Judge Amy Barret Confirmed As Supreme Court Justice

[Tarsonis]

We already have a system for that, it’s called foster care, and thousands of children are adopted out of it every year, just as thousands of unwilling parents put their children up for adoption instead of killing them

Hahaha.
Most foster homes are already underfunded and over crowded. You want to put more children in there?

I should point out that Foster Care isn't the same as natal adoption. There are 36 families looking to adopt for every infant put up to adoption.

[Kexholm Karelia]

We already have a system for that, it’s called foster care, and thousands of children are adopted out of it every year, just as thousands of unwilling parents put their children up for adoption instead of killing them

Hahaha.
Most foster homes are already underfunded and over crowded. You want to put more children in there?

Then we should fund it instead of funding "clinics" that seem like something from the holocaust

[Tarsonis]

Pregnancy is a unique situation that has no analogical equivalent.

But it has and I just described it.
But perhaps this indeed is better for the abortion thread. Where it already has been discussed a million times; but hey.

No you used a false equivalency.

[Celritannia]

Hahaha.
Most foster homes are already underfunded and over crowded. You want to put more children in there?

Then we should fund it instead of funding "clinics" that seem like something from the holocaust

Comparing the holocaust to abortions is out of line.

[Novus America]

I have already waste enough time on this.

And ... you lost the audience. You should avoid starting posts with personal comments. It disrespect all the rest of us.

I am quite sure if your extremism hypothetical was somehow a reality, there would be legal challenges. I doubt people would let things get that extreme with no pushback.

Yes, sort of. The time lag between {government screws up the SC} and {the people vote them out for it} might be quite long. The People have a mixed view of the Supreme Court and might take quite a while to realize "you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone".

Again just because a process is constitutional does not make it immune to all other constitutional provisions. It does not work that way. Again passing laws is constitutional. That does not mean all laws are constitutional.

Well I agree with that. Legislation like the ACA can become quite popular despite having important parts of it struck down.

The chance of the Senate going so far “blue” that 2/3rds would agree to remove all conservative justices without real cause is virtually nonexistent. It is much more complicated than that. Just because someone is a member of a party does not mean they would agree with that party on everything either.

2/3 of the Senate being blue has happened before (eg 1935-1941). But yeah, not likely to happen soon.

More homilies. Let's keep them to a minimum eh? Thread is likely to be crowded in the next week.

But even in 1935 there was no support for purging conservatives from the courts is my point. It takes more than 2/3rds majority on paper to get a 2/3rds majority willing to go that extreme. The was a consideration of expanding the court, but even that they decided against, because enough Democrats were against it.

Anyways point remains we are no where near that point. And unlikely to be any time soon.
If the Democrats did get such a majority again, the would be far more likely to expand the court, than abuse impeachment to purge judges they disagree with.

[Kexholm Karelia]

Then we should fund it instead of funding "clinics" that seem like something from the holocaust

Comparing the holocaust to abortions is out of line.

Are you aware of the Nazi eugenics and forced abortions of "undesirables?" Or the sterilization?

[The Alma Mater]

But it has and I just described it.
But perhaps this indeed is better for the abortion thread. Where it already has been discussed a million times; but hey.

No you used a false equivalency.

You do realise that said "false equivalency" is the actual basis for the laws ? It is not something I personally made up.

[Ifreann]

I'll ask again for Kexholm Karelia to evidence their claim that Amy Coney Barrett wants to ban abortion.

[The Marlborough]

I mean it was a really shitty analogy, but that's not really new.

You not liking it because it shows your hypocrisy does not make it shitty
But abortion thread. Thattaway. Tallyhoo !

1) No, it's shitty because it's assuming that the focal points in regards to abortion are the same for both sides. Comparing the issue of mandatory organ donation with abortion is pretty erroneous since the focal point for pro-life advocates isn't controlling of people's bodies but on preserving life and not sanctioning, what many pro-life people believe to be, murder. If abortion didn't result in death it wouldn't be an issue. This is why the pro-choice side consistently fails to understand the pro-life side.
2) I actually support an opt-out system in regards to organ donation, so...

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Comparing the holocaust to abortions is out of line.

Are you aware of the Nazi eugenics and forced abortions of "undesirables?" Or the sterilization?

Key word being forced. It's the same difference between sex and rape, surgery and mutilation.

