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 , People of Praise , Supreme Court nominees

Reply
Old 10th October 2020, 10:54 PM   #1
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,720
Justice Barrett

There doesn't seem to be a thread about Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. This writer contends that focusing on her anti-abortion, anti-ACA positions are a distraction. He calls her a Christian fascist.
Quote:
The legal calculus for the Christian right no longer revolves around the concept of universal human rights but around the tenets of "Bible-believing Christians" who supposedly authored the Constitution. Huge segments of the population are stripped of moral worth and legal protection. This process is incremental and often unseen. As the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels understood: "The best propaganda is that which, as it were, works invisibly, penetrates the whole of life without the public having any knowledge of the propagandistic initiative."
....
If you are poor, if you lack proper medical care, if you are paid substandard wages, if you are trapped in the lower class, if you are a victim of police violence, this is because, according to this ideology, you are not a good Christian and not blessed by God. In this belief system you deserve what you get. There is nothing wrong, these homegrown fascists preach, with the structures or systems of power.
https://www.salon.com/2020/10/08/tru...stian-fascism/

Senate hearing start Monday.
https://nypost.com/2020/10/06/mcconn...-begin-monday/

Last edited by Bob001; 10th October 2020 at 11:30 PM.
Bob001 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 10th October 2020, 11:12 PM   #2
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,683
Do you mean Barrett?
__________________
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 10th October 2020, 11:13 PM   #3
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 28,050
Isn't her name Amy Coney Barrett?
__________________
"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 10th October 2020, 11:20 PM   #4
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,720
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Do you mean Barrett?
Yes. Brain fog. Fixed.

ETA: Hey, mods, looks like I can't correct thread title. Can you work your magic?

Last edited by Bob001; 10th October 2020 at 11:28 PM.
Bob001 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 10th October 2020, 11:29 PM   #5
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,153
Well, she is certainly not the kind of Catholic the Vatican would approve of.

She has also put her name to some very extreme positions on abortion and women'S rights.

All in all, more a 19th than a 21st Century pick for SCOTUS.
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/
The Great Zaganza 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 10th October 2020, 11:57 PM   #6
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,111
The fact that she belonged to The Federalist Society is enough for me to oppose her.
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 11th October 2020, 11:15 AM   #7
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 29,392
Quote:
The legal calculus for the Christian right no longer revolves around the concept of universal human rights but around the tenets of "Bible-believing Christians" who supposedly authored the Constitution.
Except that those "Bible-Believing Christians" are fundy protestants. Many of those don't consider the Papist Barrett to be an actual Christian, not that that'll stop them from making use of her to get what they want.
__________________
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 11th October 2020, 11:26 AM   #8
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,153
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Except that those "Bible-Believing Christians" are fundy protestants. Many of those don't consider the Papist Barrett to be an actual Christian, not that that'll stop them from making use of her to get what they want.
She isn't a papist, she is part of a weird mixed church which has members of different denominations - more Cult than anything recognizable as Catholic or Protestant.
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/
The Great Zaganza 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 11th October 2020, 11:45 AM   #9
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,776
I think if she gets in, supreme court decisions will be more correct (based on a heuristic).

There is a single correct conclusion in every supreme court case. The only question is if we can know what it is.
BobTheCoward 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 11th October 2020, 03:37 PM   #10
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 28,050
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I think if she gets in, supreme court decisions will be more correct (based on a heuristic).

There is a single correct conclusion in every supreme court case. The only question is if we can know what it is.
You mean there is some divine Truth? Maybe she has the Holy Grail. Someone must have the Holy Grail, after all.
__________________
"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 11th October 2020, 03:48 PM   #11
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,111
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I think if she gets in, supreme court decisions will be more correct (based on a heuristic).

There is a single correct conclusion in every supreme court case. The only question is if we can know what it is.
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 11th October 2020, 05:22 PM   #12
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,776
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
You mean there is some divine Truth? Maybe she has the Holy Grail. Someone must have the Holy Grail, after all.
It is about time traveling back to the 18th century and subjecting yourself to the same prejudices and limitations.

We must force ourselves to wear this coat from our childhood.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 11th October 2020 at 05:28 PM.
BobTheCoward 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 11th October 2020, 07:48 PM   #13
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 28,050
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It is about time traveling back to the 18th century and subjecting yourself to the same prejudices and limitations.

We must force ourselves to wear this coat from our childhood.
Huh, what?
__________________
"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 11th October 2020, 08:06 PM   #14
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,776
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Huh, what?
It was a parody of something Mayor Pete said on MSNBC today.
BobTheCoward 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, 06:17 AM   #15
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 23,645
The initial hearings are starting now. I can think of little else that I would care less about watching, due to its foregone conclusion.

I do think it's in bad form to have her young kids there in the front row, even without the virus risk. Bad enough they were at the superspreader announcement event without masks, but it's not "Take Your Kids to Work" Day. Granted, the lewdness of the subjects of previous candidates will probably not occur. I'll be surprised if they're there a second day due to sheer boredom.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.

