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 Brett Kavanaugh , Congressional hearings , Supreme Court nominees , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 10th July 2018, 08:30 AM   #41
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,989
His second amendment rulings are extremist, and reek of judicial activism.


(From what I've read, which is just an article about them, not the opinions themselves.)
Meadmaker 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 10th July 2018, 08:53 AM   #42
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,472
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Not to defend this in anyway, but the fact that the United States practices "Birthright" citizenship when most other major developed western democracies don't is a factor in all this.

Why Jus Soli is the default on the American continent but nearly unheard of in Europe, Asia, or Africa is not a crazy question to ask.
I'm no historian, but in many countries one's identity was largely shaped by his ethnic group or nationality, which is not the same as the nation one lives in. Look at the disputes today about who has a right to live in Burma. America was created as a new place, welcoming to all, at least in theory. You can move to China or Poland, and even become a citizen, but you can't become Chinese or Polish. Anybody who comes to the U.S. can become American, no different from any other American, and his children born here will be always be indisputably American. The real intent of "birthright" citizenship is to emphasize the rule of law, and reduce the impact of ethnic and religious distinctions. There is also the practical question: Imagine debating whether someone born in the U.S. was a citizen based on whether he could prove that one or both of his parents was a citizen at the time of his birth. Would every birth have to be documented by federal immigration authorities? Etc. "Birthright" citizenship is inclusive, and the single qualification is simple; anything else is exclusive, that is, designed to keep people out. (And "birthright" citizenship is a right-wing construction. Nothing in the Constitution uses that term.)
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 09:08 AM   #43
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,849
Originally Posted by portlandatheist View Post
Don't forget Vince Foster conspiracy theories.
The NYT cites his non-belief in Vince Foster conspiracy theories as evidence that he's a moderating force.

Quote:
But Judge Kavanaugh, 53, has also formed lifelong friendships with liberals, many of whom praise his intellect and civility. In his professional life, before he became a judge, he was often a moderating force.

Working for Mr. Starr, Judge Kavanaugh concluded that Mr. Foster had in fact killed himself. He opposed the public release of the narrative portions of Mr. Starr’s report detailing Mr. Clinton’s encounters with a White House intern. As staff secretary to Mr. Bush, he said in 2006, he strived to be “an honest broker for the president.”
It's an odd way to concede that mainstream conservatism in the US has been crazy for a while now.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 09:11 AM   #44
ahhell
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,653
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Souter is the most recent prime example, although I should also give a nod to Chief Justice Roberts, who went liberal on the most important SC decision of his career to date.

It will be amusing to hear all the Democratic senators blathering on about the importance of stare decisis over the next week or two. Never mind that many of the important cases decided over the last 60 years or so have ignored historical precedent. Brown v. Board of Education is simply the most obvious example--would anybody care to contend that Plessy should have remained the law of the land, and segregation in education continued? How about Dred Scott or Koramatsu?
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Secondly, are you actually saying its perfectly acceptable to (for example) overturn Roe v. Wade because other historical precedents have been overturned in the past?
I think he's pretty clearly saying it will be amusing to hear people argue against overturning Roe V Wade because its established precedent when that's pretty clearly a bad reason to leave it in place, and those folks using that logic, clearly wouldn't use the same logic to defend keeping other precedents.
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I'm no historian,
but in many countries one's identity was largely shaped by his ethnic group or nationality, which is not the same as the nation one lives in. Look at the disputes today about who has a right to live in Burma. America was created as a new place, welcoming to all, at least in theory. You can move to China or Poland, and even become a citizen, but you can't become Chinese or Polish. Anybody who comes to the U.S. can become American, no different from any other American, and his children born here will be always be indisputably American. The real intent of "birthright" citizenship is to emphasize the rule of law, and reduce the impact of ethnic and religious distinctions. There is also the practical question: Imagine debating whether someone born in the U.S. was a citizen based on whether he could prove that one or both of his parents was a citizen at the time of his birth. Would every birth have to be documented by federal immigration authorities? Etc. "Birthright" citizenship is inclusive, and the single qualification is simple; anything else is exclusive, that is, designed to keep people out.
(And "birthright" citizenship is a right-wing construction. Nothing in the Constitution uses that term.)
That last bit makes the first bit redundant. There are two phrases for what we are talking about Jus Soli and the one that everyone who doesn't speak latin understands, the phrase you refer to as a right wing construct.

