Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Well a stalinist would not be a impartial SCOTUS judge about taxes and the human right of property and other more civic democratic human rights.

In Germany you still can't become a public servant, if you are openly a communist or nazi.

Why should you become the highest judge then, if you are a catholic religious zealot and the next important cases in the next years will be about abortion laws from some federal states?

Even worse is that Barrett was quiet in the public hearing about her firm anti-abortion stance since 2006.

[Prodromos]

To be fair, I too am concerned whenever a devout Papist reaches high office.


Nevertheless, Barrett’s elevator pitch was a reasonable assurance that she will adhere to the law as it is written, not as she might like to interpret it. Works for me.

As long as she follows the Constitution she can believe whatever she wants, really. I expect she'll be good on some issues and bad on others.

Well a stalinist would not be a impartial SCOTUS judge about taxes and the human right of property and other more civic democratic human rights.


In Germany you still can't become a public servant, if you are openly a communist or nazi.


Why should you become the highest judge then, if you are a catholic religious zealot and the next important cases in the next years will be about abortion laws from some federal states?


Even worse is that Barrett was quiet in the public hearing about her firm anti-abortion stance since 2006.

Well, she claims to be an originalist, so presumably she'd base her anti-abortion decisions on the Constitution instead of her personal beliefs about abortion.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Originalism is a nice method to freeze a society forever in the state of society of 1774, especially then if the only two parties have no common ground.

[Prodromos]

The law is the law. Don't like it? Change it. Until then, it should be understood according to its original meaning. Otherwise you have arbitrary power and tyranny.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The Dems will have a hard time trying to Kavanaugh her because she’s not a man. So they’ll think up other stuff (she’s in a cult/traitor to the proletarian sisterhood of the world, she’s a racist for adopting black kids, etc). Thing is, you can only cry wolf so many times before it loses effect.

[Cookiegod]

Originalism is a nice method to freeze a society forever in the state of society of 1774, especially then if the only two parties have no common ground.

except that in the case of the US, the constitution has been amended 27 times, the last time being 1977, so your argument is inaccurate to say the least.
I could point out that the more problematic aspect of Roe vs Wade isn't the religious aspect, but the court bending their competences to allude to a right of privacy in the "penumbras" [sic] of the constitution, without even being able to pinpoint in which amendment it's supposed to be in. The proper way would've been to make a 28th right to privacy amendment. Personally I'm pro privacy and apart from that as a European thoroughly outside that fight, but speaking from a point of principle, the judiciary branch is not supposed to act as the legislative one.

What is however thoroughly in the umbra of the constitution and an absolute necessity for a secular state, is article VI stating "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
And there's a good reason for that. I don't think you're fully aware of the ramifications when you're willing to simply throw that away. Most Hispanics have a catholic background, and many other migrants have a Muslim background. If you can test their faith, all a senator would have to do was to ask a Muslim candidate on their opinion on some of the spicier stuff in the Koran, and whupsie, he'd be disqualified. But the personal ideology of a person should not matter, their willingness to judge stuff simply based on the letter of the law does. IIRC, ~60% of the American population are against abortion, including a significant chunk of democrats as well. 60% of the population which you decided should not have the right to hold an office when they don't happen to share your exact ideology.

ACB stated that her personal beliefs do not impact her decisionmaking. Unless you decide that thoughtcriming is a good idea, or unless you find some judgements of her that support that claim, this accusation really has a very bad taste to it. Maybe there is such evidence. I don't know her, I have no skin in the game, and I'm not even a Catholic. But I dislike the way this is being argued.

And you fail to see that precedents can and will be used by the opposing side as soon as possible. Ok, that last one was a garbage argument on my part. As these nomination procedures show again and again, both Republicans and Democrats are of the opinion that anything they can get away with is fair game. At least in Europe that's better. Right? Right? Damn.

EDIT:

The Dems will have a hard time trying to Kavanaugh her because she’s not a man. So they’ll think up other stuff (she’s in a cult/traitor to the proletarian sisterhood of the world, she’s a racist for adopting black kids, etc). Thing is, you can only cry wolf so many times before it loses effect.