Last edited by alfaniner; 12th October 2020 at 06:20 AM.
alfaniner 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, 02:30 PM   #16
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,111
I'm not watching it either. Why bother?
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, 03:13 PM   #17
Gulliver Foyle
Critical Thinker
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cork baaaiii
Posts: 292
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Well, she is certainly not the kind of Catholic the Vatican would approve of.
You'd be surprised. The current pope once endorsed the killings of LGBT+ people when visiting the Philippines.
Gulliver Foyle 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, 05:46 PM   #18
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 21,456
I'm going to laugh is Graham comes down with Covid and he's the reason there's no quorum. Mike Lee may have done the nation a great service today. He's showed up while still symptomatic.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 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, 05:51 PM   #19
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,111
Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle View Post
You'd be surprised. The current pope once endorsed the killings of LGBT+ people when visiting the Philippines.
I'd like to see some evidence of that.
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, 07:31 PM   #20
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,357
Republicans are arguing against straw-men. They're trying to make the case that Democrats hate her because she is religious or because she's a woman.
Of course, all Republicans have are lies.
This hearing is all about convincing to public that this lady is or isn't a good choice. We all know she's a shoe-in because the Republicans have all the votes. I'm certain that the majority of people understand that this lady is a poor/dangerous choice.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken 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, 08:52 PM   #21
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,720
Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle View Post
You'd be surprised. The current pope once endorsed the killings of LGBT+ people when visiting the Philippines.

That's extremely unlikely.
https://time.com/3975630/pope-francis-lgbt-issues/
https://people.com/human-interest/po...utism-flowers/
Bob001 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, 09:02 PM   #22
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Southern hemisphere
Posts: 7,771
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Republicans are arguing against straw-men. They're trying to make the case that Democrats hate her because she is religious or because she's a woman.
Of course, all Republicans have are lies.
This hearing is all about convincing to public that this lady is or isn't a good choice. We all know she's a shoe-in because the Republicans have all the votes. I'm certain that the majority of people understand that this lady is a poor/dangerous choice.
First question: Given her previous public stances on healthcare and abortion, will she recuse herself from any SCOTUS cases involving these subjects? Because if she recuses herself from any decisions it becomes a hung SCOTUS again and it is possible the SCOTUS will not rule to overthrow legislation, i.e. "make policy".

This question allows fully that she may have religion and gender based positions on these subjects. Nobody is denying her that, so the question is hardly objectionable.

But these are the exact subjects and reason why she is being fervently courted and thrown into this bear-pit by the GOP: They want her to rule in their favour. Lindsay Graham is casting the last remaining shreds of his integrity to the winds and turning himself inside-out to make it happen (aside: someone has something on him, surely...). Why else is the GOP trying to put her there? To beautify the SCOTUS bench with her presence? Impress everyone with her fine turn of a legal phrase?
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander 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, 09:51 PM   #23
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,153
If Dems manage to make her commit on recusing her from critical subjects, and then she doesn't when a case comes up, that would be a reason to impeach her.
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/
The Great Zaganza 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, 10:52 PM   #24
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,720
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
If Dems manage to make her commit on recusing her from critical subjects, and then she doesn't when a case comes up, that would be a reason to impeach her.
There's no chance that she would make such a commitment. She has no reason to.
Bob001 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, 11:07 PM   #25
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,153
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
There's no chance that she would make such a commitment. She has no reason to.
She actually has made such a commitment in the past, when she wrote an opinion that her faith would demand that she should recuse herself from hearing cases involving the Death Penalty.
Since anti-choice advocates claim that abortion is the same as murder, that might be another case where she, according to her own standards, should recuse herself.

But I agree - she is too smart to do more than dog-whistling.
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/
The Great Zaganza 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, 04:53 AM   #26
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 57,476
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
She actually has made such a commitment in the past, when she wrote an opinion that her faith would demand that she should recuse herself from hearing cases involving the Death Penalty.
Why would the nation benefit from appointing someone who refuses to do the work to an important job? If her religious beliefs prevent her, in advance, from doing some of the work she should decline the position entirely.
__________________
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
Old 13th October 2020, 05:35 AM   #27
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,153
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Why would the nation benefit from appointing someone who refuses to do the work to an important job? If her religious beliefs prevent her, in advance, from doing some of the work she should decline the position entirely.
exactly.
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/
The Great Zaganza 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, 07:50 AM   #28
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,810
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Why would the nation benefit from appointing someone who refuses to do the work to an important job? If her religious beliefs prevent her, in advance, from doing some of the work she should decline the position entirely.
Because for some reason a lot of people think "Religious Freedom" means that religious people should never be forced to choose between their religious opinions and their other opinions.

Somehow if your "deeply held religious principles" means you can't process or handle birth control but you still want to be a pharmacist it's society's job to square the circle for you.

