ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amy Coney Barrett , obituaries , Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Supreme Court issues , Supreme Court justices

Reply
Old 28th September 2020, 11:25 PM   #801
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,683
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Because he knows that's the #1 subject near and dear to the religious right's heart. He wants to be sure that after she takes the SC bench she doesn't double cross him and vote to support precedent by not overturning Roe v Wade.
Why would it matter after Nov and certainly Roe v Wade won't be tested before then?

Why would Trump care? He cares how she'd vote if a challenge to the election comes up. Maybe he cares that she wants to overturn Roberts' ruling on the ACA because Trump is all about overturning anything Obama.

But abortion? The religious right already expects Barrett to be an antiabortion candidate. Trump has no reason to give a rip.
__________________
Thousands of COMMUTATIONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (2009-2017)

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2020, 01:45 AM   #802
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,164
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The Democrats are better off focusing on Biden winning, and not showing their cards until Jan.

Delaying the installation of Barrett isn't of much value unless one is certain she'll cast some deciding vote installing Trump and I don't believe that is the case.
The idea is that it won't delay it, it'll prevent it. Keep the Senate tied up until it's once again a Democrat majority.

As I say, I don't think that it's a good or likely plan, but it is legally feasible.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2020, 04:23 PM   #803
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,111
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Why would it matter after Nov and certainly Roe v Wade won't be tested before then?

Why would Trump care? He cares how she'd vote if a challenge to the election comes up. Maybe he cares that she wants to overturn Roberts' ruling on the ACA because Trump is all about overturning anything Obama.

But abortion? The religious right already expects Barrett to be an antiabortion candidate. Trump has no reason to give a rip.
I think he cares because he's made such a big deal out of appointing anti-abortion and all the other far right values judges to the bench. But especially to the Supreme Court. He sees that and getting rid of the ACA (due to his hatred of Obama) as his legacy. You disagree; fine. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. It's not worth belaboring the point.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2020, 05:01 PM   #804
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 28,050
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I think he cares because he's made such a big deal out of appointing anti-abortion and all the other far right values judges to the bench. But especially to the Supreme Court. He sees that and getting rid of the ACA (due to his hatred of Obama) as his legacy. You disagree; fine. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. It's not worth belaboring the point.
I'm sure he will see his Supreme Court nominations as his legacy. The rest of us will see the smouldering ruins of democracy that he has left behind, but for his own way of thinking, I am sure he will take the adulation of Evangelical Christians because all he wants is to be thought of as amazing. He doesn't really care who thinks of him that way (or who he hopes thinks of him that way). It could be theological nuts, Vladimir Putin, the Saudis, Kim Jong-un. It's all the same to him.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2020, 05:42 PM   #805
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,111
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I'm sure he will see his Supreme Court nominations as his legacy. The rest of us will see the smouldering ruins of democracy that he has left behind, but for his own way of thinking, I am sure he will take the adulation of Evangelical Christians because all he wants is to be thought of as amazing. He doesn't really care who thinks of him that way (or who he hopes thinks of him that way). It could be theological nuts, Vladimir Putin, the Saudis, Kim Jong-un. It's all the same to him.
All he'll remember are the throngs of MAGA hat wearing idiots cheering and repeating simple minded chants and the adulation.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2020, 05:15 AM   #806
bignickel
Mad Mod Poet God
 
bignickel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 3,186
I’ve been looking for information for what Novalsnd brought up earlier about the repubs need for a 9 member quorum in the committee: this is the only recent thing I’ve found so far:

“ A quorum is the minimum number of members present for a committee or the full Senate to conduct business and hold votes. The quorum in the full Senate is 51 members and the quorum of the Judiciary Committee is nine members including two in the minority party. This means that if one or fewer Democrats show up to the planned Oct. 22 meeting where the Judiciary Committee plans to vote on the Barrett confirmation then they could prevent the committee from reporting the nomination to the Senate.

