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 16th October 2020, 06:28 AM   #161
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,184
Originally Posted by dmaker View Post
I wonder in the near future if she will be called Justice Barret, or simply Ofjesse?
Wow, that's original.
__________________
"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, 06:29 AM   #162
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,106
Originally Posted by dmaker View Post
I wonder in the near future if she will be called Justice Barret, or simply Ofjesse?
She prefers to be addressed as "Handmaiden" .
__________________
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 16th October 2020, 08:15 AM   #163
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,175
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.
My point is twofold:

First, that the president makes decisions about how to implement law, and defends the constitutionality of those decisions when challenged. This is important - at least as important as the Supreme Court's role in deciding those challenges.

Second, and therefore, you are wrong to dismiss Biden's view of "sexual preference" on the grounds that he's a presidential candidate, not a Supreme Court 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 16th October 2020, 10:51 AM   #164
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,680
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
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.
The part where only ACB got any flak for uttering this patently offensive phrase that everyone should know is offensive.

The President does indeed decide what is Constitutional. Any particular POTUS may not be very good at deciding that and POTUS is not the final judge of what is and isn't Constitutional; but, the President's duty, after all is to uphold the Constitution. When POTUS acts, there's an underlying assumption that the action falls under his powers in the Constitution. Assumedly, POTUS has counsel on the Constitutionality of any particular executive action. Not even Trump has acted in a way blatantly outside his enumerated powers, at least not in any way that previous Presidents have not also done. Here's an Atlantic article discussing Obama's record on the Constitutionality of his actions.
__________________
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 16th October 2020, 01:09 PM   #165
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,749
//Slight hijack//

Yeah the whole "Hold up the blank piece of paper to show you aren't taking notes" thing was clever but... Damn lady have you met the internet? You couldn't have sat down and designed something more open to being memed.
__________________
- 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 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, 01:50 PM   #166
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,021
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The part where only ACB got any flak for uttering this patently offensive phrase that everyone should know is offensive.
Ah...so the part where I said "No, it's not different" is the part you're having difficulty understanding why it's not different. Let me see if I can put it in a more clear way for you: It was wrong for ACB to put it in those terms and it was wrong for Biden to put it in those terms. Because sexuality is not a "preference". It is not a "choice".


Quote:
The President does indeed decide what is Constitutional.
No, S/he does not. As you say below, the POTUS' job is to uphold the Constitution, but it is not the POTUS's job to decide what is Constitutional. That is strictly the job of the SC. If it were the POTUS' job to decide, there would be no need for the SC. For you to declare otherwise is absurd. You are tying yourself into knots trying to make a case but failing to do so.

Quote:
Any particular POTUS may not be very good at deciding that and POTUS is not the final judge of what is and isn't Constitutional; but, the President's duty, after all is to uphold the Constitution. When POTUS acts, there's an underlying assumption that the action falls under his powers in the Constitution. Assumedly, POTUS has counsel on the Constitutionality of any particular executive action. Not even Trump has acted in a way blatantly outside his enumerated powers, at least not in any way that previous Presidents have not also done. Here's an Atlantic article discussing Obama's record on the Constitutionality of his actions.
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, 01:51 PM   #167
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,021
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My point is twofold:

First, that the president makes decisions about how to implement law, and defends the constitutionality of those decisions when challenged. This is important - at least as important as the Supreme Court's role in deciding those challenges.

Second, and therefore, you are wrong to dismiss Biden's view of "sexual preference" on the grounds that he's a presidential candidate, not a Supreme Court nominee.
See my post above to xjx388
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, 01:55 PM   #168
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,175
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
//Slight hijack//

Yeah the whole "Hold up the blank piece of paper to show you aren't taking notes" thing was clever but... Damn lady have you met the internet? You couldn't have sat down and designed something more open to being memed.
The memeification works in her favor, I think.

