Majority of Americans, including many Republicans, say wait for election to replace Ginsburg - Reuters poll

[johnnybangkok]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I assume you would use the same argument against allowing any Christion on the court, yes? 

Yes if it meant their personal religious bias formed an opinion against the idea of separation of Chiricahua and state. 
Stop being so basic in your argument and understand there is grey inbetween black and white. 

[Sujo]

34 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I'm sorry, but when you said " ...more conservative bias on legal matters and enshrines the constitution as being above reproach thus meaning no changes to any of the constitution and especially the 1st and 2nd amendments." it sounded like you thought the court should be changing the constitution. 

 

What you want is judges that know when it need to be circumvented.

 

How would you define military style weapons, scary looking rifles? 

 

 

Funny you talk about the constitution but refer to ammendments to it.

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, plentyofnuttin said:

So you didn't write "What you want is judges that know when it need to be circumvented."

 

Yes, I wrote that, but it was in response to someone that (apparently) believes it's up to the court to adapt the Constitution to make it more appropriate to modern America. It is not up to the court change the Constitution.

 

I think you would argue that the "extreme conservatives" you referred to in a previous post circumvented the Constitution, yes?

 

The court should interpret the Constitution, not change or circumvent it, yes?

[Yellowtail]

9 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

There’s a reason they are called amendments. You don’t need wholesale change to constitute an amendment or, more importantly, the presidents that accompany all legal matters. 
The Supreme Court has the power to interpret. Once interpreted they then set president. The president then guides all other thoughts on the subject. However I would argue that there does need to be changes to the constitution and someone like ACB does not believe there should. It’s a big thing when you see the GOP harp back to fundamentals. It makes all the difference. 

 

As I understand it, Constitutional Amendments are changes to the Constitution. There is an amendment process in place to change the Constitution, and I do not think it involves the court.

 

The courts can be used by the left or right to circumvent the Constitution, but not to change it. 

 

What "fundamentals" of the Constitution do you think should be changed?

 

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

14 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Funny you talk about the constitution but refer to ammendments to it.

 

I think that was johnnybangkok, I was just responding to him. In any event, as I understand it, the Amendments (ammendments?) are changes to the Constitution, and as such are considered part of it.

 

 

[Yellowtail]

26 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Yes if it meant their personal religious bias formed an opinion against the idea of separation of Chiricahua and state. 
Stop being so basic in your argument and understand there is grey inbetween black and white. 

 

As I understand separation, it is to protect the practice of religion, not restrict it. 

[johnnybangkok]

22 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

As I understand separation, it is to protect the practice of religion, not restrict it. 

No it's not. It does cover religeous freedom but it is also about the idea that religios beliefs should not play a part in how laws are inteprested and should certailny not govern law. 

[RoadWarrior371]

11 hours ago, simple1 said:

Check out Barrett and 'People of Praise'.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-people-praise-group-inspired-handmaids-tale-1533293

Since Newsweek has since retracted that story, I assume we can expect your retraction as well?  ????

 

LOL

[geriatrickid]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I assume you would use the same argument against allowing any Christion on the court, yes? 

My position applies to anyone who allows his/her/their personal religious belief to influence a decision that should be based upon legal merits. 

 

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

As I understand separation, it is to protect the practice of religion, not restrict it. 

It goes beyond that. Yes, at its core, the intent is that the the government shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". However, the  SCOTUS  has already held that the intent of the  amendment was explained in Jefferson's letter of January 1, 1802. Of particular interest is the following;

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

 

 

Note the comment in respect to rights of conscience and natural rights. The issue of natural rights has been debated since it originated in ancient times. many people  hold that a fundamental natural right is the control of a woman over her reproductive organs.  The Supreme court nominee subscribes to a religious doctrine  which does not recognize this individual freedom and instead holds the position originating with Augustine who wrote the Catholic Church dogma of the 5th century that;

- Females are in most part responsible for the ejection from Eden due to the infection of sin because of the female's disobedience to her male master;

- Females must accept that they are subject to the rule and control by men;

 

A cornerstone of Catholic evangelical thought on abortion originates with the Augustine dogma. Wait until the nominee gets going on access to contraception,  or sex education.  You haven't seen anything. As I wrote, supporters of this religious zealot are in for a few surprises.

Edited September 27, 2020 by geriatrickid

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I think that was johnnybangkok, I was just responding to him. In any event, as I understand it, the Amendments (ammendments?) are changes to the Constitution, and as such are considered part of it.

 

 

So u think its ok for the constitution to be amended but you want a justice to adhere to it as written.

