Judge Amy Barret Confirmed As Supreme Court Justice

[Tarsonis]

the underlined is specifically why the church forbids it. Who gets to decide what sane and able means?

First part is the decision of trained professionals, the second part is anyone able to give legal consent and make their wishes known.

But even trained professionals can be wrong. It's a system too open for abuse to be permitted. I should also note that DNR is not euthanasia, just to he clear.

[Albrenia]

First part is the decision of trained professionals, the second part is anyone able to give legal consent and make their wishes known.

But even trained professionals can be wrong. It's a system too open for abuse to be permitted. I should also note that DNR is not euthanasia, just to he clear.

Aye, no system is perfect, sadly.

There's certain conditions where it would be incredibly cruel to force someone to die slowly and painfully, however, so I still support Euthanasia laws even if stringent checks and balances are not perfect.

Anyway, I've rather derailed this thread long enough, sorry about that.

[Aggicificicerous]

Oh deary me, no I don't, I was just placing my views and everyone else brought me into the abortion talk :/ I was just trying to say as feminist, pro life or pro abortion, we all should support a woman in power whenever we can.

That's an appalling bad take. Feminism is about promoting gender equality and women's issues, and part of that is acknowledging that women are capable actors for both positive and negative change. In other words, women can be every bit as terrible as men. A women is not necessarily good for other women, and blindly supporting someone based on sex hurts everyone.

[Super Duper Nice People]

Oh deary me, no I don't, I was just placing my views and everyone else brought me into the abortion talk :/ I was just trying to say as feminist, pro life or pro abortion, we all should support a woman in power whenever we can.

That's an appalling bad take. Feminism is about promoting gender equality and women's issues, and part of that is acknowledging that women are capable actors for both positive and negative change. In other words, women can be every bit as terrible as men. A women is not necessarily good for other women, and blindly supporting someone based on sex hurts everyone.

I do understand what you're talking about but I did say whenever we can (not all the time) which means that if they're doing a bad job then we don't have to support them, in fact it would be quite idiotic to do so, but if they have a potential to be a great role model and leader then we do need to support them and ACB has that potential just like RBG and SBA.

[Aggicificicerous]

That's an appalling bad take. Feminism is about promoting gender equality and women's issues, and part of that is acknowledging that women are capable actors for both positive and negative change. In other words, women can be every bit as terrible as men. A women is not necessarily good for other women, and blindly supporting someone based on sex hurts everyone.

I do understand what you're talking about but I did say whenever we can (not all the time) which means that if they're doing a bad job then we don't have to support them, in fact it would be quite idiotic to do so, but if they have a potential to be a great role model and leader then we do need to support them and ACB has that potential just like RBG and SBA.

Potential is meaningless. People are not blank slates upon which our hopes can be etched. Barrett has a history, beliefs which she's expressed, ideology and an approach to law. These are all things people can look at and find fault with, and many have. The idea that we should support her just because she is a woman, or because she has "potential" is the same bad take.

[Super Duper Nice People]

I do understand what you're talking about but I did say whenever we can (not all the time) which means that if they're doing a bad job then we don't have to support them, in fact it would be quite idiotic to do so, but if they have a potential to be a great role model and leader then we do need to support them and ACB has that potential just like RBG and SBA.

Potential is meaningless. People are not blank slates upon which our hopes can be etched. Barrett has a history, beliefs which she's expressed, ideology and an approach to law. These are all things people can look at and find fault with, and many have. The idea that we should support her just because she is a woman, or because she has "potential" is the same bad take.

Well I'm sorry you see it like that, maybe this is the reason that feminism is so looked down on, because people view it like this. And you still keep overlooking some things i'm saying (like how I think we should support women in power but only if they are proven to be smart, because doing anything otherwise would be idiotic, you really ignored that and went straight to the potential thing, and ACB does have potential if people would let her, but you clearly look down on her for being a woman or in power or whatever XD) and only seeing the things you want to see, which I don't really like but it's ok.
I think we all need to get back to the main points I had which no on seemed to even notice.
Yes, I like ACB, but I also liked RBG, and liking one seems to be a problem but why can't I like both?
Yes, I am Pro-Life which is the main reason I like ACB, but as a member of the LGBTQIA+ community a little appalled by her actions towards there and preferred RBG.
Also, we can not say we know exactly what ACB will be voting for or against, and it's rude to speak bad about someone's way a voting before you even know how they vote.
And lastly, before I think I'm done with everyone on this forum because you all kind of got rude and you don't even have all the back stories of why anyone might like or dislike her, I don't think she should be on the supreme court. At all. I hate that she is. It was too soon after my biggest role model in life died, and too close to the election.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Appointing a woman to replace a woman on the Court, is neutral. The two male Justices (Scalia who died, and Kennedy who retired) were both replaced by men.

Compare with Obama who only got three opportunities to nominate, and picked 2 women and a man for places vacated by 3 men.

Women will never have equal numbers on the court if Justices are only ever replaced with the same gender. That's a quota system!

[Aggicificicerous]

Well I'm sorry you see it like that, maybe this is the reason that feminism is so looked down on, because people view it like this.

I have at no point called myself a feminist. I do however know what feminism is.

And you still keep overlooking some things i'm saying (like how I think we should support women in power but only if they are proven to be smart, because doing anything otherwise would be idiotic, you really ignored that and went straight to the potential thing, and ACB does have potential if people would let her,

I didn't see that. I only saw your posts on pages 67 and 68 where you said nothing about being smart, only supporting women in power. Your next bit is much more telling.

but you clearly look down on her for being a woman or in power or whatever XD) and only seeing the things you want to see, which I don't really like but it's ok.