The difference between forced sterilisation on the basis of race or affliction, and voluntary abortion by a woman, cannot be overstated.

[Sanghyeok]

Hahaha.
Most foster homes are already underfunded and over crowded. You want to put more children in there?

Then we should fund it instead of funding "clinics" that seem like something from the holocaust

Because giving people safe, affordable abortions is genocide?

[Sanghyeok]

Comparing the holocaust to abortions is out of line.

Are you aware of the Nazi eugenics and forced abortions of "undesirables?" Or the sterilization?

Abortions are not being forced on anyone.

[The Alma Mater]

You not liking it because it shows your hypocrisy does not make it shitty
But abortion thread. Thattaway. Tallyhoo !

1) No, it's shitty because it's assuming that the focal points in regards to abortion are the same for both sides.

No, it assumes that laws exist and are based on the concept of bodily sovereignity. Which they actually are.
Now, *disagreeing* with them is fine. But that has consequences, and as we have seen in the often mentioned abortion thread, pro-life advocates tend to vehemently oppose them.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I don't think the overwhelming majority of Democrats want to take away the people's 2nd amendment rights.

Their presidential candidate has literally said he'd only appoint judges willing to overturn the decision that said the 2A actually does let you own guns lol

[Celritannia]

I don't think the overwhelming majority of Democrats want to take away the people's 2nd amendment rights.

Their presidential candidate has literally said he'd only appoint judges willing to overturn the decision that said the 2A actually does let you own guns lol

Who is one person.

[Punished UMN]

1) No, it's shitty because it's assuming that the focal points in regards to abortion are the same for both sides.

No, it assumes that laws exist and are based on the concept of bodily sovereignity. Which they actually are.
Now, *disagreeing* with them is fine. But that has consequences, and as we have seen in the often mentioned abortion thread, pro-life advocates tend to vehemently oppose them.

Laws are not based on the concept of bodily sovereignty. There are lots of things you have bodily sovereignty over that the government won't allow you to do.

[Novus America]

I never said impeachment is automatically an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Simply that other provisions indicate the Congress does not have absolute and unrestricted powers. That is a check on congressional powers. Which indicates congressional powers are not absolute.
Stop straw manning.

You did, however, cite bills of attainder and ex post facto laws when the punishments for Senate convictions are already defined and authorized by the Constitution.

And hypothetically alien space bats could come down and force everyone to dress like clowns. But it is not worth debating unless it is actually probable.

I mean, as of September 2017, 15 federal judges have been impeached, and eight have been convicted. It's more real than you think.

I did, to illustrate congressional powers are not absolute. Again I never said impeachment is unconstitutional, just that it could be done in a way that might violate the constitution.
Again it is not an all or nothing extreme.

Again it is constitutional to pass laws. But some laws are unconstitutional. That does not mean all laws are unconstitutional. I do not see why it it so hard to grasp. The way the various parts of the constitution interact is more complex than each being completely separate and severable.

8 in over 200 years is not many. A judge being impeached and convicted can happen, but it is very rare. That is quite different than the Senate purging conservatives from the courts en masse on completely spurious charges.

Again it is not all all or nothing extremes.

It is not as if just because on very rare occasions a judge is impeached and rarer still they are convicted, that it is likely to be used to purge judges en masse.

[Kexholm Karelia]

Are you aware of the Nazi eugenics and forced abortions of "undesirables?" Or the sterilization?

Abortions are not being forced on anyone.

I’m not sure if you’re joking

[Vassenor]

Abortions are not being forced on anyone.

I’m not sure if you’re joking

Show us the abortions being forced on people then.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Their presidential candidate has literally said he'd only appoint judges willing to overturn the decision that said the 2A actually does let you own guns lol

Who is one person.

All the other candidates said it too though, to roaring applause each time.

[New Visayan Islands]

Locked pending trawl, please wait.

Hahaha.
Most foster homes are already underfunded and over crowded. You want to put more children in there?

Then we should fund it instead of funding "clinics" that seem like something from the holocaust

Take a *** warning for trolling. ***

Everyone else, we have a megathread for abortion. If you suspect that your arguments on abortion will drift away from discussion related to Justice Barrett, feel free to take them there.

Thread unlocked.