Having met the Internet, I've come to the conclusion that trying to avoid memeification is a fool's errand. You're much better off just doing you, and not worrying about the memes.
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 17th October 2020, 12:21 AM   #169
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,734
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
The test is very difficult. You have to remember all five words. You get extra points if you get them in the right order. Nobody can do that.
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley
DevilsAdvocate 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 17th October 2020, 01:04 AM   #170
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,734
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
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.
The fifth freedom is usually referred to has "redress" or "petition" but sometimes less frequently is referred to as "protest". The doesn't mean a protest like in Charlottesville or BLM in Portland. That would be covered under speech and assembly.

Here is the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The type of protest here is to protest to the government. That means things like equal access to courts, suing the government, lobbying, filing complaints, and otherwise expressing concerns to government officials.
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley
DevilsAdvocate 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 17th October 2020, 02:23 AM   #171
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,129
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
All of that requires that the virus exist to begin with, and none of it was what ACB was asked about.
All she was asked about climate change was whether it existed. You're the one that said that that was a political question because it was an issue that policymakers had to deal with.

But, okay, enlighten me - how would affirming that climate change is real violate the mandate that "the courts aren't supposed to make policy"? How does affirming that covid 19 is infectious not violate that mandate? Explain the difference.
__________________
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 17th October 2020, 02:32 AM   #172
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,129
The point with Barrett not being able to name the five freedoms is that this is a softball question in a job interview for one of the 9 top jobs in the field in the country. It's like she's trying to persuade a publisher to publish what she claims to be the definitive book about British pop music of the 1960s and could only name 3 of the Beatles.

Nobody here should give a **** if they or other posters can't name the five freedoms - because nobody here is interviewing for a position as a constitutional expert appointed to the highest court in the US.
__________________
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 17th October 2020, 05:00 AM   #173
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,106
Barrett was a lawyer, not a judge at the hearings.
__________________
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 17th October 2020, 07:30 AM   #174
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,698
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Barrett was a lawyer, not a judge at the hearings.

What? She is currently a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, one level below he Supreme Court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett
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 17th October 2020, 07:39 AM   #175
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,175
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
The point with Barrett not being able to name the five freedoms is that this is a softball question in a job interview for one of the 9 top jobs in the field in the country. It's like she's trying to persuade a publisher to publish what she claims to be the definitive book about British pop music of the 1960s and could only name 3 of the Beatles.

Nobody here should give a **** if they or other posters can't name the five freedoms - because nobody here is interviewing for a position as a constitutional expert appointed to the highest court in the US.
.I see four freedoms. Maybe it's down to different schools of thought.

Religion, speech, assembly, petition. Any answer that encompasses those four concepts is satisfactory, in my opinion. It accurately describes the amendment, and accurately reflects the mainstream intererpetation of the amendment.
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 17th October 2020, 10:49 AM   #176
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,698
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
.I see four freedoms. Maybe it's down to different schools of thought.

Religion, speech, assembly, petition. Any answer that encompasses those four concepts is satisfactory, in my opinion. It accurately describes the amendment, and accurately reflects the mainstream intererpetation of the amendment.

1/ Press is named separately; 2/ She forgot "petition."
https://www.kansascity.com/latest-ne...246454530.html
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 17th October 2020, 11:09 AM   #177
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,106
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
What? She is currently a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, one level below he Supreme Court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett
You misunderstand.

I mean that she acted like a lawyer in the hearings, never taking any stance and always covering her tush.
__________________
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 17th October 2020, 11:39 AM   #178
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,597
We'll see just how much of a rainy day originalist Barrett is if she gets sworn in in time to vote on the Census question the SCOTUS has fast-tracked for a hearing. She clerked with Scalia, another rainy day originalist.

An "originalist" should go by the words on the paper, not make her own determination of what the men writing the Constitution meant.

NPR: Supreme Court Speeds Up Case On Trump's Push To Alter Census For House Seats
Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to a speedy review of President Trump's attempt to exclude unauthorized immigrants from the census numbers used to reallocate seats in Congress.

Last month, a lower court ruling blocked Trump's push, calling a presidential memo that called for that unprecedented change unlawful. And now the justices have expedited consideration to hear oral arguments in the case on Nov. 30.