[muffy]

It  is wha t T rump thinks.

[TexanInUdon]

The majority of Americans......  yeah, right.

Poll every single person... then it can be believed.

And I do not care who gets the seat or when they get it or who nominates them.  I also do not care what they wear under the black robe or if they have foot fungus.

[candide]

Meanwhile..... ????

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[plentyofnuttin]

5 hours ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

Since Newsweek has since retracted that story, I assume we can expect your retraction as well?  ????

 

LOL

Not true. They retracted the part that claimed Barrett's sect had inspired a Handmaid's Tale. If the story was actually retracted it would no longer be accessible. But it is.

[plentyofnuttin]

5 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

My position applies to anyone who allows his/her/their personal religious belief to influence a decision that should be based upon legal merits. 

 

It goes beyond that. Yes, at its core, the intent is that the the government shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". However, the  SCOTUS  has already held that the intent of the  amendment was explained in Jefferson's letter of January 1, 1802. Of particular interest is the following;

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

 

 

Note the comment in respect to rights of conscience and natural rights. The issue of natural rights has been debated since it originated in ancient times. many people  hold that a fundamental natural right is the control of a woman over her reproductive organs.  The Supreme court nominee subscribes to a religious doctrine  which does not recognize this individual freedom and instead holds the position originating with Augustine who wrote the Catholic Church dogma of the 5th century that;

- Females are in most part responsible for the ejection from Eden due to the infection of sin because of the female's disobedience to her male master;

- Females must accept that they are subject to the rule and control by men;

 

A cornerstone of Catholic evangelical thought on abortion originates with the Augustine dogma. Wait until the nominee gets going on access to contraception,  or sex education.  You haven't seen anything. As I wrote, supporters of this religious zealot are in for a few surprises.

Actually, there's even stronger evidence for how strongly the creators of the Constitution felt about the entanglement of government and religion. James Madison is popularly known as the Father of the Constitution. Yet he believed that it was unconstitutional for states to give tax exemptions to churches or for the Congress to have a chaplain or for the military to provide chaplains to the troops. These are positions with which the so-called originalists strongly disagree.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/864/detached-memoranda

 

[plentyofnuttin]

7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Yes, I wrote that, but it was in response to someone that (apparently) believes it's up to the court to adapt the Constitution to make it more appropriate to modern America. It is not up to the court change the Constitution.

 

I think you would argue that the "extreme conservatives" you referred to in a previous post circumvented the Constitution, yes?

 

The court should interpret the Constitution, not change or circumvent it, yes?

Please, pull me another one. Your comments are full of statements like this:

"There is a process in place for changing the Constitution, and I don't think it involves leftist judges. Circumventing the Constitution requires leftist judges."

[JemJem]

Actually, it is so clear that Trump and the Republican senators (well, almost all of them) are NOT doing 

anything legally etc.  wrong by pushing through with this action. 

 

BUT (this is an important but), because of what Mitch McDonnell did in 2016, they will suffer ethically if they go through with it, and this will also probably cause many undecided voters to go for Biden in November. 

 

Well, whatever happens in the November election, one thing is for sure : the already-high level of polarisation in the US will increase. 

[RJRS1301]

8 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Many of the people championing the nominee will be dismayed when she votes on cases that support the erosion of personal liberties. Her position on the concept of undue burden applies to far more than  the issue of a woman's reproductive rights. Easier  search and seizure, easier search and arrest etc.  

 

She is no idiot and is qualified to serve. The issue though will be whether or not she is able to keep her personal religious bias out of her decision making. I don't she she will, and that would mean a further erosion of the separation of the church and state boundary.

Have her religious beliefs been questioned in her previous and current roles? Have her beliefs a been cause for appeals in her judgements?
 

Edited September 27, 2020 by RJRS1301

[simple1]

6 hours ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

Since Newsweek has since retracted that story, I assume we can expect your retraction as well?  ????

 

LOL

Incorrect. Newsweek retracted the alleged association of People of Praise with the Handmaid's Tale, not Barrett's connections with People of Praise nor the organisation itself. - again, misrepresentation from the trump world. BTW I do not represent any media group, so ridiculous to ask for my retraction of a posted link to a news article.

Edited September 27, 2020 by simple1

[Yellowtail]

7 hours ago, Sujo said:

So u think its ok for the constitution to be amended but you want a justice to adhere to it as written.

 

Exactly. 

 

Just as I believe any law can be change, but should generally be adhered to and enforced as written. 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, plentyofnuttin said:

Please, pull me another one. Your comments are full of statements like this:

"There is a process in place for changing the Constitution, and I don't think it involves leftist judges. Circumventing the Constitution requires leftist judges."

 

Pull you another what? So it's your position that amending the Constitution does require leftist judges? 

 

Are you so narrow minded that you are unable to comprehend the issue through your bias? 

 

I'm not pretending to be unbiased, I don't want leftist judges on the court, and I'd love to see Trump's nomination get confirmed. 

 

[MaxYakov]

On 9/21/2020 at 7:06 AM, scorecard said:

On 9/21/2020 at 6:35 AM, Tug said:

Imo it would be the correct thing to do because of what they did to the last administration but it’s trump he is what he is

True, he thinks of one person only and with no respect for anybody else including no respect for this sadly now deceased wonderful lady who has made great contributions to the US and deserves total/absolute respect. 

Nonsense. Doesn't the Supreme Court deserve respect also? Why force it to function with only eight judges for someone who is now buried history? She should have wanted to preserve the integrity of the court by having her position filled as soon as possible. Anything else is purely political partisanship which she could easily be accused of by her staying on the court and not retiring as a political ploy to potentially throw her replacement choice to a Democratic president.

[plentyofnuttin]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Pull you another what? So it's your position that amending the Constitution does require leftist judges? 

 

Are you so narrow minded that you are unable to comprehend the issue through your bias? 

 

I'm not pretending to be unbiased, I don't want leftist judges on the court, and I'd love to see Trump's nomination get confirmed. 

 

The point is that you said it takes a leftist judge to circumvent the constitution. And that goes back to your assertion to a poster  

"I'm sorry, but when you said " ...more conservative bias on legal matters and enshrines the constitution as being above reproach thus meaning no changes to any of the constitution and especially the 1st and 2nd amendments." it sounded like you thought the court should be changing the constitution. 

 

What you want is judges that know when it need to be circumvented."

Since, according to you, it takes a leftist judge to do that, I think it's absolutely clear that you skewered yourself.

[scorecard]

19 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

Nonsense. Doesn't the Supreme Court deserve respect also? Why force it to function with only eight judges for someone who is now buried history? She should have wanted to preserve the integrity of the court by having her position filled as soon as possible. Anything else is purely political partisanship which she could easily be accused of by her staying on the court and not retiring as a political ploy to potentially throw her replacement choice to a Democratic president.

Nice speech, sorry I don't buy it.

 

IMHO there's little doubt that she would want the process to be totally moral and balanced, not just fast.

 

[MaxYakov]

18 minutes ago, scorecard said:

40 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

Nonsense. Doesn't the Supreme Court deserve respect also? Why force it to function with only eight judges for someone who is now buried history? She should have wanted to preserve the integrity of the court by having her position filled as soon as possible. Anything else is purely political partisanship which she could easily be accused of by her staying on the court and not retiring as a political ploy to potentially throw her replacement choice to a Democratic president.

Nice speech, sorry I don't buy it.

 

IMHO there's little doubt that she would want the process to be totally moral and balanced, not just fast.

Thanks. IMHO, there's little doubt she would have wanted a replacement to be liberal chosen by a Democratic president. Define "totally moral" and "balanced" in this context, please. Does balanced mean a liberal replacement? She was an activist; why should she be allowed to continue her activism from the grave? Twenty-nine Presidents have nominated replacement SC judges in their election years. Attempting to delay her replacement on any pretext is an obvious political ploy by the Democrats.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by MaxYakov

[Yellowtail]

33 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Nice speech, sorry I don't buy it.

 

IMHO there's little doubt that she would want the process to be totally moral and balanced, not just fast.

 

 

We have left and right. The left wants leftist judges and the right wants rightest judges. Both sides do what they can to make this happen. It is neither moral nor immoral. 

[Ricohoc]

Reuters poll.

 

463 Democrats and 374 Republicans

 

Yeah.  Okay.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Ricohoc said:

Reuters poll.

 

463 Democrats and 374 Republicans

 

Yeah.  Okay.

 

Bringing up 'issues' covered in any Introduction to Statistics 101 is hardly much of a point.

Granted, it might serve for certain segments of voters and posters.

[Gandtee]

 

11 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

We have left and right. The left wants leftist judges and the right wants rightest judges. Both sides do what they can to make this happen. It is neither moral nor immoral. 

But isn't it immoral to use unfair means to get what you want? Why not wait until after the election to see what the people want?

Edited September 28, 2020 by onthedarkside
quote of removed post removed

[LiamB80]

Who cares what a poll says. I care what the constitution says.