In terms of citizenship rights the two common systems are Jus Soli(right of soil or birthright) and Jus Sanguinus(blood right, citizenship by descent.) Wait, isn't there a thread about this somewhere. Nevermind, you likely know this. Anyrate, I suppose we can start just saying Jus Soli instead of birthright citizenship is that makes you feel better.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 09:12 AM   #45
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,285
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Has anyone gone from literally 'Hitler' to 'Predictable and Practical' in two years?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/polit...nee/index.html
You referenced ONE article, that deals ONLY with the supreme court pick (nothing about Trump locking children in cages, or getting buddy buddy with Putin) and one that doesn't even address most of the complaints that people here have about Kavenaugh (such as Kavenaugh's statements about how presidents shouldn't be subject to certain criminal investigations.)

Heck, the biggest 'praise' that this article gives to Kavenaugh is not that he is a moderate or centrist (or someone that would be a 'swing vote') but that he was someone that a person like Jeb Bush might have picked... which means that he's still solidly in the 'right wing' side of the political spectrum.)

So yeah, concerns that Trump may be a wannabe authoritiarian and that democracy is currently suffering are still alive and well.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 09:29 AM   #46
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,075
https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/st...42192616706050

Quote:
Source familiar tells NBC that Justice Kennedy had been in negotiations with the Trump team for months over Kennedy’s replacement. Once Kennedy received assurances that it would be Kavanaugh (his former law clerk) Kennedy felt comfortable retiring - @LACaldwellDC & @frankthorp
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 10:00 AM   #47
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,523
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
His second amendment rulings are extremist, and reek of judicial activism.


(From what I've read, which is just an article about them, not the opinions themselves.)
JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S RECORD ON GUN POLICY

Quote:
In a follow-on case to Heller known as Heller II, Judge Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that Washington DC’s assault weapons ban and registration laws violate the Second Amendment. While two other judges cast deciding votes upholding both laws, Judge Kavanaugh instead sided with the gun lobby’s position that every type of firearm that is marketed and sold to enough Americans enjoys absolute constitutional protections, concluding that because assault weapons are in “common use” today and were not historically regulated, they cannot be prohibited under the Second Amendment. Similarly, Judge Kavanaugh determined that because most states do not require registration of firearms, it is unconstitutional to have a mandatory registration law—meaning that under his circular logic, any gun regulation that is not already widespread is constitutionally suspect.

In the same dissent in Heller II, Judge Kavanaugh interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Heller to require judges to disregard compelling public safety justifications for gun regulations and consider only the text of the Second Amendment and the history and tradition of regulating in a certain area when deciding if a challenged law is constitutional. Under Judge Kavanaugh’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, there is an “absence of a role for judicial interest balancing or assessment of costs and benefits of gun regulations.” This radical view would allow judges to pick and choose which gun regulations have adequate historical support and invalidate all other laws. For example, Judge Kavanaugh might vote to strike down important gun safety laws that address modern dangers that did not exist at the time of the founding of the United States, like extreme-risk protection order laws that remove guns from the possession of likely mass shooters, and domestic violence restraining order laws that protect victims of domestic abuse (a crime that wasn’t even recognized in early American history).

Finally, while Judge Kavanaugh has not issued a major ruling on the issue of public carry of firearms outside the home, he did cast a dissenting procedural vote in Grace v. District of Columbia stating he would leave in place a lower-court ruling striking down DC’s concealed carry licensing law pending appellate review. This suggests that Judge Kavanaugh was sympathetic to the view that the District of Columbia’s “good reason” requirement for concealed carry permit applicants is unconstitutional, a position that places him well outside the mainstream. Judges have overwhelmingly upheld similar concealed carry requirements, including those in place in California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey—and in each case, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review, leaving favorable lower-court decisions upholding strong concealed carry permitting laws in place.
crescent 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 10th July 2018, 10:55 AM   #48
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,472
Question: Should it matter that Kavanaugh is Catholic? That will mean that six or seven (depending on how you count Gorsuch) justices are Catholic, and two are Jewish. No mainstream Protestants, no non-believers, certainly no Muslims or Buddhists. Can we really say that someone's upbringing and core beliefs won't have any impact on their legal perspectives?

More broadly, are Catholics over-represented in the legal profession? Is there something about being raised in a religion with strict rules and a rigid hierarchy that makes a legal career appealing?

Last edited by Bob001; 10th July 2018 at 11:01 AM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 11:20 AM   #49
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,387
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Question: Should it matter that Kavanaugh is Catholic? That will mean that six or seven (depending on how you count Gorsuch) justices are Catholic, and two are Jewish. No mainstream Protestants, no non-believers, certainly no Muslims or Buddhists. Can we really say that someone's upbringing and core beliefs won't have any impact on their legal perspectives?

