2020 US General Election Thread IX: One Month and Counting

[San Lumen]

Pennsylvania is working on state law to change when absentee ballots can be counted.

I wish our governor would do something about changed our stupid law about absentee ballots not being able to be counted for two weeks. I dont know what moron thought of that law.

Someone that would benefit from absentee ballots not being counted, probably.

I guess. Its a stupid law that ought to be changed but our governor would rather grandstand in front of cameras.

[Cordel One]

The Constitution is wrong.

Tell that to a judge.

Any judge that can't see there's more to morality than some old sheet of paper is wrong too. Laws are not always right.

[San Lumen]

Tell that to a judge.

Any judge that can't see there's more to morality than some old sheet of paper is wrong too. Laws are not always right.

A judges job is too interpret the law not rewrite the constitution as they see fit.

[Kannap]

Any judge that can't see there's more to morality than some old sheet of paper is wrong too. Laws are not always right.

A judges job is too interpret the law not rewrite the constitution as they see fit.

I'd say any judge worth respecting would see it as an obligation to not enforce unjust laws.

[San Lumen]

A judges job is too interpret the law not rewrite the constitution as they see fit.

I'd say any judge worth respecting would see it as an obligation to not enforce unjust laws.

again not their job. That's like asking a DA or Sheriff to ignore laws they don't like or agree with. Why doesn;t everyone just ignore laws they they are unjust?

[Kannap]

I'd say any judge worth respecting would see it as an obligation to not enforce unjust laws.

again not their job. That's like asking a DA or Sheriff to ignore laws they don't like or agree with.

Nice strawman, we're talking about unjust laws, not laws you disagree with.

Why doesn;t everyone just ignore laws they they are unjust?

What about abolitionists - whether cops, or lawyers, or judges, or whoever - who had a legal obligation to assist in the returning of fugitive slaves to the south but refused to because they believed the law was unjust?

Would you say what they did was wrong because they used their job for what was right and not what was legal?

[San Lumen]

again not their job. That's like asking a DA or Sheriff to ignore laws they don't like or agree with.

Nice strawman, we're talking about unjust laws, not laws you disagree with.

Why doesn;t everyone just ignore laws they they are unjust?

What about abolitionists - whether cops, or lawyers, or judges, or whoever - who had a legal obligation to assist in the returning of fugitive slaves to the south but refused to because they believed the law was unjust?

Would you say what they did was wrong because they used their job for what was right and not what was legal?

What laws are we calling unjust?

Slavery is morally wrong and those who refused to assist in returning of fugitive slaves did the right thing.

[Kannap]

Nice strawman, we're talking about unjust laws, not laws you disagree with.




What about abolitionists - whether cops, or lawyers, or judges, or whoever - who had a legal obligation to assist in the returning of fugitive slaves to the south but refused to because they believed the law was unjust?

Would you say what they did was wrong because they used their job for what was right and not what was legal?

What laws are we calling unjust?

Slavery is morally wrong and those who refused to assist in returning of fugitive slaves did the right thing.

Ah, but Lumen, that wasn't their job.

But I digress, if you want to continue you're going to have to create a thread that puts us on topic, because this thread ain't it.

[Cordel One]

Any judge that can't see there's more to morality than some old sheet of paper is wrong too. Laws are not always right.

A judges job is too interpret the law not rewrite the constitution as they see fit.

Exactly, so what's the point of telling me to tell a judge the Constitution is wrong?

[San Lumen]

A judges job is too interpret the law not rewrite the constitution as they see fit.

Exactly, so what's the point of telling me to tell a judge the Constitution is wrong?

You dont know the law. They do. A ban on political parties is a violation of the first amendment.

[Major-Tom]

https://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/election/2020/09/28/john-bel-edwards-endorses-adrian-perkins-senate/3560307001/

Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards has endorsed Shreveport Mayor Adrian Perkins for Senate. President Obama endorsed as well in addition too Vice Presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. Democrats might have some internal polling showing this to be possibly competitive.

Well a conservative group ran a poll with Cassidy facing a generic opponent and only winning by 1% so it’s possible that the democrats might be able to pull off a win

In LA? Ain't gonna happen.

[Northern Davincia]

A judges job is too interpret the law not rewrite the constitution as they see fit.

Exactly, so what's the point of telling me to tell a judge the Constitution is wrong?

The bulk of the Constitution is morally neutral. Only the 16th Amendment is morally wrong.

[San Lumen]

Well a conservative group ran a poll with Cassidy facing a generic opponent and only winning by 1% so it’s possible that the democrats might be able to pull off a win

In LA? Ain't gonna happen.

South Carolina senate is competitive. Why not Louisiana?

[Kannap]

Exactly, so what's the point of telling me to tell a judge the Constitution is wrong?

