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 15th October 2020, 08:23 AM   #121
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,106
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I mean, the job of the Court is to rule on whether something is constitutional, not whether it's peaceful or moral or desirable. If something lacks a constitutional basis or a legal precedent, they should say so, not keep their mouths shut or lie about their jurisprudence.
Are you arguing that the Constitution doesn't call for a peaceful transition of power?
__________________
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 15th October 2020, 08:25 AM   #122
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,184
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The fact she thinks it is controversial brings into question her mental fitness for the job in the first place.
But objectively it IS controversial, in the sense that lots of people have very different opinions on it. And that's the sense that matters for the court, prior to hearing a case on the matter.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 15th October 2020, 08:27 AM   #123
Lennart Hyland
Muse
 
Lennart Hyland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 603
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Seems like someone doesn't understand the role of the courts. The reality of climate change is an issue policymakers have to deal with, and the courts aren't supposed to make policy. It's almost never relevant to the courts, and in the few situations in which it might be, then it's still better for the court to not have voiced an opinion before hearing such a case.
Well she had no problem stating her opinion on if cigarettes causes cancers and if the corona virus is infectious... But an opinion on if climate change is a fact or not is suddenly not something a judge should declare.
__________________
L.H 1919 - 1993 R.I.P

Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views. David Scott - CTBUH Chairman
Lennart Hyland 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 15th October 2020, 08:27 AM   #124
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,175
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The issue isn't the term itself. The issue is what it means to someone who will hold the power to invalidate same-sex marriages, and who has expressed reservations about the Obergefell decision and other decisions that protect LGBTQ rights. That person is not Biden.
Exactly. The issue isn't the term itself. If she's expressed reservations about Obergefell, I bet you anything they're legal and constitutional reservations. Hirono could have asked about her legal reasoning about Obergefell, and about other questions of LGBTQ rights. That's the whole point of the confirmation hearings. Not to go on tangential rants about terminology because of the implications. Hirono had the nominee right there in front of her, taking direct questions. There was no need to get into implications at all.

Same thing with the "dark money" speech. Did the senator present any evidence that Barrett is connected to dark money? Did he ask the nominee any direct questions about her dark money connections?

If the senators can find good reasons not to confirm Barrett, fine. But this grandstanding crap isn't 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 15th October 2020, 08:28 AM   #125
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,130
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The reality of climate change is an issue policymakers have to deal with, and the courts aren't supposed to make policy. It's almost never relevant to the courts, and in the few situations in which it might be, then it's still better for the court to not have voiced an opinion before hearing such a case.
Why is that not true for covid 19? Would you say that policies about and around covid 19 have been uncontroversial in the US?

And she wasn't asked to make policy. She was asked to state whether she believed climate change was real.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 15th October 2020, 08:31 AM   #126
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,774
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But objectively it IS controversial, in the sense that lots of people have very different opinions on it. And that's the sense that matters for the court, prior to hearing a case on the matter.
Objectively it isn't controversial. The idea that some mouth breathers disagree with evidence does not mean it arises to a controversy.

Flat earth and evolution are not controversial either because some people have religious beliefs.
BobTheCoward 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 15th October 2020, 08:43 AM   #127
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,175
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Are you arguing that the Constitution doesn't call for a peaceful transition of power?
No.

I am arguing that whatever the Constitution calls for, the Court needs to see that and say that, clearly, regardless of whether it means peace or violence.

But now that you ask, and I'm thinking about it... I don't think the Constitution calls for a peaceful transition of power. Article 2, for example, says nothing about the transition, let alone making a call for a peaceful transition. Neither does the 20th Amendment.

The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 doesn't talk about peaceful transitions, but it does talk about orderly transitions:

Accordingly, it is the intent of the
Congress that appropriate actions be authorized and taken to avoid
or minimize any disruption. In addition to the specific provisions
contained in this Act directed toward that purpose, toward that purpose, it is the intent
of the Congress that all officers of the Government so conduct the
affairs of the Government for which they exercise responsibility and
authority as (1) to be mindful of problems occasioned by transitions
in the office of President, (2) to take appropriate lawful steps to
avoid or minimize disruptions that might be occasioned by the transfer of the executive power, and (3) otherwise to promote orderly transitions in the office of President.
There's your call for peaceful transitions. I would say that if there were a constitutional challenge to this law, it would be important for the Court to rule on the constitutionality of it, regardless of whether the ruling opened the door to a less-than-peaceful transition.

Do you disagree?

Last edited by theprestige; 15th October 2020 at 08:45 AM.
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 15th October 2020, 09:46 AM   #128
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,106
Given US history and precedent, I see that the need for a peaceful transition has been understood by every President except Trump and his claqueurs.
It is also not up to the Supreme Court to call for violent action, should the President refuse to relinquish power.

Therefore, it was never a judicial question for Barrett to make - it was a question about her commitment to democracy.
And she refused to committ to supporting democracy - because doing so might endanger her nomination.
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/

Last edited by The Great Zaganza; 15th October 2020 at 09:48 AM.
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 15th October 2020, 09:50 AM   #129
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,184
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Why is that not true for covid 19?
For what aspects of Covid 19? The existence of the virus? No, that's not true.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 15th October 2020, 09:59 AM   #130
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,175
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
Then you'd be wrong. The belief that homosexuality is a voluntary choice is a common belief among people in anti-gay groups and communities. That's why they believe in and support gay conversion programs, and why they oppose having gays be one of the groups covered by anti-discrimination laws and policies. A common refrain among people in such groups is that being Black is a way some people are born, something that can't be changed, so it's fair to have anti-discrimination laws that prevent discrimination against Blacks, but being gay is a choice and something people can change if they choose to so it's wrong to include gays in anti-discrimination laws.

Now you can say that those people say such things but don't really believe it if you want, but I'm not aware of any evidence that they're lying about believing that. There are parents who forced gay children to undergo gay conversion therapy -- which has been an unpleasant and emotionally harmful program for many of the people who have been forced to undergo it -- because the parents apparently held a genuine belief their children could be helped to renounce homosexuality and choose to be heterosexual by undergoing such treatment.

If those parents really did not believe homosexuality was voluntary and could be changed, as you are asserting when you say "I doubt anyone ever actually thought sexual preference was a voluntary thing", then those parents were deliberately inflicting pain and harm on their children. Do you believe that?

That would be a criminal offense for them to force their children to undergo such treatment if they knew it could not help and knew that it would inflict pain and suffering. So do you believe that parents who put their children in gay conversion programs should be prosecuted for that crime? I don't recall you ever having expressed that opinion, and it doesn't sound like an opinion I'd expect you to hold.

I don't believe those parents were deliberately torturing their children. I think they honestly believed they were helping their children, based on the opinion they had heard repeatedly from speakers in the anti-gay movement that homosexuality is a choice. They honestly believe being gay is simply a choice, a lifestyle, which is why many people in anti-gay groups resist using the term "sexual orientation" and continue to use the phrase "sexual preference" instead.




Then I think you're wrong again. There are many people who have been speaking out about this issue over the past decade, and they appear to me to be sincere. And since this issue about homosexuality being a sexual orientation rather than a sexual preference is something which arose long before Amy Coney Barrett became a supreme court nominee, the current controversy is not simply something people created in order to oppose her confirmation -- it's about an important underlying issue, the use of the phrase "sexual preference" by people who oppose gay rights as part of their effort to keep gay women and men from being covered by anti-discrimination laws.

There have been a number of good articles written about this over the past decade or so. Here's a link for you to one of these, a Slate article by Jesse Bering from 2013:




That last bit I quoted is especially relevant to the current controversy, so I'd like to talk about that a little. But since this comment is probably already a bit long for some people, I'll do that in a separate comment.
Thanks. Looks like I have some rethinking to do.
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 15th October 2020, 10:02 AM   #131
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,175
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Given US history and precedent, I see that the need for a peaceful transition has been understood by every President except Trump and his claqueurs.
It is also not up to the Supreme Court to call for violent action, should the President refuse to relinquish power.

Therefore, it was never a judicial question for Barrett to make - it was a question about her commitment to democracy.
And she refused to committ to supporting democracy - because doing so might endanger her nomination.
I honestly don't know what you're talking about. If a question comes to the Court about whether the President is constitutionally empowered to do X, but doing X will lead to violence, what should the Court rule? Should they rule based on what the Constitution actually says about the question? Or should they rule based on what ruling is less likely to cause violence?
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 15th October 2020, 10:05 AM   #132
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,106
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I honestly don't know what you're talking about. If a question comes to the Court about whether the President is constitutionally empowered to do X, but doing X will lead to violence, what should the Court rule? Should they rule based on what the Constitution actually says about the question? Or should they rule based on what ruling is less likely to cause violence?
I am not talking about making a ruling.
I am talking about making a commitment to democracy as an American.
__________________
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 15th October 2020, 10:10 AM   #133
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,175
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I am not talking about making a ruling.
I am talking about making a commitment to democracy as an American.
I think you must be alluding to an exchange that happened during the confirmation hearings. Do you happen to know where I can find that exchange in the transcript?
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 15th October 2020, 10:24 AM   #134
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,106
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I think you must be alluding to an exchange that happened during the confirmation hearings. Do you happen to know where I can find that exchange in the transcript?
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts...y-2-transcript

Quote:
Cory Booker: (02:21:08)
Do you believe that every president should make a commitment unequivocally and resolutely to the peaceful transfer of power?

Amy Coney Barrett: (02:21:42)
Well, Senator, that seems to me to be pulling me in a little bit into this question of whether the president has said that he would not peacefully leave office. And so to the extent that this is a political controversy right now, as a judge, I want to stay out of it and I don’t want to express a view on.

Cory Booker: (02:22:04)
So judge, I appreciate you what you’ve said about respecting our founding fathers about the originalism. It’s remarkable that we’re at a place right now that this is becoming a question and a topic, but I’m asking you in light of our founding fathers in light of our traditions, in light that everyone who serves in that office has sworn an oath where they “swear to preserve and protect and defend the constitution of the United States.”

Cory Booker: (02:22:31)
I’m just asking you, should a president commit themselves like our founding fathers I think had a clear intention like the grace that George Washington showed to the peaceful transfer of power. Is that something that presidents should be able to do?

Amy Coney Barrett: (02:22:47)
Well, one of the beauties of America from the beginning of the Republic is that we have had peaceful transfers of power and that disappointed voters have accepted the new leaders that come into office. And that’s not true in every country. And I think it is part of the genius of our constitution and the good faith and goodwill of the American people that we haven’t had the situations that have arisen in so many other countries where there have been, where those issues have been present.

so she failed to committ, even when asked for her opinion, not judgement.
This should have been as easy as condemning White Supremacy - which the Constitution actually used to have an answer about.
__________________
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 15th October 2020, 10:37 AM   #135
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,350
Everyone knows that Barrett is an activist judge, just like Scalia was. Trying to get Trumpublicans to admit it is moot. They are appointing her to SCOTUS because she is an activist judge. Hell, even Lindsey Graham all-but-admitted it in his proclamation that he's happy an unabashed pro-lifer is getting voted in for the job.
__________________
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 15th October 2020, 10:37 AM   #136
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,175
A commitment to peaceful transition of power is not the same as a commitment to democracy.

I don't think a president should make a commitment unequivocally and resolutely to the peaceful transfer of power.

I think a president should make a commitment unequivocally and resolutely to the constitutional transfer of power.

I also think a president should make a commitment unequivocally and resolutely to use force if necessary to prevent an unconstitutional transfer of power, or to ensure a constitutional transfer of power.

Also, as you say, this isn't even a question of constitutional jurisprudence. There was no good reason for Senator Booker to ask it here, and no good reason for Judge Barrett to answer it. The only purpose it serves is to feed you bogus talking points about "commitment to democracy". In other words:

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The real question is whether the justice thinks there should be an unconstitutional transfer of power, as long as it's peaceful.
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 15th October 2020, 11:10 AM   #137
Mader Levap
Graduate Poster
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,054
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
A commitment to peaceful transition of power is not the same as a commitment to democracy.
Oh, we all are aware that Republican party is wanna-be authoritarian party working hard on removal of "wanna-be" part.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't think a president should make a commitment unequivocally and resolutely to the peaceful transfer of power.
I think a president should make a commitment unequivocally and resolutely to the constitutional transfer of power.
I also think a president should make a commitment unequivocally and resolutely to use force if necessary to prevent an unconstitutional transfer of power, or to ensure a constitutional transfer of power.
I see you are laying groundwork for installing Trump as el presidento against wishes of majority of population. I mean, it wouldn't be first time in this degenerated pseudo-democracy, but certainly most blatant.
__________________
Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Trump is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.
Mader Levap 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 15th October 2020, 11:44 AM   #138
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,175
Originally Posted by Mader Levap View Post
Oh, we all are aware that Republican party is wanna-be authoritarian party working hard on removal of "wanna-be" part.



I see you are laying groundwork for installing Trump as el presidento against wishes of majority of population. I mean, it wouldn't be first time in this degenerated pseudo-democracy, but certainly most blatant.
And yet I'm not the one saying that a commitment to constitutional transfers of power is undemocratic.
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 15th October 2020, 01:55 PM   #139
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
No doubt people are expressing the same concern about Joe Biden, who used the term "sexual preference" a few months ago.
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's different because reasons.
No, it's not different. But Biden isn't deciding on whether laws discriminating against LGBTQs are Constitutional or not, is he? So it's just a tad more important on how Barrett views things.
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 15th October 2020, 02:58 PM   #140
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,175
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No, it's not different. But Biden isn't deciding on whether laws discriminating against LGBTQs are Constitutional or not, is he?
Effectively, he is. The President is responsible for interpreting, implementing, and enforcing the laws passed by Congress. He sets policy for federal agencies and federal employees. He decides what Title IX means, in terms of practical application. He decides whether the armed forces can accommodate various sexes and genders, and if so how.

Pretty much any time the federal government is a party to a case before the Supreme Court, it's a case where the Executive branch has already made its own determination about the constitutionality of the law (or regulation, or policy) in question.

The president can set policy for two million federal employees with the stroke of a pen (and for millions more who receive government funding). Such policy can persist for months or years before the Supreme Court finally rules on its constitutionality. So I'd say a presidential candidate's view of human sexuality is at least as important as the view of a SCOTUS nominee.
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 15th October 2020, 03:30 PM   #141
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,021
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Effectively, he is. The President is responsible for interpreting, implementing, and enforcing the laws passed by Congress. He sets policy for federal agencies and federal employees. He decides what Title IX means, in terms of practical application. He decides whether the armed forces can accommodate various sexes and genders, and if so how.

Pretty much any time the federal government is a party to a case before the Supreme Court, it's a case where the Executive branch has already made its own determination about the constitutionality of the law (or regulation, or policy) in question.
The president can set policy for two million federal employees with the stroke of a pen (and for millions more who receive government funding). Such policy can persist for months or years before the Supreme Court finally rules on its constitutionality. So I'd say a presidential candidate's view of human sexuality is at least as important as the view of a SCOTUS nominee.

Effectively, he does not rule on the Constitutionality of laws. But you let me know when Biden interprets, implements or enforces a law passed by Congress that actually does discriminate against the LGBTQ community, OK?
He's endorsed by the National LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce and the largest national LGBTQ rights organization, the Human Rights Campaign, for a reason. There's also a reason the LGBTQ community is speaking out against the nomination of Barrett.
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 15th October 2020, 04:22 PM   #142
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,175
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Effectively, he does not rule on the Constitutionality of laws.
My view is that it's implicit in every official act of the Executive office.

Quote:
But you let me know when Biden interprets, implements or enforces a law passed by Congress that actually does discriminate against the LGBTQ community, OK?
He'd have to become president, first. But I can give you examples of other presidents who asserted constitutionality and were overturned by the Supreme Court. Would that be OK?

The question I'm addressing isn't whether Biden would issue some specific decision on constitutitionality. It's whether the president does in fact make meaningful decisions about constitutionality, before it ever comes before the Supreme Court.

Quote:
He's endorsed by the National LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce and the largest national LGBTQ rights organization, the Human Rights Campaign, for a reason. There's also a reason the LGBTQ community is speaking out against the nomination of Barrett.
I'm sure it's because they like his views on human sexuality and related issues. It's obviosuly not because he uses "sexual preference" correctly in a sentence.

And it has nothing to do with whether the president makes decisions about constitutionality.
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 15th October 2020, 05:35 PM   #143
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,698
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My view is that it's implicit in every official act of the Executive office.
.....
A bill doesn't become a law unless and until it is passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. It is then presumed to be Constitutional unless and until it is challenged in court and overturned. The President doesn't decide whether a law is Constitutional. For that matter, he couldn't declare that a law he doesn't like is UNConstitutional, either. That's not his role and it's not the way the system works.
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 15th October 2020, 05:53 PM   #144
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,184
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The President doesn't decide whether a law is Constitutional.
That isn't totally correct. The president can and should consider the constitutionality of a bill before he signs it, and refuse to sign it if it isn't. He can also direct the DOJ to contest the constitutionality of some laws, and even refuse to enforce laws viewed as unconstitutional. The president's views are not the final word, but unlike ours they are often relevant.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 15th October 2020, 05:58 PM   #145
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,184
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No, it's not different. But Biden isn't deciding on whether laws discriminating against LGBTQs are Constitutional or not, is he? So it's just a tad more important on how Barrett views things.
Sure he is. Any bill the president signs into law is a bill the president deems constitutional. Moreover, the president is responsible for policy, which has much more leeway and scope than the question of constitutionality. If you think policy choices don't matter for gay rights, you haven't been paying attention.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 15th October 2020, 06:00 PM   #146
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,774
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
A bill doesn't become a law unless and until it is passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. It is then presumed to be Constitutional unless and until it is challenged in court and overturned. The President doesn't decide whether a law is Constitutional. For that matter, he couldn't declare that a law he doesn't like is UNConstitutional, either. That's not his role and it's not the way the system works.
That is how the system works. All executive power is vested in a president. The supreme court rulings do not reach beyond the walls of courthouses. Nothing stops the president from ordering the continued enforcement of a law he thinks is constitutional but the supreme court does not.
BobTheCoward 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 15th October 2020, 06:10 PM   #147
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,175
"Don't ask, don't tell" wasn't a law. It was an Executive policy.

Stacy's trying to downplay Biden's use of "sexual preference" on the basis that it really doesn't matter what the president thinks about human sexuality. But we know better.
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 15th October 2020, 06:45 PM   #148
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,087
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That isn't totally correct. The president can and should consider the constitutionality of a bill before he signs it, and refuse to sign it if it isn't. He can also direct the DOJ to contest the constitutionality of some laws, and even refuse to enforce laws viewed as unconstitutional. The president's views are not the final word, but unlike ours they are often relevant.
No, you're wrong Zig.

The President probably should consider the constitutionality of a bill sine he took an oath to uphold the US Constitution. And Trump has ignored the Constitution since he took office. But the President isn't a legal scholar.

Although Obama was in fact one, as was William Howard Taft. Remember, Obama taught Constitutional Law before he became a Senator. Still, the Constitutionality of a law is in the end is decided by the Supreme Court. But even that isn't written into the Constitution. That became part of the law through Judicial Review.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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 15th October 2020, 07:37 PM   #149
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,021
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My view is that it's implicit in every official act of the Executive office.
As you say, that's YOUR view. That doesn't mean diddly squat legally.


Quote:
He'd have to become president, first. But I can give you examples of other presidents who asserted constitutionality and were overturned by the Supreme Court. Would that be OK?

The question I'm addressing isn't whether Biden would issue some specific decision on constitutitionality. It's whether the president does in fact make meaningful decisions about constitutionality, before it ever comes before the Supreme Court.
He makes decisions that are based on political ideologies. That some are late overturned by the SC are evidence that they are not based on their Constitutionality. It is not the purview of the president to decide the constitutionality of a law. Period.

Quote:
I'm sure it's because they like his views on human sexuality and related issues. It's obviosuly not because he uses "sexual preference" correctly in a sentence.
Of course. That's rather obvious, Captain.

Quote:
And it has nothing to do with whether the president makes decisions about constitutionality.
EXACTLY! Which is what I said. The president does not make decisions about a law's constitutionality. That is the purview of the SC, not the president.
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 15th October 2020, 09:24 PM   #150
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,680
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
As you say, that's YOUR view. That doesn't mean diddly squat legally.




He makes decisions that are based on political ideologies. That some are late overturned by the SC are evidence that they are not based on their Constitutionality. It is not the purview of the president to decide the constitutionality of a law. Period.



Of course. That's rather obvious, Captain.



EXACTLY! Which is what I said. The president does not make decisions about a law's constitutionality. That is the purview of the SC, not the president.

That’s a pretty weak defense of Biden’s use of “sexual preference.” From what I can gather, that phrase is grossly offensive and am everyone should know that; but, it only became so when ACB uttered it because of her potential position on SCOTUS, apparently. It wasn’t so offensive when RBG -the Justice ACB is replacing- said it in 2017. It wasn’t offensive the times Biden has said it.

I do not buy the idea that, suddenly, “sexual preference” is so offensive. I have a preference for a certain type of woman (my wife of course!) that is immutable. I can’t choose to be attracted to a woman I find unattractive. There’s no inherent implication about the ability to choose a different preference. You can’t choose your preferences. It’s a made up controversy to attack a specific person for a specific reason that we all now have to live with. It was just fine a few days ago.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 15th October 2020, 10:40 PM   #151
dirtywick
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,067
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
That’s a pretty weak defense of Biden’s use of “sexual preference.” From what I can gather, that phrase is grossly offensive and am everyone should know that; but, it only became so when ACB uttered it because of her potential position on SCOTUS, apparently. It wasn’t so offensive when RBG -the Justice ACB is replacing- said it in 2017. It wasn’t offensive the times Biden has said it.

I do not buy the idea that, suddenly, “sexual preference” is so offensive. I have a preference for a certain type of woman (my wife of course!) that is immutable. I can’t choose to be attracted to a woman I find unattractive. There’s no inherent implication about the ability to choose a different preference. You can’t choose your preferences. It’s a made up controversy to attack a specific person for a specific reason that we all now have to live with. It was just fine a few days ago.
Much of what you say is true, they were treated differently for using the same terminology. However, conservative and by extension and perhaps to even a great degree, ACB's general views on sexuality are unpopular. She doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt that RBG and Biden do that they aren't using those terms with bad intent, much less that they'd enact those views upon the general public.

of course people can choose their preferences btw. I prefer to leave for work 15 minutes early in case I forget something at home and have to turn around, but that's not a core part of my identity the way sexual orientation is. And before you say that's different and a good comparison, I agree which is the point.
dirtywick 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 15th October 2020, 10:59 PM   #152
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,021
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
"Don't ask, don't tell" wasn't a law. It was an Executive policy.

Stacy's trying to downplay Biden's use of "sexual preference" on the basis that it really doesn't matter what the president thinks about human sexuality. But we know better.
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
That’s a pretty weak defense of Biden’s use of “sexual preference.” From what I can gather, that phrase is grossly offensive and am everyone should know that; but, it only became so when ACB uttered it because of her potential position on SCOTUS, apparently. It wasn’t so offensive when RBG -the Justice ACB is replacing- said it in 2017. It wasn’t offensive the times Biden has said it.