More broadly, are Catholics over-represented in the legal profession? Is there something about being raised in a religion with strict rules and a rigid hierarchy that makes a legal career appealing?
Maybe it's because there's something about being, theoretically, anti-abortion as a Catholic, that appointing type people find appealing to certain constituents.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 11:29 AM   #50
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,991
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Question: Should it matter that Kavanaugh is Catholic? That will mean that six or seven (depending on how you count Gorsuch) justices are Catholic, and two are Jewish. No mainstream Protestants, no non-believers, certainly no Muslims or Buddhists. Can we really say that someone's upbringing and core beliefs won't have any impact on their legal perspectives?

More broadly, are Catholics over-represented in the legal profession? Is there something about being raised in a religion with strict rules and a rigid hierarchy that makes a legal career appealing?
Given that the law is a system of strict rules and a rigid hierarchy, you seem to be making a case that only devout, Jesuit-trained Catholics are really qualified to sit on the bench.

Assuming we really want to dig into the upbringing and core beliefs of the nominees. Which might not be a bad idea. There's no constitutional requirement that the Supreme Court justices be drawn from the legal profession. There's something to be said for the idea that the Constitution is accessible to every citizen, and any citizen should be qualified to evaluate what it says about our nation and our laws.
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 10th July 2018, 11:40 AM   #51
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,472
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Given that the law is a system of strict rules and a rigid hierarchy, you seem to be making a case that only devout, Jesuit-trained Catholics are really qualified to sit on the bench.
.....
I'm not making that case at all. I'm asking whether people who were raised as Catholics and continue to practice might find the legal professional especially appealing, not that they are in any way more qualified to be judges.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 11:41 AM   #52
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,387
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I'm not making that case at all. I'm asking whether people who were raised as Catholics and continue to practice might find the legal professional especially appealing, not that they are in any way more qualified to be judges.
Everyone is guilty. It's either what you've done, or what you failed to do.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 12:02 PM   #53
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,685
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
First of all, I think there is a difference between a precedent that EXTENDS human rights/equality and one that limits human rights/equality. American society values (as well as laws and judicial rulings) have given more freedoms over the years and some people don't really want to lose that.

Secondly, are you actually saying its perfectly acceptable to (for example) overturn Roe v. Wade because other historical precedents have been overturned in the past?
Yes, of course. Now, I am not saying that it should be done casually; there is a real value to our society stemming from stare decisis. But the courts are not perfect. Plessy was terrible law, and while Brown is not perfect, it is miles better. And Plessy was decided 7-1, as compared to 5-4 for Roe.

As for your first point, who decides what is a human right and what is not? Is the right to keep and bear arms a human right, like the right to abortion or gay marriage? Does the ratchet only go one way on that as well?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 10th July 2018 at 12:18 PM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 12:36 PM   #54
C_Felix
Master Poster
 
C_Felix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Just outside Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,860
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/st...42192616706050


Source familiar tells NBC that Justice Kennedy had been in negotiations with the Trump team for months over Kennedy’s replacement. Once Kennedy received assurances that it would be Kavanaugh (his former law clerk) Kennedy felt comfortable retiring - @LACaldwellDC & @frankthorp

This is what I came to post.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/ant...anaugh-report/
__________________
Eqinsu Ocha!
Eqinsu Ocha!

Last edited by C_Felix; 10th July 2018 at 01:04 PM.
C_Felix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 12:39 PM   #55
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,429
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
As for your first point, who decides what is a human right and what is not? Is the right to keep and bear arms a human right, like the right to abortion or gay marriage? Does the ratchet only go one way on that as well?
This is my issue with the "But it's different because X is a right" argument, it assumes we all agree on what our rights are.

A popular progressive commentator, I believe it was Rachel Maddow, said something to the effect once of "Somethings don't get to be voted on. That's why they are called rights" and will I understand and respect the point she was trying to make it essentially turns the word "right" into what you call something you won't want to argue.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
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 10th July 2018, 01:04 PM   #56
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,472
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
This is my issue with the "But it's different because X is a right" argument, it assumes we all agree on what our rights are.

A popular progressive commentator, I believe it was Rachel Maddow, said something to the effect once of "Somethings don't get to be voted on. That's why they are called rights" and will I understand and respect the point she was trying to make it essentially turns the word "right" into what you call something you won't want to argue.