The hearing is set to take place a month before federal law says the latest state population counts for reapportioning the 435 seats in the House of Representatives among the states are due to the president. The timing increases the potential for Trump to try to make the change to who is included in the numbers during his current term in office.
For the record, the TX GOP changed redistricting in between the Censuses so I hope Biden remembers that if he needs to negate any of Trump's meddling.
__________________
ORANGE MAN BAD? Why yes, yes he is.

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.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 17th October 2020 at 11:41 AM.
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 17th October 2020, 11:39 AM   #179
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 13,966
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
.I see four freedoms. Maybe it's down to different schools of thought.

Religion, speech, assembly, petition. Any answer that encompasses those four concepts is satisfactory, in my opinion. It accurately describes the amendment, and accurately reflects the mainstream intererpetation of the amendment.
It's an utterly standard question -- not unlike name three branches of government. I didn't know she flubbed it until students enthusiastically brought it to my attention because I ask the same damn thing in a 101 class. As noted, she didn't miss an overlap between speech and the press. She flubbed petition.

It's interesting to see the reactions from young people, as they parrot what they see in the media. "She's not answering any of the questions!" Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor were so much more forthcoming? And these brats complain about "anxiety" when taking timed quizzes, they can't show their faces on Zoom (or even speak on the mic), yet they're quick to criticize someone who boffed an interview question in a marathon hearing before a national audience. Of course, if a person of color missed it, Internet Republicans would be saying much worse.

The other thing students bring up is that they feel she's not going to "properly" interpret the law, and she's just going to legislate her own views. That's the criticism of every Supreme Court justice. An activist judge is someone you don't like.

Liberals still bask in the soft glow of judicial review because of the monumental decisions from the sixties. We didn't really have a right to freedom of expression (among other things) until enlightened men in the 1960s made good on the Refounding of the 1860s. It was a good run, but I wish people would question the concept of judicial review.

Upending that idea would probably promote constitutional literacy rather than leaving these matters to an elite but largely unknown/unaccountable super-legislature of nine. Maybe instead of a 1619 Project we should have an 1868 Project. The 14th Amendment is kind of a big deal. Some dead White guy famously uttered something along the lines about how "this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." American Jesus had helped present the New Testament to the Constitution, which said states did not have the authority to create oppressive laws.

After Reconstruction failed, this was largely lost, and people reverted to glorifying the Founders, mostly because they could be stanned by Northerners and Southerners.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain 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 17th October 2020, 11:56 AM   #180
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,175
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
We'll see just how much of a rainy day originalist Barrett is if she gets sworn in in time to vote on the Census question the SCOTUS has fast-tracked for a hearing. She clerked with Scalia, another rainy day originalist.

An "originalist" should go by the words on the paper, not make her own determination of what the men writing the Constitution meant.

NPR: Supreme Court Speeds Up Case On Trump's Push To Alter Census For House Seats

For the record, the TX GOP changed redistricting in between the Censuses so I hope Biden remembers that if he needs to negate any of Trump's meddling.
The meanings of words change over time. An originalist must necessarily inquire into the original meaning of the words.

I don't know if there's a term for interpreting the law based purely on what the words mean to you at the time you read them, but I can't imagine how it would lead to a coherent application, let alone a desirable one.
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 17th October 2020, 12:40 PM   #181
dirtywick
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,067
I think announcing that they have the votes to confirm before the nominee is even chosen is something everyone should have a problem with. But at that point the content of the hearings themselves are rather meaningless.
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 17th October 2020, 12:47 PM   #182
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,021
Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
I think announcing that they have the votes to confirm before the nominee is even chosen is something everyone should have a problem with. But at that point the content of the hearings themselves are rather meaningless.
Agreed. The hearings themselves mean nothing when the GOP senators have already made it clear it doesn't matter who the nominee is, they are going to approve whomever 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 17th October 2020, 01:05 PM   #183
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,175
Of course the hearings matter. They're the opportunity for dissenters to drop bombshells that flip a few crucial votes. If they'd been able to show a clear pattern of prejudice in her rulings on cases touching human sexuality. If they'd presented evidence of dark money connections. But they didn't.

