The Gallery of Trump-Inspired Assholes (Part 1)


This one is barely even in the city, it’s basically in the middle of the Columbia River

but the venue is also under local control, unlike the federal park they usually go to :thinking:




“ MYSTAL: The problem is not that Amy Coney Barrett is particularly Catholic. The problem is that she’s a HYPOCRITE. I would – I’m Catholic. I could live with the Catholic judge. I could live with a judge who devoutly applied their faith to issues of the law. But it is not Catholic, it is not devout to turn away thy neighbor who is need of assistance as Amy Coney Barrett did in 2020 when she was the lone judge to uphold Donald Trump’s public charge rule which denied green cards to people who might need public assistance. It is not devoutly Christian or Catholic to praise the deliberate indifference of human life, which Amy Coney Barrett did in 2018 when she was the lone judge to tell a group of prisoners they had no 8th Amendment protections, when prison guards shot loaded guns into a crowded cafeteria. It is not devoutly Catholic to take away people’s health care, as Amy Coney Barrett has repeatedly said she will. It is not devoutly Catholic to apply the death penalty, which Amy Coney Barrett has written that a good Catholic judge should recuse themselves from situations implying the death penalty, but she has not written and here’s the elephant in the room, she has not written that a good Catholic judge should recuse themselves on issues involving abortion or a women’s right to choose. So what we’re left with is a hypocrite who will insert her judicial opinion between a woman and a woman’s doctor, but will not insert her moral opinion between the executioner and the prisoner on the chopping block. Now, that kind of hypocrisy is something I can’t deal with.

I mean…”


should say: yet another Catholic judge.
with Barrett, the court will have SIX Catholic justices. Two fucking thirds, 67%! How the FUCK is that representative of the population as a whole?! What gives the fucking Papists this judicial edge?
Judge much, Catholica?

Yes, this is posted in anger. Yes, I am aware “something, something not all Catholics”. Miss me with that, I acknowledge the anger, it is not meant as hate. Honestly.
I simply question the slant. Before Barrett, there had been a total of 17 Catholic justices ever*. Now SIX of them sit on this court. I don’t get it.
*edit “ever”


another trump ass-kisser with another horrible idea said out loud:


Y’all remember Fraser Anning, the Australian Senator who got egged after cheering on the NZ mosque massacre?


I don’t have a problem with catholics being judges, just like I don’t have any issue with Baptists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, Muslims, or atheists being judges. Being catholic is not the problem, the problem is imposing one’s religious views on others via the bench. That is never okay in a constitutional framework that explicilty lays out a division between the church and the state.

To be frank, I see protestants being a much bigger problem, in that they are the majority of Christians, and specifically the white conservative evangelical movement that has brought in some catholics through a shared understanding of one aspect of being pro-life (ie abortion) in order to create a theocratic system that seeks to make anyone who isn’t on board with their beliefs (or who doesn’t share their race) literal second class citizens.

Let’s not forget that there was very strong anti-Catholic sentiments in much of the Anglo-Saxon protestant population, with that lasting enough into the 20th century to call into question President Kennedy’s allegiance to the US because he was a practicing catholic.


I do. Roe v. Wade.


For me it isn’t that easy. A lot of these religious sects believe that abortion is, quite literally, murder. For me to trust one of them to simply interpret law and not impose their beliefs is to assume they are willing to stand by and willfully allow murder and do nothing about it. Not like “justice” capital punishment, but what the sects themselves call it, “murdering babies.”

Granted, not all the members of those sects believe abortion is murder, but if that is the stance of the sect itself, I do think it is appropriate to question them about it. They should be asked "Do you believe abortion is “murdering babies?”

If they answer yes, then I don’t believe any normal human being with a conscience could sit back and not interfere with the murder of babies. If they answer “Yes, I think it is murdering babies but I am okay with murdering babies as long as the law says it is okay,” I am not sure i could trust them with… well, anything.

Shame they don’t take a similar stance when it comes to raping boys.

It’s a cult.


Again, not all Catholics are anti-choice.


That assumes that catholics or anyone are just dogmatically following along with their religion, when it’s obviously not the case.

Then so are the boy scouts and many other organizations that have had this problem and covered it up. Which is many of them.


Oh, I agree that there may be some pro-choice Catholics, but I also would say that it’s a safe bet that the Catholics on the Supreme Court are not/have not been pro-choice.

ETA: I had to look up whether Sonia Sotomayor identifies as Catholic and she does. Just reiterate what @Mindysan33 wrote above, not all Catholics are anti-choice and many who are not personally pro-choice believe that Roe v. Wade is the law. However, I’m suspect of any Catholic, especially male, appointed by a right wing president.

(IIRC, Ted Kennedy got a lot of shit from his Archbishop for supporting RvW?)


That assumes that catholics or anyone are just dogmatically following along with their religion, when it’s obviously not the case.

So, we can agree then that people who are dogmatically following along with their religion probably should not be Supreme Court Justices?

How do we know if we don’t quiz them on their religious beliefs?


That would depend on who appointed them and their own political alignment more than their faith.

They would be just as suspect if they were protestant, Jewish, Muslim, or even atheist.


We should focus on their judicial philosphy and their actual record as judges. Her record has a clear indication of how she’d handle a Roe Case. Just her being Catholic doesn’t tell us that.


Agreed. (Although I’m not sure the right would ever appoint a Muslim or atheist?)


In this current configuration? Likely not. Although they might do so with a right wing muslim or atheist, specifically to “prove” they are not bigoted. Just like Trump has appointed people of color and women to prominent positions.


My post was hastily, angrily and sloppily worded. It is not Catholic judges or Catholicism I am objecting to, it is what I feel an overrepresentation on our highest jury.
@Mindysan33 is correct that it is the judicial record that should be the deciding factor in selecting our justices rather than religious belief alone. That I do not question. However I believe these last nominations have been made entirely to skew the bench to far right viewpoint and that makes me very angry . That Barrett is selected - again, in my opinion - to be the religious right’s final straw to break Roe, along with a host of other decisions that will assuredly erode hard-won civil rights should make us all angry.


As well it should. But targeting your anger at an entire religion made up of over a billion people doesn’t do anything to understand why that’s happened, I’d argue.

Agreed. I never said I wasn’t angry, but there are entire parts of the country where women already can’t effectively access reproductive care, including abortion and Roe at this point is still the law of the land. :woman_shrugging: