Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett) (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
1,342
Age
42
Location
Earth
Offline
Probably, but I think it was gonna be toast sooner or later anyway. I'd much rather single payer universal health care.
Yea, the election is going to have more impact on the future of healthcare than a scotus ruling.
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
1,342
Age
42
Location
Earth
Offline
The Republicans rationalization for blocking Obama’s nominee and pushing through Trumps is essentially the same one Bill Clinton used for why he cheated. Because they could.
 

LA - L.A.

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
898
Reaction score
952
Location
Studio City, CA
Offline
Yea, the election is going to have more impact on the future of healthcare than a scotus ruling.
The Supreme Court can strike down anything that Congress or the President does as being unconstitutional and they have the final say in the matter, this includes any healthcare policies.

People seem to not understand just how powerful the Supreme Court and it's lifetime appointments are in our country.

Buying into the irrational belief that any somewhat intelligent and "decent" human being should be confirmed to the Supreme Court eliminates the checks and balances on the Supreme Court.

An unchecked Supreme Court is the most dangerous thing to our democracy. The justice system is the second thing that tyrants subvert or abolish when dismantling a democracy. The first things are the police and the military.

Now think about those historical facts in context with what's been going on here from Nixon through to this hearing.

It's easy not to be alarmed by potential tyranny and oppression if you feel like you are on the same side as the tyrants and oppressors. Empathy requires putting yourself in the shoes of those who will be the targets of tyrants and oppressors.
 
Last edited:

zztop

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
487
Reaction score
592
Age
120
Location
in a van down by the river
Offline
Besides deciding how many congressional seats each state gets, the census helps determine how $1.5 trillion in federal funding is distributed each year.

I can't imagine why stopping it early would be what republicans would want. Can anyone think of a reason?
Meanwhile, I wonder how this will turn out

isn't it fun having a stacked court that is tilted in your favor?
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
1,342
Age
42
Location
Earth
Offline
The Supreme Court can strike down anything the Congress or the President does as being unconstitutional and they have the final say in the matter, this includes any healthcare policies.

People seem to not understand just how powerful the Supreme Court and it's lifetime appointments are in our country.

Buying into the irrational belief that any somewhat intelligent and "decent" human being should be confirmed to the Supreme Court eliminates the checks and balances on the Supreme Court.

An unchecked Supreme Court is the most dangerous thing to our democracy. The justice system is the second thing that tyrants subvert or abolish when dismantling a democracy. The first things are the police and the military.

Now think about those historical facts in context with what's being going on here from Nixon through to this hearing.

It's easy not to be alarmed by potential tyranny and oppression if you feel like you are on the same side as the tyrants and oppressors. Empathy requires putting yourself in the shoes of those who will be the targets of tyrants and oppressors.
Would you rather give the legislative or executive branch more power than they currently have?

We need more stability, not less.
 

LA - L.A.

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
898
Reaction score
952
Location
Studio City, CA
Offline
Besides deciding how many congressional seats each state gets, the census helps determine how $1.5 trillion in federal funding is distributed each year.

I can't imagine why stopping it early would be what republicans would want. Can anyone think of a reason?
Meanwhile, I wonder how this will turn out

isn't it fun having a stacked court that is tilted in your favor?
As it stands now, most of the undercounting has taken place in "Democratic" states and in "Democratic" areas in "Republican" states. It will help the Republican minority keep it's majority control over government and won't have much impact on them losing federal funds for their states and districts.
 

LA - L.A.

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
898
Reaction score
952
Location
Studio City, CA
Offline
Would you rather give the legislative or executive branch more power than they currently have?

We need more stability, not less.
That's a false choice. No extra power has to be given to the executive or the legislative branches to provide effective checks and balances on the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court currently has too much power over our country, because the only check and balance over the Supreme Court is not and will never work as intended. We need to change how Supreme Court justices get appointed to the court and the lengths of their appointments.

As to the need for more stability, authoritarianism is a notoriously stable form of government. We don't need more stability for the sake of stability, just like we don't need more security just for the sake of security.

What we need is a government that is much more representative of the actual majority of the citizens than it currently is. This Supreme Court is going to do the opposite of that. If that is more "stability," then we actually need less "stability."
 
Last edited:

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
1,342
Age
42
Location
Earth
Offline
That's a false choice. No extra power has to be given to the executive or the legislative branches to provide effective checks and balances on the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court currently has too much power over our country, because the only check and balance over the Supreme Court is not and will never work as intended. We need to change how Supreme Court justices get appointed to the court and the lengths of their appointments.

As to the need for more stability, authoritarianism is a notoriously stable form of government. We don't need more stability for the sake of stability, just like we don't need more security just for the sake of security.

What we need is a government that is much more representative of the actual majority of the citizens than it currently is. This Supreme Court is going to do the opposite of that. If that is more "stability," then we actually need less "stability."
The legislative branch has been ceding power to the executive for 30 years.

Our current imbalance of power involves the executive and legislative branch. The reason the judicial branch seems too powerful is because the legislative branch has become impotent and consumed by politics.

We need to get back to the idea that a bad deal is better than no deal. I believe that we are closer to societal collapse than we seem to think.

Extremism is our primary enemy at the moment.
 

SystemShock

Uh yu ka t'ann
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
680
Reaction score
474
Location
Xibalba
Offline
Not sure what this even means. Why the need to put one before the other. As a pro-choice, pro-LGBT+ Catholic, I use the teachings of the Bible to help me make the right decisions for myself AND everyone else. Those teachings are why I'm pro-choice and pro-LGBT+.