The hearings are pointless not because they GOP has the votes, but because the Dems don't have anything that could change a vote. And since they can't just acknowledge that she's an acceptable nominee, they have to grandstand pointlessly about the implications.

But is it really pointless? If it were, wouldn't someone have moved to skip the hearings and go straight to the vote? The folks praising Hirono and dark money guy: Does your praise take into account the fact that their efforts are pointless and they're apparently too stupid to realize it? Or do you think maybe there is a point to the hearings, even if the GOP already has the votes?
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 17th October 2020, 04:17 PM   #184
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,021
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Of course the hearings matter. They're the opportunity for dissenters to drop bombshells that flip a few crucial votes. If they'd been able to show a clear pattern of prejudice in her rulings on cases touching human sexuality. If they'd presented evidence of dark money connections. But they didn't.

The hearings are pointless not because they GOP has the votes, but because the Dems don't have anything that could change a vote. And since they can't just acknowledge that she's an acceptable nominee, they have to grandstand pointlessly about the implications.

But is it really pointless? If it were, wouldn't someone have moved to skip the hearings and go straight to the vote? The folks praising Hirono and dark money guy: Does your praise take into account the fact that their efforts are pointless and they're apparently too stupid to realize it? Or do you think maybe there is a point to the hearings, even if the GOP already has the votes?
No. They're pointless because the GOP senators made it clear they would pass the nominee before they even knew who the nominee was. If they didn't know who it was, then it obviously didn't matter what 'bombshells' anyone had or what 'pattern of prejudice in (their) rulings on cases touching human sexuality' existed. What mattered is that they put a conservative judge on the SC and they assumed it would be from the list Trump released on Sept 9, 2020. Which it was.
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 18th October 2020, 01:07 AM   #185
dirtywick
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,067
like a sexual assault allegation
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 18th October 2020, 05:39 AM   #186
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,184
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No. They're pointless because the GOP senators made it clear they would pass the nominee before they even knew who the nominee was.
But they did know. There was a short list, and everyone on that short list was acceptable.
__________________
"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 18th October 2020, 07:18 AM   #187
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,543
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But they did know. There was a short list, and everyone on that short list was acceptable.
Acceptable to whom?
Lurch 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 18th October 2020, 09:26 AM   #188
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 29,362
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Acceptable to whom?
The Federalist Society.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet 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 18th October 2020, 10:27 AM   #189
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,184
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Acceptable to whom?
To Republicans. Duh.
__________________
"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 18th October 2020, 12:37 PM   #190
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,021
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But they did know. There was a short list, and everyone on that short list was acceptable.
That "short list" consisted of Forty-Four ultra-conservative judges all approved by the ultraconservative Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society. You don't think there was anything in the backgrounds of any of those judges that might be unacceptable to any of the more moderate GOP senators? Not a thing? And let's not forget one of those on that list was Ted Cruz. One of the least liked senators in Congress. Do you seriously think they'd have put that POS on the SC?

Last edited by Stacyhs; 18th October 2020 at 12:42 PM.
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 18th October 2020, 12:48 PM   #191
dirtywick
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,067
Yes, anyone nominated was acceptable regardless of what happened in the confirmation hearing.
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 18th October 2020, 12:51 PM   #192
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,543
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
To Republicans. Duh.
We all know that. My question was to maybe have supporters contemplate that the judges on the SCOTUS should be deemed about equally acceptable to both sides. These days it's essentially a purely party line affair.

That the Courts have become a political battleground is a damning and dangerous state of degeneration. Anyone not alarmed by this is brain-dead.
Lurch 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 18th October 2020, 12:52 PM   #193
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,184
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
That "short list" consisted of Forty-Four ultra-conservative judges all approved by the ultraconservative Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society.
No. That was the published list from 2016. Everybody knew that the list of candidates Trump was considering for this appointment was a lot shorter than that.
__________________
"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 18th October 2020, 12:53 PM   #194
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,184
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
We all know that. My question was to maybe have supporters contemplate that the judges on the SCOTUS should be deemed about equally acceptable to both sides. These days it's essentially a purely party line affair.