There's a difference between rights inherent to being a human being and rights bestowed by law. The UN Declaration of Human Rights asserts that all human beings, just by virtue being human, are entitled to dignity, life, liberty and security, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of movement, etc. You don't get to vote on whether people should be enslaved or tortured or unjustly imprisoned. Most religions have core teachings about how people must treat other people.
https://www.un.org/en/universal-decl...hts/index.html

On the other hand, rights bestowed by law can be changed. Without debating the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment -- and the NRA's view is one extreme, not Holy Writ -- there is no universally agreed-on right to keep and bear arms. Most countries don't have anything like it. It's certainly fair to make a distinction between moral and legal rights.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 02:49 PM   #57
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,002
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Question: Should it matter that Kavanaugh is Catholic? That will mean that six or seven (depending on how you count Gorsuch) justices are Catholic, and two are Jewish. No mainstream Protestants, no non-believers, certainly no Muslims or Buddhists. Can we really say that someone's upbringing and core beliefs won't have any impact on their legal perspectives?

More broadly, are Catholics over-represented in the legal profession? Is there something about being raised in a religion with strict rules and a rigid hierarchy that makes a legal career appealing?
Not crazy about Kavenaugh, but ,frankly, this is a slightly more sophisticated version of 'No Popery Here!"

It was John F Kennedy who said that Anti Catholicism was the last bigotry to have a following among intelleuctuals....
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 10th July 2018, 02:52 PM   #58
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,002
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Yes, of course. Now, I am not saying that it should be done casually; there is a real value to our society stemming from stare decisis. But the courts are not perfect. Plessy was terrible law, and while Brown is not perfect, it is miles better. And Plessy was decided 7-1, as compared to 5-4 for Roe.

As for your first point, who decides what is a human right and what is not? Is the right to keep and bear arms a human right, like the right to abortion or gay marriage? Does the ratchet only go one way on that as well?
WHat is you stand on Abortion?
Just interested.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 10th July 2018, 02:55 PM   #59
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,685
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
There's a difference between rights inherent to being a human being and rights bestowed by law. The UN Declaration of Human Rights asserts that all human beings, just by virtue being human, are entitled to dignity, life, liberty and security, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of movement, etc. You don't get to vote on whether people should be enslaved or tortured or unjustly imprisoned. Most religions have core teachings about how people must treat other people.
https://www.un.org/en/universal-decl...hts/index.html

On the other hand, rights bestowed by law can be changed. Without debating the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment -- and the NRA's view is one extreme, not Holy Writ -- there is no universally agreed-on right to keep and bear arms. Most countries don't have anything like it. It's certainly fair to make a distinction between moral and legal rights.
I note that the UN Declaration contains no mention of the right to an abortion, or gay marriage.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 02:56 PM   #60
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,991
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
There's a difference between rights inherent to being a human being and rights bestowed by law. The UN Declaration of Human Rights asserts that all human beings, just by virtue being human, are entitled to dignity, life, liberty and security, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of movement, etc. You don't get to vote on whether people should be enslaved or tortured or unjustly imprisoned. Most religions have core teachings about how people must treat other people.
https://www.un.org/en/universal-decl...hts/index.html

On the other hand, rights bestowed by law can be changed. Without debating the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment -- and the NRA's view is one extreme, not Holy Writ -- there is no universally agreed-on right to keep and bear arms. Most countries don't have anything like it. It's certainly fair to make a distinction between moral and legal rights.
If it's possible to have rights that are not bestowed by law, then the fact few countries bestow the right to bear arms by law, does not signify that it is a legal right rather than a moral one.

Even if Big Brother tells me that the Party has voted down my legal right to life, I can still say that I have a moral right to life that they cannot vote down.
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 10th July 2018, 03:08 PM   #61
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,685
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
WHat is you stand on Abortion?
Just interested.
Roe v. Wade is terrible law and should be overturned. That said, I am reluctantly pro-choice. I think abortion is morally wrong, but not so obviously wrong that we should go around locking people up for performing/having them.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 03:50 PM   #62
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,989
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
More broadly, are Catholics over-represented in the legal profession? Is there something about being raised in a religion with strict rules and a rigid hierarchy that makes a legal career appealing?

