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 27th October 2020, 09:40 AM   #321
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 29,860
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
Every time her name comes up I can't help but mentally replace it with "Sasha Baron Cohen". It doesn't help that he's got a new movie coming out.
Amy: My second favorite Doctor Who companion.
Coney: A rabbit.
Barrett: A hair clip.

Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
At least Clarence Thomas will no longer be known as the stupid one. He wasn't looking to good at the swearing-in ceremony either, probably has a few underlying conditions. He might be providing Biden a chance to put a neutralizing vote on the court before too long.
If Thomas is actually in bad shape and Biden is elected, he'll resign so that the lame duck President and Congress can appoint and confirm his far-right replacement.
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
There are no such things as progressive or Conservative judicial philosophies.

There are only different buzzwords people use to justify their ideological ruling.
I WANT judges to be conservative. But the American right is not conservative, just far-right.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 09:57 AM   #322
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
There are no such things as progressive or Conservative judicial philosophies.

There are only different buzzwords people use to justify their ideological ruling.
If that's really the case, then your only complaint is that your side is losing.

And if that's the cause of this outrage, well, suck it.
__________________
"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 27th October 2020, 10:35 AM   #323
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,222
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If that's really the case, then your only complaint is that your side is losing.

And if that's the cause of this outrage, well, suck it.
Is this why you don't value fairness then? It would mean that your side wouldn't win?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch 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 27th October 2020, 10:41 AM   #324
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Is this why you don't value fairness then? It would mean that your side wouldn't win?
You only value "fairness" because you think it means your side would.
__________________
"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 27th October 2020, 10:43 AM   #325
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,850
I fail to see how abortion would be any different than gambling or marijuana. IOW, no state has made it a crime to travel to another state for those things. I don't even see how they would enforce such a law. In any case, even the most conservative Justice would have to concede that a state does not have any say in what people do, not even citizens of their state, when they aren't in the state. It's an absurd thought from the get go.
__________________
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 27th October 2020, 10:45 AM   #326
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,147
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Is this why you don't value fairness then? It would mean that your side wouldn't win?
Zig said the quiet part out loud in the post you quoted. It's about winning and losing, and not about what's good for the country. Sucks for him that at the moment, Trump's losing, and the Goopers have created the precedent that you can do whatever you want as long as nobody stops you. Hello expanded court! There's gonna be so many judges, you've never seen so many judges.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se 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 27th October 2020, 10:45 AM   #327
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I fail to see how abortion would be any different than gambling or marijuana. IOW, no state has made it a crime to travel to another state for those things.
It wouldn't be.

Quote:
I don't even see how they would enforce such a law.
They could not enforce it.

Quote:
In any case, even the most conservative Justice would have to concede that a state does not have any say in what people do, not even citizens of their state, when they aren't in the state. It's an absurd thought from the get go.
And yet, Trump derangement is strong enough to lead many people to believe it anyways.
__________________
"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 27th October 2020, 10:49 AM   #328
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,222
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You only value "fairness" because you think it means your side would.
Your mind reading is not that great.

Why did you respond to my question with a non-sequitur? Are you unable to answer it?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch 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 27th October 2020, 10:52 AM   #329
Gulliver Foyle
Critical Thinker
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cork baaaiii
Posts: 360
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
That is a really dumb idea.

Hillary Clinton is too old...She would only be able to serve a few years before she died.

Now Chelsea Clinton would be an ideal pick... She's a Clinton, which by itself would drive the republicans into fits, and she's younger (which means she could serve on the courts much longer.) And I can't help but think it would annoy the trump-spawn... "nepotism done right!"