The repeatedly debunked yet neverending tale of Russiagate, as well as the incredibly high frequency of both Dems and Reps freaking completely out prove you wrong.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Support for abortion is worth mentioning, if only because it’s used as a cudgel to attack conservatives. Only 30% of the public supports abortion on demand, and about half consider themselves “pro-life.” But you’d never know that listening to NPCs drone on about “the will of the majority.”

[Vanoi]

The law is the law. Don't like it? Change it. Until then, it should be understood according to its original meaning. Otherwise you have arbitrary power and tyranny.

According to who? The originalists? Originalism isn't the only way to look at the Constitution.

[Lord Thesaurian]

In other news, cultural revolutionaries are now openly calling for “direct action” on a “day of rage” marked by violence and destruction.

Protesters in Portland, Oregon, pulled down statues of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt on Sunday evening and also vandalized some businesses, police said.

One flyer instructed people to "wear black, cover up" in addition to saying that photos, videos and streamers were not allowed.


Portland Police Sgt. Kevin Allen said police declared the protest a riot. Portland has had regular protests against police brutality and racial injustice since Minneapolis police killed George Floyd in May.

"We envision this Day of Rage to be decentralized, filled with creative direct action (both above ground and below ground), daring, and with extraordinary diversity of tactics," the groups says in a post on its website.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/12/us/po...rnd/index.html

Going forward, it will be interesting how much control the DNC actually has over these “peaceful protestors” when the former no longer has Trump to blame for everything.

[Aexodus]

"Ok cool, Google's got one of those memorial things again:"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"Oh"

[Lord Thesaurian]

Corporate Leviathans shilling for communists. Same thing different day. What a time to be alive.

[Abdülmecid I]

So what, she shouldn't be honoured, because she was a member of the Communist Party? That sounds like political correctness gone crazy. As she was deported from the United States, because of her principles, according to a law that violated the Fifth ammendment and the human freedoms of expression and association, she's generally considered a victim of a particularly dark moment in recent American history, where liberties and rights were arbitrarily and unconstitutionally restricted, in the name of security and discipline. It certainly brings back uncomfortable memories, but I don't think this is a valid reason for censorship and for sanitising history.

[Lord Thesaurian]

“Not memorializing an ethnic nationalist communist journalist is censorship.” >American Confederates and Misc Fascists? >It’s not the same because communism is good > What a time to be alive.

[PointOfViewGun]

This tactic of distorting what people argue or simply inventing positions no one ever argued for to argue against them is evidence to the lack of merit of one's initial contention.

[Lord Thesaurian]

So...Google didn’t memorialize an ethnic nationalist communist journalist?

[PointOfViewGun]

No one argued that not memorializing an ethnic nationalist communist journalist was censorship. You're even distorting what people object about your distortion. What a time to be alive, indeed, where people can't stick to basic standards.

[Lord Thesaurian]

So what, she shouldn't be honoured, because she was a member of the Communist Party? That sounds like political correctness gone crazy. As she was deported from the United States, because of her principles, according to a law that violated the Fifth ammendment and the human freedoms of expression and association, she's generally considered a victim of a particularly dark moment in recent American history, where liberties and rights were arbitrarily and unconstitutionally restricted, in the name of security and discipline. It certainly brings back uncomfortable memories, but I don't think this is a valid reason for censorship and for sanitising history.

So I made this up?

[PointOfViewGun]

So I made this up?

The connection, yes.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The connection, yes.

This is false. There’s no reason I shouldn’t assume people mean what they say, especially not to satisfy the demands rhetorical gainsaying.

[Vanoi]

So what, she shouldn't be honoured, because she was a member of the Communist Party? That sounds like political correctness gone crazy. As she was deported from the United States, because of her principles, according to a law that violated the Fifth ammendment and the human freedoms of expression and association, she's generally considered a victim of a particularly dark moment in recent American history, where liberties and rights were arbitrarily and unconstitutionally restricted, in the name of security and discipline. It certainly brings back uncomfortable memories, but I don't think this is a valid reason for censorship and for sanitising history.

Its just Neo-McCarthyism rearing its head again. I'm no fan of Communism but i don't see the point in hating or not liking someone because they were. One of my favorite patriotic songs was written by a Communist technically. I didn't agree with his politics but damn could he play some music.