That the Courts have become a political battleground is a damning and dangerous state of degeneration. Anyone not alarmed by this is brain-dead.
I agree that it's a problem, but 1) it's not new, and 2) Democrats have the wrong solutions to it. The driving force behind this problem is in my sig.
__________________
"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 18th October 2020, 01:28 PM   #195
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,021
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. That was the published list from 2016. Everybody knew that the list of candidates Trump was considering for this appointment was a lot shorter than that.
No, it is not. That was the list from this nomination.

https://www.afj.org/our-work/judicia...us-short-list/

And you didn't answer my question:

You don't think there was anything in the backgrounds of any of those judges that might be unacceptable to any of the more moderate GOP senators? Not a thing?

Last edited by Stacyhs; 18th October 2020 at 01:30 PM.
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 18th October 2020, 03:50 PM   #196
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,543
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I agree that it's a problem, but 1) it's not new, and 2) Democrats have the wrong solutions to it. The driving force behind this problem is in my sig.
I have sigs turned off.

It was when the confirmation threshold was changed from 2/3 to a simple majority vote that this crap really took off. For such momentous and long lasting appointments, it should never have even been possible to contemplate less than 2/3, so as to ensure the impossibility of a purely partisan outcome (unless more than 2/3 of the seats should be held by one Party.)

I wonder how Barrett feels to know that more than half the country sees her fast-tracked installation in this ramming down their collective throat as wrong. Not enough, I guess, to heed the pleas of some 100 professors from her alma mater to decline this confirmation and await the election result.
Lurch 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 18th October 2020, 04:23 PM   #197
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,698
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
I have sigs turned off.

It was when the confirmation threshold was changed from 2/3 to a simple majority vote that this crap really took off. For such momentous and long lasting appointments, it should never have even been possible to contemplate less than 2/3, so as to ensure the impossibility of a purely partisan outcome (unless more than 2/3 of the seats should be held by one Party.)

I wonder how Barrett feels to know that more than half the country sees her fast-tracked installation in this ramming down their collective throat as wrong. Not enough, I guess, to heed the pleas of some 100 professors from her alma mater to decline this confirmation and await the election result.
It used to require 60 votes, not two-thirds, before the end of the filibuster.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...es/3573369001/
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 18th October 2020, 05:27 PM   #198
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,021
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
It used to require 60 votes, not two-thirds, before the end of the filibuster.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...es/3573369001/
You mean the GOP poster...LIED? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tells ya! Shocked!
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 18th October 2020, 06:10 PM   #199
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 11,538
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
That the Courts have become a political battleground is a damning and dangerous state of degeneration. Anyone not alarmed by this is brain-dead.
IMO, they always have been political, because tribes are largely political and most people are tribal. They probably know where they stand on a given spectrum before they ever get to law school. Plus the spirit of the age changes: Separate but equal was upheld in 1896; by 1955 separate was deemed inherently unequal. Many if not most groundbreaking civil rights cases are contrived to some extent.

My dad was a lawyer credentialed to argue before the Supreme Court and as a teenager I told him I wanted to read some opinions ... and he said, "No you don't." He meant that I was going to find a mishmash of rationalizations, not necessarily brilliant legal insights. Our whole system of justice is built on the ability of lawyers to argue opposite points of view with at least a plausible veneer of rational justification.

ETA: I'm talking about the U.S. system; can't speak to how things are done in other countries.

Last edited by Minoosh; 18th October 2020 at 06:11 PM.
Minoosh 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 19th October 2020, 01:25 AM   #200
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,129
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
I wonder how Barrett feels to know that more than half the country sees her fast-tracked installation in this ramming down their collective throat as wrong.
Why would she give a ******
__________________
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
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 08:42 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.