Granted, its not like she has experience as a judge, or, well, even as a lawyer. But hey! If Trump can be an expert in politics, science, foreign affairs, etc. without any background in any of those fields, she can easily become a supreme court judge. She just has to follow her gut!
Chelsea Clinton would be more of an expert on the law than Thomas, Alito, McDrunkface and Covid Bringer combined.
Gulliver Foyle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 10:52 AM   #330
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,571
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I fail to see how abortion would be any different than gambling or marijuana. IOW, no state has made it a crime to travel to another state for those things. I don't even see how they would enforce such a law. In any case, even the most conservative Justice would have to concede that a state does not have any say in what people do, not even citizens of their state, when they aren't in the state. It's an absurd thought from the get go.
Since when does absurdity bother the minds of Republicans?
__________________
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 27th October 2020, 10:53 AM   #331
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Your mind reading is not that great.
That's ironic of you to say.
__________________
"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 27th October 2020, 10:55 AM   #332
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,571
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Zig said the quiet part out loud in the post you quoted. It's about winning and losing, and not about what's good for the country. Sucks for him that at the moment, Trump's losing, and the Goopers have created the precedent that you can do whatever you want as long as nobody stops you. Hello expanded court! There's gonna be so many judges, you've never seen so many judges.
Exactly. This is why there is minority rule in the U.S.A. Democrats play by the rules and fight fair. When Democrats lose, they comply with the defeat and try different tactics within the rules to win again. Republicans don't care about rules or fairness, they are not handcuffed with such nonsense and that's why they have power now.
__________________
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 27th October 2020, 10:55 AM   #333
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,222
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's ironic of you to say.
Only if I had tried to read your mind. I'm merely questioning your motivations and positions.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch 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 27th October 2020, 10:55 AM   #334
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
When Democrats lose, they comply with the defeat
The last 4 years prove otherwise.
__________________
"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 27th October 2020, 10:56 AM   #335
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Only if I had tried to read your mind. I'm merely questioning your motivations and positions.
Oh, you did more than that. You assumed my motives. So I just returned the favor.
__________________
"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 27th October 2020, 10:57 AM   #336
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,571
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The last 4 years prove otherwise.
Really? Please provide evidence that the Democrats have not conceded defeat. Where did they pretend that they still won and take actions as if they did?
__________________
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 27th October 2020, 10:57 AM   #337
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,222
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Oh, you did more than that. You assumed my motives. So I just returned the favor.
evidence? or do you not know what question marks mean?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch 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 27th October 2020, 10:59 AM   #338
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
evidence? or do you not know what question marks mean?
When did you stop beating your wife?

It's just a question.
__________________
"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 27th October 2020, 10:59 AM   #339
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,571
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
evidence? or do you not know what question marks mean?
That's a really good joke! Asking Ziggie for evidence. He stopped doing that years ago.
__________________
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 27th October 2020, 11:01 AM   #340
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,571
Just in time for the end of daylight savings. Comey is appointed. Set your clocks back... a few decades.
__________________
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 27th October 2020, 11:04 AM   #341
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,222
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
That's a really good joke! Asking Ziggie for evidence. He stopped doing that years ago.
Or reasonable dialog, apparently...
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch 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 27th October 2020, 11:28 AM   #342
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 21,594
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
As far as I know, there's no requirement that a federal judge actually be a legal professional. It would be interesting to see a "lay" justice nominated and confirmed. And even if it were Chelsea Clinton, I wouldn't object. I mean, I'd have partisan misgivings about the shift in the court's political makeup, of course. But in terms of procedure and qualifications I don't see a problem.
You are correct that there is no requirement of legal experience or expertise, but to date all justices have studied the law.

It should be noted that Barrett is adding some diversity that the court has needed for a long time. It has been overly dominated by Harvard and Yale graduates and it is good that another school is making the list of those that have trained justices, Notre Dame.

It is interesting that some of the most memorable justices came from schools that only produced one Supreme Court Justice: Marshall, Black, Harlan (I and II), Warren, and Burger. I can't help wonder that she will make a significant mark on the history of the court.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith 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 27th October 2020, 12:12 PM   #343
jrhowell
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida
Posts: 698
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I can see them ruling that preventing travel from a state where abortion is illegal to a state where it is legal for the purposes of procuring an abortion is illegal because preserving the life of the unborn child (or preventing a murder) is pre-eminent whereas.
It might be tough to prove why someone is leaving the state.

How about charging women with murder if they enter a red state and have ever at any time in the past had an abortion. Perhaps even go a step further and include miscarriages since they are proof that the fetus was not being properly cared for.

Ridiculous, but less and less surprises my these days.
jrhowell 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 27th October 2020, 12:19 PM   #344
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
It might be tough to prove why someone is leaving the state.

How about charging women with murder if they enter a red state and have ever at any time in the past had an abortion. Perhaps even go a step further and include miscarriages since they are proof that the fetus was not being properly cared for.

