me it is not a question of ACB being Christian or catholic that is an issue it is her extreme views within that ideology that is the issue. I would not support a Hasidic Jewish follower being nominated either. We need jurists who are more focused on their interpretation of law and not on religious extremes. Although I abhor the rights hypocrisy regarding Merrick garland versus this one, I understand they have a right to nominate a candidate. I assume they could have found a less controversial candidate that would most likely have achieved their political agenda. Instead the goal is clearly to divide and continue to fight. Would the left have protested any candidate, absolutely after Garland, but at least they would have less of a leg to stand on and they not nominated a religious zealot
Finally, then I have to go to work we also need to stop catering to the extremes and figure out how we get back to the center where I do believe 40% of the country prefers to be. But maybe I am just old fashioned
Then again, someone pointed out how is the first image different from this one?
No comments:
Post a Comment