Thanks!
NVI

[Zandilund]

I am enthralled that we have a new supreme court justice who will defend our second amendment rights, overturn roe v wade and defend our constitution as originally intended

I think now that time has passed since the unfortunate downfall of Justice Ginsburg, we can discuss her replacement.

What do you think?

Thx

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com ... liant/amp/

NEWS
Amy Coney Barrett hailed as a ‘legal trailblazer’ and ‘brilliant’ Supreme Court choice
By Melissa Klein

September 26, 2020 | 6:36pm


People holding placards in support of Judge Amy Coney Barrett as a nominee for Supreme Court Justice at President Trump’s Great American Comeback campaign rally at the Jacksonville JetPort at Cecil Airport.
People hold signs supporting Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court in Jacksonville, Florida.
Paul Hennessy/SOPA Images/Shutterstock
Judge Amy Coney Barrett was showered with praise from supporters who called her a “brilliant” choice for the Supreme Court and swatted down attacks on her faith and family.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, the Republican chair of the Judiciary Committee, dubbed Barrett an “outstanding” nominee.

“Judge Barrett is highly qualified in all the areas that matter – character, integrity, intellect, and judicial disposition,” Graham tweeted shortly after President Trump announced Barrett as his pick.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, a Judiciary Committee member, called her “a legal trailblazer w/respect for the law & our nation’s founding principles

.

Let's wait.

[Tarsonis]

I am enthralled that we have a new supreme court justice who will defend our second amendment rights, overturn roe v wade and defend our constitution as originally intended

I think now that time has passed since the unfortunate downfall of Justice Ginsburg, we can discuss her replacement.

What do you think?

Thx

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com ... liant/amp/


.

Let's wait.

um, its been almost a month

[Glorious Hong Kong]

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54700307

This is good news. I still remember the fallout surrounding Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation. Those radical feminists screaming and shouting in people's faces (including at least one guy from the videos I watched) and the Democrat political witch hunt and false allegations against him REALLY got on my nerves to the point I walked away from supporting the Democrats altogether. Barrett's confirmation gives the Supreme Court a practically unassailable 6:3 majority for years to come and will serve as a buffer against the Left's ultra-woke, crypto-Marxist agenda even if Trump loses on Nov. 3. (That's if these radical leftists don't decide to play dirty by packing the Court with a hundred of their own yes-men like FDR did. And FDR received a HUGE amount of flak for it. He was also elected to four consecutive terms in office. A two-term limit was introduced shortly after his death.)

After roughly 50 years of a liberal-leaning Supreme Court, it is time for Democrats, liberals, and especially race- and gender-baiting, identitarian, far-left, cultural Marxists to learn the concepts of respect for others and humility in defeat instead of shouting and kicking and screaming and burning their own country to the ground like they've been doing these past couple of years. They literally need to be taught a lesson. In a true democracy, one can't always have one's way all the time. They need to learn to grow up. I say this as a pro-choice, pro-LGBT, liberal atheist.

I look forward to race-based affirmative action being outlawed nationwide, officially eliminating all forms of systemic and institutional racism once and for all, something BLM would never do because actually treating whites and Asians equally conflicts with their black oppression narrative. I also look forward to SCOTUS affirming greater due process protections for men falsely accused of all sorts of improprieties against women, Brett Kavanaugh, another Supreme Court Justice, being the most notable example. I look forward to gender quotas becoming a thing of the past.

The conservative stance on abortion is regrettable, but I highly doubt abortion would be totally outlawed by the SCOTUS altogether. Responsibility would simply fall to the states, and it would fall on pro-choice states to admit abortion refugees fleeing the wrath of pro-life states. Like the member states of the European Union, U.S. states have open, porous borders with one another. The situation wouldn't be optimal, but it's still better than nothing. Such a minor setback for reproductive rights would be counterbalanced by all of the other things I mentioned in the preceding paragraph. All things considered, ACB's confirmation is a net positive.

As for court-packing, many of the more radical, "Justice" Democrats such as AOC are not even trying to hide their total disdain for judicial independence, the rule of law, and the very essence of liberal democracy itself.

On Monday night, the left-wing of his [Joe Biden's] party called for the more radical move. "Expand the court," tweeted self-described democratic socialist New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

"Democratic" socialist. A neo-Marxist smokescreen and a harbinger of things to come.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Stop treating this as your blog.