Ridiculous, but less and less surprises my these days.
You aren't going to find a single judge on the Supreme Court, including ACB, who wouldn't immediately say that this runs afoul of the full faith and credit clause. You're just engaging in disaster porn fiction.
__________________
"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 27th October 2020, 12:26 PM   #345
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,458
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Exactly. This is why there is minority rule in the U.S.A. Democrats play by the rules and fight fair. When Democrats lose, they comply with the defeat and try different tactics within the rules to win again. Republicans don't care about rules or fairness, they are not handcuffed with such nonsense and that's why they have power now.
Wow. If there was an award for most dishonest statement made on the forum, I'd nominate this one.
__________________
ďRacism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.Ē August 14, 2017 President Donald John Trump
ChrisBFRPKY 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 27th October 2020, 12:31 PM   #346
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 58,116
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You aren't going to find a single judge on the Supreme Court, including ACB, who wouldn't immediately say that this runs afoul of the full faith and credit clause. You're just engaging in disaster porn fiction.
Did the gay marriage issue run afoul of the full faith and credit clause? I seem to recall there was a period of some years in which it was legal in some states but unrecognized in others. I don't remember full faith and credit being applied to that question.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 12:33 PM   #347
Mader Levap
Graduate Poster
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,256
You are all overdramatic. They will be just send to Madagascar.
__________________
Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Republicans 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 27th October 2020, 12:57 PM   #348
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,734
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Did the gay marriage issue run afoul of the full faith and credit clause? I seem to recall there was a period of some years in which it was legal in some states but unrecognized in others. I don't remember full faith and credit being applied to that question.
Did that question ever make it to the SC?
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 27th October 2020, 01:41 PM   #349
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,850
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Zig said the quiet part out loud in the post you quoted. It's about winning and losing, and not about what's good for the country. Sucks for him that at the moment, Trump's losing, and the Goopers have created the precedent that you can do whatever you want as long as nobody stops you. Hello expanded court! There's gonna be so many judges, you've never seen so many judges.
It's was a good threat, expanding the number of SCOTUS justices, because it might have given the Republicans some pause. Didn't work. Now that ACB is in, I don't think it's a threat that the Dems will actually follow through on. I believe the current Conservative/Liberal make up of the Court is 6/3. They'd have to expand the Court by four seats to gain a majority. 13 justices . . . I don't see that happening. Maybe they could expand two more seats to 11 and hope John Roberts breaks ties their way? In any case, it could easily become a game of whoever is in power raises or lowers the number of seats to suit their whims. It's not something they should do out of spite.
__________________
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 27th October 2020, 01:47 PM   #350
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,147
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
It's was a good threat, expanding the number of SCOTUS justices, because it might have given the Republicans some pause. Didn't work. Now that ACB is in, I don't think it's a threat that the Dems will actually follow through on. I believe the current Conservative/Liberal make up of the Court is 6/3. They'd have to expand the Court by four seats to gain a majority. 13 justices . . . I don't see that happening. Maybe they could expand two more seats to 11 and hope John Roberts breaks ties their way? In any case, it could easily become a game of whoever is in power raises or lowers the number of seats to suit their whims. It's not something they should do out of spite.
It wouldn't be out of spite, and it isn't just something that Democrats should do, it's something they will have to do in order to get anything done. Republicans have completely destroyed how politics are played in the US, and they have shown that they will challenge anything Democrats pass to the Supreme Court. US politics have always been somewhat of an uneasy truce. If one side escalates, the other side can either respond in kind or surrender. It has worked because both sides have more or less followed the established rules of what is done and how. Republicans have completely tossed out the rulebook and established the precedent that might makes right. If Democrats are to have any hope of making the changes that are necessary in the US, the Supreme Court needs to be balanced, if not completely reformed.

Republicans made this necessary.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

Last edited by uke2se; 27th October 2020 at 01:52 PM.
uke2se 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 27th October 2020, 03:49 PM   #351
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,331
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
It's was a good threat, expanding the number of SCOTUS justices, because it might have given the Republicans some pause. Didn't work. Now that ACB is in, I don't think it's a threat that the Dems will actually follow through on. I believe the current Conservative/Liberal make up of the Court is 6/3. They'd have to expand the Court by four seats to gain a majority. 13 justices . . . I don't see that happening. Maybe they could expand two more seats to 11 and hope John Roberts breaks ties their way? In any case, it could easily become a game of whoever is in power raises or lowers the number of seats to suit their whims. It's not something they should do out of spite.
When the number of seats was moved from 8 to 9 it was to match the number of circuit courts at the time.