There are ways around this. Most notably, the Senate can vote on a discharge resolution that would remove the responsibility of considering the Barrett nomination from the committee, allowing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to call the nomination for a full vote.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sch...ett-nomination

This seems trivially easy for the repubs to do. They just need a simple majority for the discharge resolution.
__________________
"You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real. I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that."
- Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone

Last edited by bignickel; 12th October 2020 at 05:19 AM. Reason: Added
bignickel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2020, 08:33 AM   #807
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 29,392
Mike Lee is back at the hearing today, Thom Tillis says he will be later in the week. They'll have their quorum.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2020, 09:26 AM   #808
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 15,137
Sen Mazie Hirono, speaking at the Barrett hearing, is so awesome. So real.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
My authority is total - Trump
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 02:51 AM   #809
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 29,143
If a judge can make moral decisions without being influenced by their religious beliefs what is the purpose of the religious beliefs in the first place?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 01:46 PM   #810
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 29,143
Amy Coney Barrett: "I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act."

That won't make trump happy.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 02:23 PM   #811
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,212
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
If a judge can make moral decisions without being influenced by their religious beliefs what is the purpose of the religious beliefs in the first place?
Interpreting the law should not involve moral decisions for a judge. The people trying to turn constitutional jurisprudence into a moral question are disturbingly misguided and undermining the rule of law.

If the constitution permits capital punishment, it is not immoral to say so. Nor is it immoral to rule accordingly. One's own morality does not enter into it.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 02:26 PM   #812
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,212
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Amy Coney Barrett: "I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act."

That won't make trump happy.
LOL.

It depends, doesn't it? She can't destroy the ACA if she doesn't get confirmed. If Trump knows her mission and is happy with her mission, why wouldn't he be happy that she says whatever she needs to say to get confirmed?

But honestly I doubt Trump really cares about the ACA one way or the other.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 02:33 PM   #813
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,111
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
If a judge can make moral decisions without being influenced by their religious beliefs what is the purpose of the religious beliefs in the first place?
Supreme Court justices are there to interpret the Constitution and to make sure US laws adhere to the rights given by that document. Judges do not make moral decisions. They are there to make sure the law is followed. Their moral beliefs regarding that law have no role in making sure the law is followed.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 02:38 PM   #814
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,111
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
LOL.

It depends, doesn't it? She can't destroy the ACA if she doesn't get confirmed. If Trump knows her mission and is happy with her mission, why wouldn't he be happy that she says whatever she needs to say to get confirmed?

But honestly I doubt Trump really cares about the ACA one way or the other.
We agree on this. The only thing Trump cares about is getting re-elected. This is why he wants Barrett confirmed. Packing the SC with conservative judges is something he thinks will help him get re-elected. If he gave a damn about getting rid of he ACA and replacing it with something better that would really help Americans, he'd have done it by now as he's been promising for 4 years.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 01:58 AM   #815
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 30,208
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
We agree on this. The only thing Trump cares about is getting re-elected. This is why he wants Barrett confirmed. Packing the SC with conservative judges is something he thinks will help him get re-elected. If he gave a damn about getting rid of he ACA and replacing it with something better that would really help Americans, he'd have done it by now as he's been promising for 4 years.
With healthcare, even if he cared, President Trump is facing the same problem that Brexiteers in the UK are facing. Anything which will make the situation better is fundamentally incompatible with the views and values of his party.
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 03:43 AM   #816
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 57,476
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Interpreting the law should not involve moral decisions for a judge. The people trying to turn constitutional jurisprudence into a moral question are disturbingly misguided and undermining the rule of law.

If the constitution permits capital punishment, it is not immoral to say so. Nor is it immoral to rule accordingly. One's own morality does not enter into it.
Then what do you make of Barrett, who claims she'd recuse on moral grounds cases around the death penalty? Isn't that, by your above belief, an admission she's not suitable for the job? That she isn't going to make the separation between her personal morality and constitutional jurisprudence?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.