And if we don't do that we're "biased" against religious people, as has already started in the discussion about Barrett.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue 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, 07:53 AM   #29
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,810
This is lady sure is pleading the 5th a lot for someone who's not actually on trial.

Roe Vs Wade? "I don't want to give an answer."
Can Trump cancel the election? "Well if that happens I'll have to weight the pros and cons carefully..."
Is water wet? "I don't want to commit to answer right now..."

You are aware that making definitive, final decisions is literally going to be your only job right?
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 13th October 2020 at 08:20 AM.
JoeMorgue 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, 08:09 AM   #30
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,580
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Because for some reason a lot of people think "Religious Freedom" means that religious people should never be forced to choose between their religious opinions and their other opinions.

Somehow if your "deeply held religious principles" means you can't process or handle birth control but you still want to be a pharmacist it's society's job to square the circle for you.

And if we don't do that we're "biased" against religious people, as has already started in the discussion about Barrett.
See: Kim Davis.
johnny karate 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, 08:28 AM   #31
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,776
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Because for some reason a lot of people think "Religious Freedom" means that religious people should never be forced to choose between their religious opinions and their other opinions.

Somehow if your "deeply held religious principles" means you can't process or handle birth control but you still want to be a pharmacist it's society's job to square the circle for you.

And if we don't do that we're "biased" against religious people, as has already started in the discussion about Barrett.
It seems society should have no say in who you choose to sell or not sell to regardless of reason.
BobTheCoward 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, 08:44 AM   #32
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 7,587
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It seems society should have no say in who you choose to sell or not sell to regardless of reason.
Thats a strawman and you know it. Intentional? I won't say "that's like you" but... "aliens".
Will you acknowledge it and admit the nuanced reality of current retail regs?
__________________
----------------------
Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything.

"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
Jim_MDP 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, 08:53 AM   #33
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,720
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Why would the nation benefit from appointing someone who refuses to do the work to an important job? If her religious beliefs prevent her, in advance, from doing some of the work she should decline the position entirely.
I'm not sure I agree with that. Death penalty cases would be a small part of the job. It would be more honest and generally better to recuse herself in those specific cases than to remain on them and impose her pre-conceptions. Every judge might see some cases (previous experience, knowing the parties etc.) that would require recusal. That's part of the system.
Bob001 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, 08:55 AM   #34
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,776
Originally Posted by Jim_MDP View Post
Thats a strawman and you know it. Intentional? I won't say "that's like you" but... "aliens".
Will you acknowledge it and admit the nuanced reality of current retail regs?
It isn't a straw man....it is my position. I can't straw man my own position.
BobTheCoward 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, 08:55 AM   #35
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,720
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
This is lady sure is pleading the 5th a lot for someone who's not actually on trial.

Roe Vs Wade? "I don't want to give an answer."
Can Trump cancel the election? "Well if that happens I'll have to weight the pros and cons carefully..."
Is water wet? "I don't want to commit to answer right now..."

You are aware that making definitive, final decisions is literally going to be your only job right?
Well, her answer would be that she has to make decisions based on the evidence and arguments presented in a particular case. That's different from making a blanket statement.

I haven't been watching all day. Did she really say Trump could cancel the election?
Bob001 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, 08:56 AM   #36
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,212
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It seems society should have no say in who you choose to sell or not sell to regardless of reason.
Is this axiomatic for you, or derived?
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, 08:57 AM   #37
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,776
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Is this axiomatic for you, or derived?
Don't know
BobTheCoward 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, 08:57 AM   #38
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,720
Does Judge Barrett have a little bit of a valley girl vibe? She seems to say "you know" a lot, she referred to the Congress as "you guys," and she's a less compelling speaker than you might expect from a veteran university law professor and federal judge.
Bob001 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, 09:01 AM   #39
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,810
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Well, her answer would be that she has to make decisions based on the evidence and arguments presented in a particular case. That's different from making a blanket statement.
That's not an answer though, that's just her repeating her job back to us. She's a high level Federal Judge being speed laned to the highest court in the land. She should have some answers ready. That's not asking too much.

But no we're supposed to believe that she's been in high level law for years and where she stands on the biggest legal issues of the day have just never crossed her mind.

We're asking her opinion, not for her legal decisions.

It's like at a job interview to be a mechanic you were asked "How would you replace the fuel pump on a '87 Honda Civic" and your answer was "Well I would replace it according to the procedures for replacing an '87 Honda Civic fuel." It's a mathematician's answer, a non-answer.
Quote:
I haven't been watching all day. Did she really say Trump could cancel the election?
No when asked she started to hem and haw and refuse to commit.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue 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, 09:28 AM   #40
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 57,476
If she expects to recuse herself from death penalty questions because of her religious beliefs, why wouldn't she then be expected to recuse herself from abortion questions for the same reason of religious beliefs? Isn't that inconsistent?
__________________
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 05:21 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.