There are currently twelve. Thirteen is also a way to discourage ties. It's also a damn fine number.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 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 27th October 2020, 04:09 PM   #352
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Did the gay marriage issue run afoul of the full faith and credit clause? I seem to recall there was a period of some years in which it was legal in some states but unrecognized in others. I don't remember full faith and credit being applied to that question.
Mississippi might not have recognized a gay marriage performed in Hawaii when they are living in Mississippi, but they couldn't punish anyone for it. Punishing them for it would be the equivalent to what's being proposed here, and that was never in the cards.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Ziggurat; 27th October 2020 at 04:10 PM.
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 27th October 2020, 04:15 PM   #353
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,632
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's not an equivalent problem. Mississippi might not have recognized a gay marriage performed in Hawaii when they are living in Mississippi, but they couldn't punish anyone for it.
Not recognizing a person's marriage is a punishment. Same as with inter-racial marriages. Or do you want to get rid of Loving vs Virginia to go away as well? I'd love to hear your made-up, nonsense, self-serving excuse why inter-racial marriage is different from gay marriage.

"We're not punishing you, we're just treating you like second class citizens" is not a good argument.
__________________
- No, someone having reality and facts on their side does not mean they have been given an unfair advantage and it is not a bias against you. You're just wrong.
- There is no Overton Window for facts.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 04:23 PM   #354
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 58,116
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Mississippi might not have recognized a gay marriage performed in Hawaii when they are living in Mississippi, but they couldn't punish anyone for it. Punishing them for it would be the equivalent to what's being proposed here, and that was never in the cards.
Which is not the same question as "full faith and credit" then, is it? Because full faith and credit means my TN drivers license is valid in VA, even if the requirements to get a VA license are different than those of TN. Marriage would pretty much have to be the same way, wouldn't it? If one is legally married in one state, that marriage is valid in all states under full faith and credit...unless, for some reason, certain states decided to skip out on honoring that part of their constitutional obligation.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 05:01 PM   #355
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,850
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
When the number of seats was moved from 8 to 9 it was to match the number of circuit courts at the time.

There are currently twelve. Thirteen is also a way to discourage ties. It's also a damn fine number.
That was like 150 years ago. It had been 10 before that. So I don't think "the number of circuit courts" has any particular signifigance. The changes in number have always been related to political concerns, not practical ones in the administration of circuit courts.

I think 9 is a damn fine number and -other than partisan considerations- I can't think of a good reason to increase it. At some point it becomes a little unweildy, I should think.
__________________
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 27th October 2020, 05:11 PM   #356
jrhowell
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida
Posts: 698
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I think 9 is a damn fine number and -other than partisan considerations- I can't think of a good reason to increase it. At some point it becomes a little unweildy, I should think.
I like nine too. Perhaps impeachment of justices will become the new norm to adjust the political affiliation of the court.
jrhowell 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 27th October 2020, 07:19 PM   #357
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 10,112
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The last 4 years prove otherwise.
How so?
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin 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 27th October 2020, 08:11 PM   #358
Louden Wilde
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: NYC
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
It wouldn't be out of spite, and it isn't just something that Democrats should do, it's something they will have to do in order to get anything done. Republicans have completely destroyed how politics are played in the US, and they have shown that they will challenge anything Democrats pass to the Supreme Court. ....If Democrats are to have any hope of making the changes that are necessary in the US, the Supreme Court needs to be balanced, if not completely reformed.
or break up the country as Colin Quinn suggested in "Red State, Blue State" (a sentiment I'm increasingly agreeing with). With Barrett, expansions to ACA or other health care expansion measures will likely get struck down, abortions will be outlawed in red states, gay rights will be reduced, no national reforms on gun control will get through. I don't see any hint of reconciliation. While Biden is a middle of the road guy, I don't see the core Trump supporters warming to him.

Last edited by Louden Wilde; 27th October 2020 at 08:20 PM. Reason: typos
Louden Wilde 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 27th October 2020, 08:43 PM   #359
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Not recognizing a person's marriage is a punishment. Same as with inter-racial marriages. Or do you want to get rid of Loving vs Virginia to go away as well? I'd love to hear your made-up, nonsense, self-serving excuse why inter-racial marriage is different from gay marriage.

"We're not punishing you, we're just treating you like second class citizens" is not a good argument.
You are confused. Iím in favor of gay marriage. But not recognizing it still isnít punishment, even if the consequences are negative. That would be like saying the state punishes everyone who doesnít get married, and thatís just an absurd twisting of language.
__________________
"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 27th October 2020, 08:44 PM   #360
dirtywick
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,502
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You are confused. Iím in favor of gay marriage. But not recognizing it still isnít punishment, even if the consequences are negative. That would be like saying the state punishes everyone who doesnít get married, and thatís just an absurd twisting of language.
What? lol
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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:22 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.