It's not strict rules and a rigid hierarchy that makes Catholics overrepresented in law. It's the approach to theology. Catholics have a very long intellectual history that includes a variety of authoritative sources, legal precedents, and research into handed down tradition. Reading a papal bull (official edict from the pope on matters of church law) reads a lot like reading a Supreme Court decision. Both will depend on history, prior decisions of the court/church, and subtle meanings of words from the primary legal documents (the Bible or the Constitution, respectively.)

Protestants, in general, have a more direct take on things. They depend on the Bible alone, or those parts they choose to like, and trust individual interpretation of those words. They might have some reference to the prior writings of influential preachers, but those don't have any actual "official" standing, the way the writings of previous popes have within the Catholic Church. Catholicism is much more legalistic than most protestant denominations.

As for Jews, take the Catholic legal approach and ratchet it up another notch. Jewish practice depends on reading the authorities, and demands interpretation and argument. The religion is all about the law, and people are expected to learn it, study it, and even interpret and argue about it. Becoming a lawyer is a natural fit for anyone who has undertaken Jewish-style Torah study.
Meadmaker 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 10th July 2018, 03:51 PM   #63
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,726
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Roe v. Wade is terrible law and should be overturned. That said, I am reluctantly pro-choice. I think abortion is morally wrong, but not so obviously wrong that we should go around locking people up for performing/having them.
Thank you for this. Without expressing a position, I studied this issue extensively in the mid-nineties, and it is very complex. Much more complex than the 2 extremities have attempted to paint it over the past 50 years. Probably why it is still not as settled an issue as either side would have hoped for. It will be very interesting going forward to see how it all plays out in the U.S.
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 03:58 PM   #64
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,989
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
So, this is what I mean. The 2nd amendment isn't very clear on exactly what ought to be allowed, and exactly what can be regulated. The right to keep and bear arms is clearly not absolute, but it clearly is a right intended for individuals to exercise. Clearly, though, the law can restrict exactly what sort of arms can be kept and borne, and how. This is a view consistent with tradition, with the actual words of the constitution, with statutory law, and with the history of Supreme Court jurisprudence.

In such cases, there ought to be deference to the legislature for exactly where the line ought to be drawn within the wide limits dictated by the constitution. Judge Kavanaugh, though, seems to wish to use his power to further his own agenda, which supports widespread legal possession of all sorts of firearms, and very few restrictions on the manner of their employment. That's all well and good, and I encourage everyone who feels that way to vote for politicians who share their views, but pushing that agenda from the bench is the very definition of "judicial activism".
Meadmaker 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 10th July 2018, 05:27 PM   #65
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,470
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I note that the UN Declaration contains no mention of the right to an abortion, or gay marriage.
Those rights would fall under "liberty".
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 05:29 PM   #66
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,882
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Those rights would fall under "liberty".
How do you know?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 05:32 PM   #67
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,002
I think if Roe is overturned, the backlash will be horrendous for the GOP,and in the states that will ban abortion you will see the most massive open defiance of the law since Prohibition.
The real problem is that the whole idea of abortion being wrong I based upon it being murder, and that preposes the preexistence of a soul in a fetus. I think that is a thelogical belief, and I strongly object to thelogy being made into law.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 10th July 2018, 06:03 PM   #68
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,523
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
So, this is what I mean. The 2nd amendment isn't very clear on exactly what ought to be allowed, and exactly what can be regulated. The right to keep and bear arms is clearly not absolute, but it clearly is a right intended for individuals to exercise. Clearly, though, the law can restrict exactly what sort of arms can be kept and borne, and how. This is a view consistent with tradition, with the actual words of the constitution, with statutory law, and with the history of Supreme Court jurisprudence.

In such cases, there ought to be deference to the legislature for exactly where the line ought to be drawn within the wide limits dictated by the constitution. Judge Kavanaugh, though, seems to wish to use his power to further his own agenda, which supports widespread legal possession of all sorts of firearms, and very few restrictions on the manner of their employment. That's all well and good, and I encourage everyone who feels that way to vote for politicians who share their views, but pushing that agenda from the bench is the very definition of "judicial activism".
I agree with you. I was seconding your claim, not trying to refute it.
crescent 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 10th July 2018, 07:40 PM   #69
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,707
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Question: Should it matter that Kavanaugh is Catholic? That will mean that six or seven (depending on how you count Gorsuch) justices are Catholic, and two are Jewish. No mainstream Protestants, no non-believers, certainly no Muslims or Buddhists. Can we really say that someone's upbringing and core beliefs won't have any impact on their legal perspectives?

More broadly, are Catholics over-represented in the legal profession? Is there something about being raised in a religion with strict rules and a rigid hierarchy that makes a legal career appealing?

