this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
314 points (99.7% liked)

politics

26816 readers
2949 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

She has been arguing that, as a Christian, she should not have to follow state rules about judicial impartiality.

A judge who cannot separate their religious bias of what is right and wrong from their role as a judge (the impartial arbiter of law as set forth through the political process), isn't just saying the separation of church and state shouldn't apply to marriage. They're also saying they cannot legitimately sit as a judge because they cannot keep personal bias separate from their role as a fair and neutral arbiter. She's telling on herself.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 74 points 2 days ago

A judge. Someone who is meant to uphold law and the constitution, has a problem separating her religion from the state.

The sad thing is, this is not a new problem. Worse: she might get her way.

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 43 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We all knew this was next after Roe v. Wade. It will bring the evangelicals out to vote.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Well, the radical right wing, the "centrists", and not a few so-called leftists were all declaring that anyone talking about Roe was just being hysterical, NBD, it will just "revert to the states" and it won't happen anyway, etc.

And then 2022 rolled around. And during that ruling, it became very very clear that Trollito is an extremely angry activist judge who wants to roll back all of modernity.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 33 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"As a xtian....the rules don't apply to ME! Because I'm so very fucking special!"

I'm so sick of this line of "reasoning" from these people.

[–] cheesybuddha@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Honestly, laws like the bill of rights are needed to protect us from Christians.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well, the founders definitely knew that. The Inquisition was still on in their lifetimes and many of them knew of the atrocities that xtians carried out on each other in the colonies.

Of course, lots of xtians will claim that there is no freedom FROM religion (just OF religion, LOL) and that the founders meant for this to be a xtian nation. Which is a nonsensical statement. What kind of "freedom" is it to only pick among various (Protestant) sects of xtianity? And why didn't the founders make any mention of their precious Jesus Christ anywhere in the Constitution?

The first amendment requires freedom FROM religion, too. But warped mush brains like this so-called judge think the nation should not be secular, but instead should cater to special snowflakes like her, just because of her chosen lifestyle.

[–] weariedfae@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

TIL the Spanish Inquisition only ended in 1834. Jfc.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Yeah, when today's xtians act like the founders left their little book club out of the Constitution as some kind of "oversight" (if they even know or admit that fact at all) and that they all just assumed everyone was going to be some (Protestant) xtian as some kind of requirement to be a full citizen, they are skipping over quite a bit of context.

Of course the Inquisition was still a thing and certainly the horrible things xtians do to not only "unbelievers", but to "heretics" (meaning xtians they disagree with over some bit of doctrine), was something the founders would have been keenly aware of.

[–] Floodedwomb@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

You should be aware of what the inquisition actually was.

[–] wuffah@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

How do you even become a State judge without knowing the US Constitution?

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago

The same way you become president without knowing anything about civics

[–] HeadfullofSoup@kbin.earth 10 points 2 days ago

Corruption? Or faking it till they don’t need to like a lot of fascist now

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Up until a decade ago the Constitution officially said nothing about gay marriage. Roe was precedent for half a century.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

On the state level, a lot of judges are elected rather than appointed. So, sometimes a weesle gets far without having gone to law school. Texas is one of those states.

[–] Boiglenoight@lemmy.world 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

As a Christian, she chose the wrong job. She does not live in a theocracy.

[–] cheesybuddha@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

Maybe not officially. Yet. But there's definitely some handwriting beginning to appear on the wall.

[–] Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca 22 points 2 days ago

Bit choosy isn't she. What about the subordinate to men part of Christianity? If she is a true believer, she needs to be a good little girl, quit her job and go home.

[–] Zier@fedia.io 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This individual is unqualified to be a judge. Perhaps a job in a church would suit her. You cannot belong to a cult and be unbiased. And christians are required by their religion, to be the most biased they can be, or burn in hell.

[–] KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Christians and catholics are categorically unqualified to be judges. Their religion explicitly states that only God possesses the authority to judge the souls of others. It is outright heresy. Thankfully, we know what to do with heretics.

Bust out the pitchforks, gentlemen.

[–] Zier@fedia.io 2 points 2 days ago

I'm gathering kindling for the pyre as we speak!

[–] Chivera@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

Ah yes Texas true believers in state's rights

[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 12 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Completely agree. It's disgusting.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)
[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 49 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's disgusting that she can't separate her religion from her job. She shouldn't be in that position then. I was agreeing with OP.

[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

For what it's worth, I read your reply like you meant it, but I see the ambiguity.

[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 12 points 2 days ago

I see it now, but I didn't when I posted it.

[–] metallic_substance@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

lol! What a zigzag in terms of up/downvotes. I read the original comment to mean that you sided with the piece of shit judge proposing this

[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 days ago

Yeah, when I posted it, it was obvious to ME what I was talking about. I have since seen the ambiguity but it's already there

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fedupwithbureaucracy@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Abolish the abrahamic religions

[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 4 points 2 days ago

Abolish the religions. Full stop. All of them. It's time for mankind to pull its big being britches up and get to work bettering itself.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Didn't the Supreme Court literally just decline to hear Kim Davis' case?

These fucking people will not give up.

[–] FosterMolasses@leminal.space 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It was a stunt so the next time they can say yes, just like with Roe v Wade.

yeah, they don't want clerks to have rights that they reserve for judges alone

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

"Conservatives" are mentally ill, mind your own fucking business you Isis wannabes

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Let's just do away with all marriage unless it's an old man and a child. Repubs will stop complaining and then maybe we can focus on policy that actually helps people. I'm being sarcastic, of course. That wouldn't change shit except for letting more old men molest little girls. Which is happening anyway. I hate it all.

[–] wolfeh@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago

old *person

[–] Zamotic@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Am I a bad person for kinda wanting this to happen so I can go to my gay cousin Trump lover and say I told you so?

[–] PlaidBaron@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Yes but its understandable.

you need some hyphens in there because i can't tell if you're in west virginia or not

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Unfortunately, republicans have been telling on themselves for decades. To great success.

[–] pricklypearbear@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

A partical judge shouldn't be a judge. Clearing stating she has biases and won't be fair.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The Bible says the punishment for rape should be having to marry your victim. This punishes the victim too, but the Bible shows no concern for that.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Is her Judges robe made of more than one fabric? 🤫

[–] cheesybuddha@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Cotton/poly blend?

That's a stoning

[–] cheesybuddha@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Well if you are a nomadic tribe in bronze age Mesopotamia who view women as possessions, then that makes perfect sense.

The Bible makes a ton of sense when you actually study it in an academic setting. It's when you start getting life advice out of it when things start going down hill really fast.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I get the impression that the Bible barely views women as moral agents at all. The rules are written by men, for men. And when a man rapes a woman, she isn't viewed as the victim, her father is viewed as the victim because he is her owner

[–] cheesybuddha@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

You hit the nail on the head there

[–] maxxadrenaline@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What a B. Well just boycott working at straight weddings and then nobody will have one. Well we will cause we’ll host our own and they will be marvelous while theirs will look right out of a dollar tree and ugly bridal dresses

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

For some reason my eyes jumped from

What a B. Well

straight to

Well we will cause we’ll

and I thought I was losing it for a moment, lol

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›