You dont know the law. They do. A ban on political parties is a violation of the first amendment.

When the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell or Roe v. Wade, then I'll be sure to remember judges know the law I don't.

[San Lumen]

You dont know the law. They do. A ban on political parties is a violation of the first amendment.

When the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell or Roe v. Wade, then I'll be sure to remember judges know the law I don't.

on ogberfell you'd have to prove the 14th amendment doesnt apply to LGBT people.

[Major-Tom]

In LA? Ain't gonna happen.

South Carolina senate is competitive. Why not Louisiana?

LA is vastly more partisan, and frankly, I hadn't heard of the Democratic opponent until recently. Jamie Harrison is a great candidate running against an unpopular and unlikable incumbent in a state with a partisan profile of about R+8. Adrian Perkins is a partisan mayor in one of the reddest states in this country.

No chance.

[San Lumen]

South Carolina senate is competitive. Why not Louisiana?

LA is vastly more partisan, and frankly, I hadn't heard of the Democratic opponent until recently. Jamie Harrison is a great candidate running against an unpopular and unlikable incumbent in a state with a partisan profile of about R+8. Adrian Perkins is a partisan mayor in one of the reddest states in this country.

No chance.

what do you mean by partisan mayor?

[Northern Davincia]

When the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell or Roe v. Wade, then I'll be sure to remember judges know the law I don't.

on ogberfell you'd have to prove the 14th amendment doesnt apply to LGBT people.

It isn't hard if you clarify that marriage is not a right for anyone.

[San Lumen]

on ogberfell you'd have to prove the 14th amendment doesnt apply to LGBT people.

It isn't hard if you clarify that marriage is not a right for anyone.

You really think the court would rule that?

[Northern Davincia]

Just privatize infrastructure and schooling.

Deporting the rich is more or less the plot of Atlas Shrugged, so I guess I'll hop on a boat to whichever island and/or underwater metropolis the rich build.

That would be freeloading on the work of the rich. Did you really read Atlas Shrugged?

I did. Long time ago. I didn't really want to, but a friend pressed me to do so because he wanted to discuss the ideas of the book. We then had a discussion, lasting about twenty minutes, but my understanding of the "ideas of the book" was ... not pleasing to my friend and it was never mentioned again. I might even still have the damn thing: he never asked for it back.

I 100% agree with Max Barry's opinion of the book. Just add alcohol and me mercifully passing out while Ayn Rant was still stalking.

I will give credit to Russian-style literature for having wordy prose. I still like the broad themes quite a bit.

It isn't hard if you clarify that marriage is not a right for anyone.

You really think the court would rule that?

No, but it is not impossible.

[The Rich Port]

That would be freeloading on the work of the rich. Did you really read Atlas Shrugged?

I did. Long time ago. I didn't really want to, but a friend pressed me to do so because he wanted to discuss the ideas of the book. We then had a discussion, lasting about twenty minutes, but my understanding of the "ideas of the book" was ... not pleasing to my friend and it was never mentioned again. I might even still have the damn thing: he never asked for it back.

I 100% agree with Max Barry's opinion of the book. Just add alcohol and me mercifully passing out while Ayn Rant was still stalking.

I will give credit to Russian-style literature for having wordy prose. I still like the broad themes quite a bit.

You really think the court would rule that?

No, but it is not impossible.

Hoping that the judges become as illogical as to resort to this pointless line of thinking?

Explain to me why the government should refuse to recognize personal unions between two people and record it. It's not like it's regulating marriages... Unless you're anti-marriage for a specific group of people.

[Thermodolia]

Well a conservative group ran a poll with Cassidy facing a generic opponent and only winning by 1% so it’s possible that the democrats might be able to pull off a win

In LA? Ain't gonna happen.

I wouldn’t be too certain. Cassidy did beat incumbent democrat Landrieu in 2014. So he’s still on his first term

[Kannap]

When the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell or Roe v. Wade, then I'll be sure to remember judges know the law I don't.

on ogberfell you'd have to prove the 14th amendment doesnt apply to LGBT people.

On paper, sure, but there's nothing really stopping the Supreme Court from coming to that conclusion and redelegating same sex marriage to the states.

[San Lumen]

on ogberfell you'd have to prove the 14th amendment doesnt apply to LGBT people.

On paper, sure, but there's nothing really stopping the Supreme Court from coming to that conclusion and redelegating same sex marriage to the states.

It would be a nearly impossible thing to prove giving the wording of the amendment.

[Kannap]

On paper, sure, but there's nothing really stopping the Supreme Court from coming to that conclusion and redelegating same sex marriage to the states.

It would be a nearly impossible thing to prove giving the wording of the amendment.

You have too much faith in this broken country.