Two distinct things...
I don't know how you can't be sure what that means.
If you are using the teachings of the Bible to be pro LGBT+, according to Leviticus, letters to Romans, Corinthians, Jude, etc. you are doing it wrong, unless "abomination" and "shall surely be put to death" have different meanings I am not aware of.

I can list a number of instances in which people put Bible before anything else: Hobby Lobby, Kim Davis, people being fired for being gay, and so on, to the detriment of others and/or the infringement of their rights, but I would think you know about them.

So I don't understand how you can say you are not sure what that even means.
 

SystemShock

Uh yu ka t'ann
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
680
Reaction score
474
Location
Xibalba
Offline
Sure, but he was arguing that being Catholic was the disqualifying criteria.
No, @Mr. Blue Sky didn't say that merely being Catholic is disqualifying criteria, but the imposition of ones beliefs on others is. I though he was clear:

First, i want to be clear- i dont have a problem with her beliefs ‘in a vacuum’.. Life is hard, and i think if something like religion helps you get through day to day, while doing good works- then it is generally a good thing... But when we are discussing a possible Supreme Court justice, i only have problems with her specific beliefs,
 
Last edited:

brandon

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
717
Reaction score
1,267
Offline
I don't know how you can't be sure what that means.
If you are using the teachings of the Bible to be pro LGBT+, according to Leviticus, letters to Romans, Corinthians, Jude, etc. you are doing it wrong, unless "abomination" and "shall surely be put to death" have different meanings I am not aware of.

I can list a number of instances in which people put Bible before anything else: Hobby Lobby, Kim Davis, people being fired for being gay, and so on, to the detriment of others and/or the infringement of their rights, but I would think you know about them.

So I don't understand how you can say you are not sure what that even means.
For what it’s worth, there’s definitely apologetics that argue that most of the anti-LGBTQ verses in the Bible are either Old Testament guidelines for the Levitical priesthood, rather than ordinary citizens, or New Testament mistranslations against male adult/male child pedophilia.
 

LA - L.A.

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
898
Reaction score
952
Location
Studio City, CA
Offline
The legislative branch has been ceding power to the executive for 30 years.
I agree which is another argument supporting the need to reform the way we appoint justices to the Supreme Court and do away with lifetime appointments. If there is such an abundance of judges qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, what's the harm with them having limits to how long they serve? Why so much resistance to that idea? There's no shortage of qualified judges, right?

The affirmative questions is, why exactly do justices have to be appointed for a lifetime for the Supreme Court to properly serve it's role?
Our current imbalance of power involves the executive and legislative branch. The reason the judicial branch seems too powerful is because the legislative branch has become impotent and consumed by politics.
The Supreme Court has not gotten more powerful. It has always had this power. It has always had the final word on what is or is not constitutional. No other government entity has the power to overturn the Supreme Court. That's not true of the executive and the legislative branches.

The Supreme Court has become more partisan/corrupt, not more powerful. It has gotten this way because Republicans have exploited the inherent weaknesses in the current checks and balances to keep that partisanship/corruption of the Supreme Court from happening. The inherent weaknesses in the checks and balances to keep this partisanship/corruption of the Supreme Court from happening is exactly why we need to change the checks and balances on the Supreme Court.
We need to get back to the idea that a bad deal is better than no deal.
So being falsely imprisoned is acceptable because it's better than being falsely executed? Not having equal rights is acceptable, because it's better than not having any rights at all?

This mentality is what leads a representative society into the slow process of accepting tyranny. We are much further into that process that most seem to realize.
I believe that we are closer to societal collapse than we seem to think.
I agree and the long slow march in the direction of tyranny started decades ago. Staying on the same path that got us to this point is going to march us all the way into the societal collapse of what remains of our representative government and into a fully tyrannical government.
Extremism is our primary enemy at the moment.
What is "extremist" about wanting to reform the process by which we appoint justices to Supreme Court and limiting how long they serve? There's nothing extreme about fixing a broken system.

It's irrational to think that we are on the brink of societal collapse and then call for more of the same thing that brought us to that brink.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
395
Reaction score
157
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
No, @Mr. Blue Sky he wasn't that merely being Catholic is disqualifying criteria, but the imposition of ones beliefs on others. I though he was clear:
But, her specific beliefs are assumed becuase she's Catholic. At least that's what seems implied. Otherwise why bring it up in the first place?

Fwiw, I'm not Catholic, but it seems like the assumption is that because she's Catholic, it's assumed that she'll impose her faith onto her legal arguments. I'm not saying she will or won't. I don't know that. But many Catholics or people of various faiths can and are objective when it comes to interpreting law.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
4,109
Location
Midwest
Offline
This is an appalling answer, how hard is it to say that all involved should commit to a peaceful transition between administrations? I don’t care how you’re coached. The answer is “yes” and that’s all you have to say. This makes her look like either a craven political pawn or a fool.

 

LA - L.A.

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
898
Reaction score
952
Location
Studio City, CA
Offline
Fwiw, I'm not Catholic, but it seems like the assumption is that because she's Catholic, it's assumed that she'll impose her faith onto her legal arguments.
None of the people you are responding to have assumed any of what you said there.

They are working off of the fact that Barrett has said and written that when applying the law, she puts her Catholic values ahead of the law. No one is assuming that she will impose her faith on her legal arguments, she said she does. It's irrational to ignore or try to rationalize an excuse for her own words.

Her being of the Catholic faith is not the issue. The issue is that she said she puts her faith first. It's not acceptable regardless of what her faith happens to be.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Fact Checkers News Feed

General News Feed

Top Bottom