I do not buy the idea that, suddenly, “sexual preference” is so offensive. I have a preference for a certain type of woman (my wife of course!) that is immutable. I can’t choose to be attracted to a woman I find unattractive. There’s no inherent implication about the ability to choose a different preference. You can’t choose your preferences. It’s a made up controversy to attack a specific person for a specific reason that we all now have to live with. It was just fine a few days ago.
Jesus H. Christ. What part of "No, it's not different," are you having difficulty understanding? Is it the "No"? Or the "It's not different" part? Or do you still think the president decides what's constitutional? If so, I suggest a refresher course in Civics.
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 16th October 2020, 01:20 AM   #153
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,130
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
For what aspects of Covid 19? The existence of the virus? No, that's not true.
Really? Trump never said that one day it would disappear like a miracle? Trump didn't downplay the virus, as he admitted to Woodward that he did? Just last night, Trump was once again boasting about how he doesn't wear a mask while Biden was emphasising the importance of the same.

OTOH, Trump admits that climate change is real and, more than that, he admits that human beings are (partially) responsible for it.

It seems to me that the existence of climate change is less controversial than the infectiousness of covid 19, politically speaking, because both sides agree on the former but not the latter.

It's a feeble excuse and either you've been taken in by it, or you know how feeble it is but want to promote the correct message like a good little soldier.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 16th October 2020, 01:25 AM   #154
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,130
Amy Coney Barrett couldn't name the five freedoms granted by the First Amendment when asked
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 16th October 2020, 01:35 AM   #155
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 30,167
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
She could however name all the "important" ones

The "right to protest" is over-rated, unless it's white guys in polo shirts and chinos carrying tiki torches.
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 16th October 2020, 04:58 AM   #156
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,774
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
She could however name all the "important" ones

The "right to protest" is over-rated, unless it's white guys in polo shirts and chinos carrying tiki torches.
Before reading the article, I tried to name them, and I came up with the same 4. Protest seems like it is covered broadly when you say speech and assembly. If you have a right to speech and a right to assemble, that seems to cover protesting.
BobTheCoward 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 16th October 2020, 05:46 AM   #157
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,184
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
No, you're wrong Zig.

The President probably should consider the constitutionality of a bill sine he took an oath to uphold the US Constitution. And Trump has ignored the Constitution since he took office. But the President isn't a legal scholar.
So what? The president doesn't need to be a legal scholar to have an opinion on the constitutionality of a bill. Plus he can obviously consult with such scholars if he so chooses.

Quote:
Still, the Constitutionality of a law is in the end is decided by the Supreme Court. But even that isn't written into the Constitution. That became part of the law through Judicial Review.
And all of this makes me wrong... how? Oh, that's right. It doesn't.

Seriously, this is the most bizarre argument. You say the president should consider constitutionality of a bill, but you claim he can't? How does that even make sense? And the fact that the Supreme Court is the last arbiter doesn't mean the president isn't also one. If the president doesn't sign a bill because he believes it to be unconstitutional, and thus it never becomes law, the Supreme Court doesn't get to rule on it. They can't overturn his decision to not sign a bill on that basis.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 16th October 2020, 05:54 AM   #158
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,184
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Really? Trump never said that one day it would disappear like a miracle? Trump didn't downplay the virus, as he admitted to Woodward that he did?
All of that requires that the virus exist to begin with, and none of it was what ACB was asked about.

You aren't very good at this.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 16th October 2020, 05:56 AM   #159
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,184
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
"Don't ask, don't tell" wasn't a law. It was an Executive policy.

Stacy's trying to downplay Biden's use of "sexual preference" on the basis that it really doesn't matter what the president thinks about human sexuality. But we know better.
The funny thing is, there's a much better excuse for Biden's use: the term wasn't considered offensive. And it still isn't considered offensive by most people, though activists are trying to change that.

The only problem with that excuse, and the reason that it isn't being used even though it's both correct and fully justifies Biden's use of it, is that it also excuses ACB's use of the term.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 16th October 2020, 06:23 AM   #160
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,612
I wonder in the near future if she will be called Justice Barret, or simply Ofjesse?
dmaker 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 08:52 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.