3 Jews - Kagen, Ginsburg and Breyer.

To my knowledge, Jews are the most overrepresented minority in the legal profession. I think we're something like 25% of lawyers in the US while being 1.4% of the population. I can't find a good source for that number, though. It turns out that counting Jews is something that's generally frowned upon.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 04:16 AM   #70
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,989
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
I agree with you. I was seconding your claim, not trying to refute it.
Yes. I understood that, and thank you for the information you posted. It perfectly illustrated my point.


Republicans insist that they want a judge who will fairly interpret the law, instead of an activist that will impose his own agenda and "legislate from the bench". I think Judge Kavanaugh's record demonstrates that he is not such a judge.
Meadmaker 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 11th July 2018, 05:20 AM   #71
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,207
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
...
The real problem is that the whole idea of abortion being wrong I based upon it being murder, and that preposes the preexistence of a soul in a fetus. I think that is a thelogical belief, and I strongly object to thelogy being made into law.
Realizing this is tipping towards off-topic, can you clarify if you imply that the legal concept of murder implies the existence of a soul in some theological sense?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 05:36 AM   #72
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,882
Originally Posted by C_Felix View Post
This appears to be retracted.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 05:44 AM   #73
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,429
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Realizing this is tipping towards off-topic, can you clarify if you imply that the legal concept of murder implies the existence of a soul in some theological sense?
If the "thing" in question doesn't have a neurosystem sufficiently advanced to feel pain or suffer a... end of existence in anyway that makes any kind of sense the only reason to handwring over whether or not destroying it is 'murder' is if you think there's some 'essence' of self that isn't biological/neurological in nature already in the thing at that point and that's a soul.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
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 11th July 2018, 06:40 AM   #74
ahhell
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,653
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
If the "thing" in question doesn't have a neurosystem sufficiently advanced to feel pain or suffer a... end of existence in anyway that makes any kind of sense the only reason to handwring over whether or not destroying it is 'murder' is if you think there's some 'essence' of self that isn't biological/neurological in nature already in the thing at that point and that's a soul.
I find this confusing. It seems to imply that murder can only be considered wrong because humans have a soul?

Anyrate, back to the subject. Kavanaugh's feelings on Roe V Wade are not nearly so clear as people seem to think. His decision in the illegal immigrant case was pretty narrowly defined. A 17 year old wanted an abortion immediately, the administration wanted to place here with an adult sponsor first. Kavanaugh said that delay was reasonable. That might signal greater antipathy to roe v wade or it might not. In his confirmation for the circuit court he said he'd respect Roe V Wade's precedent. As a Supreme, he's not really bound by precedent the way a lower court would be so that doesn't really say much either.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 06:41 AM   #75
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,429
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
I find this confusing. It seems to imply that murder can only be considered wrong because humans have a soul?
How did you possibly get that out what I said?
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
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 11th July 2018, 06:50 AM   #76
ahhell
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,653
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
How did you possibly get that out what I said?
AS I noted, I found your statement confusing.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 07:00 AM   #77
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,502
It's a question of Analog vs. Digital: either a fertilized egg cell become a human gradually, which means that before a certain threshold it is not murder to kill it; or fertilization flips the switch from monozygote to human.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 07:02 AM   #78
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,529
(for ahhell, trying to explain JoeMorgue's point)
I think he's saying this:

In the non-religious view, murder is wrong because it causes pain and suffering to a person and their loved ones. Abortion doesn't fall into the same category, because the fetus doesn't have the capacity for pain or suffering.

The religious conflation of abortion to murder, therefore, must be based on something else. The belief in some special vitality/soul/lifeforce is likely that thing.

ETA: AS always, feel free to throw things and call me names if I've mis-represented
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 07:02 AM   #79
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,882
To those complaining that it creates a conflict around things like in vitro, if you give them enough time they will get around to outlawing that to. It will work out in the end.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 10:11 AM   #80
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,707
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
In the non-religious view, murder is wrong because it causes pain and suffering to a person and their loved ones. Abortion doesn't fall into the same category, because the fetus doesn't have the capacity for pain or suffering.

I don't necessarily agree. In my (non-religious) view, I am perfectly at ease with moral ambiguities. Abortion and murder may be on the same spectrum and somewhere on that spectrum is a line between what is acceptable and what is not. I have no idea where exactly that line is. But I don't think I need to know that in order to determine that abortion is definitely on the allowable isde and murder is definitely not.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader 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 03:13 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.