See, this would have been the ideal time to point out that Barrett is smart, but you can't even do that. It's only about women in power, and anyone who opposes that must be a sexist.

I think we all need to get back to the main points I had which no on seemed to even notice.
Yes, I like ACB, but I also liked RBG, and liking one seems to be a problem but why can't I like both?
Yes, I am Pro-Life which is the main reason I like ACB, but as a member of the LGBTQIA+ community a little appalled by her actions towards there and preferred RBG.
Also, we can not say we know exactly what ACB will be voting for or against, and it's rude to speak bad about someone's way a voting before you even know how they vote.
And lastly, before I think I'm done with everyone on this forum because you all kind of got rude and you don't even have all the back stories of why anyone might like or dislike her, I don't think she should be on the supreme court. At all. I hate that she is. It was too soon after my biggest role model in life died, and too close to the election.

That was a roller coaster to read, especially since Ginsburg is so remembered for her stance on abortion.

[Celritannia]

Actually no.
The reason for the second amendment was for the US to have a really small army, and every citizen of the US to be armed for the Militia. But the founders also made sure people who were not capable for militia duties were not given a firearm. They restricted who could be in the militia.

But SCOTUS had to interpret the second amendment to fit it with the modern day, for "militias" or individuals with firearms could exist alongside a large standing army.

The initial militia act included every able bodied white male, and now includes all able bodied males and some females too.

If someone was prohibited from participating in the militia, the leaders of the Founders’ generation would not have wanted them to have access to weapons. In fact, the 18th-century regulations that required citizens to participate in the militia also prohibited blacks and Indians from participating as arms-bearing members.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mad ... -founders/

[Vassenor]

The initial militia act included every able bodied white male, and now includes all able bodied males and some females too.

If someone was prohibited from participating in the militia, the leaders of the Founders’ generation would not have wanted them to have access to weapons. In fact, the 18th-century regulations that required citizens to participate in the militia also prohibited blacks and Indians from participating as arms-bearing members.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mad ... -founders/

But we're not allowed to suggest that people pass the same screening process that people trying to enlist go through for some reason. So much for originalism.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The initial militia act included every able bodied white male, and now includes all able bodied males and some females too.

If someone was prohibited from participating in the militia, the leaders of the Founders’ generation would not have wanted them to have access to weapons. In fact, the 18th-century regulations that required citizens to participate in the militia also prohibited blacks and Indians from participating as arms-bearing members.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mad ... -founders/

I'm very well aware of what the 18th century regulations on the matter said. The only people really prohibited from the militia were those not viewed as full citizens (blacks, Indians, women to a lesser degree) etc or those incapable of fighting (children, the elderly).

The individual right to bear arms is also extensively mentioned by the framers and people at the time (as evidenced by the vast amount of local and state documents protecting the individual right to bear arms) and appears early in American legal history as well. One of the reasons laid down in Dred Scott as to why blacks couldn't be American citizens is because they could then keep and carry arms wherever they went and that was just too wacky for Justice Curtis. To say the interpretation ever changed is flawed at best, and entirely incorrect and an attempted rewriting of history at worst.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mad ... -founders/

But we're not allowed to suggest that people pass the same screening process that people trying to enlist go through for some reason. So much for originalism.

It's post hoc originalism. "What the Founders meant to write but phrased badly" ...

[Nobel Hobos 2]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mad ... -founders/

I'm very well aware of what the 18th century regulations on the matter said. The only people really prohibited from the militia were those not viewed as full citizens (blacks, Indians, women to a lesser degree) etc or those incapable of fighting (children, the elderly).

The individual right to bear arms is also extensively mentioned by the framers and people at the time (as evidenced by the vast amount of local and state documents protecting the individual right to bear arms) and appears early in American legal history as well. One of the reasons laid down in Dred Scott as to why blacks couldn't be American citizens is because they could then keep and carry arms wherever they went and that was just too wacky for Justice Curtis. To say the interpretation ever changed is flawed at best, and entirely incorrect and an attempted rewriting of history at worst.

If it never changed, then there should now be some people prohibited from bearing guns because they are "not full citizens". Who would those be?

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'm very well aware of what the 18th century regulations on the matter said. The only people really prohibited from the militia were those not viewed as full citizens (blacks, Indians, women to a lesser degree) etc or those incapable of fighting (children, the elderly).

The individual right to bear arms is also extensively mentioned by the framers and people at the time (as evidenced by the vast amount of local and state documents protecting the individual right to bear arms) and appears early in American legal history as well. One of the reasons laid down in Dred Scott as to why blacks couldn't be American citizens is because they could then keep and carry arms wherever they went and that was just too wacky for Justice Curtis. To say the interpretation ever changed is flawed at best, and entirely incorrect and an attempted rewriting of history at worst.

If it never changed, then there should now be some people prohibited from bearing guns because they are "not full citizens". Who would those be?

Not many people because we have through various amendments and legislation greatly expanded who can become an American citizen.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If it never changed, then there should now be some people prohibited from bearing guns because they are "not full citizens". Who would those be?

Not many people because we have through various amendments and legislation greatly expanded who can become an American citizen.

Under-21's depending on State. Even if they're full citizens.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Not many people because we have through various amendments and legislation greatly expanded who can become an American citizen.

Under-21's depending on State. Even if they're full citizens.

It should go without saying I naturally oppose such laws.

[La Xinga]

Barret had her first oral argument.

[Sundiata]

I admire her adherence to the faith she practices in her personal life. That said, I don't agree with all of her rulings as a judge.

[Fahran]

I admire her adherence to the faith she practices in her personal life. That said, I don't agree with all of her rulings as a judge.

To which rulings do you object?

[Sundiata]

I admire her adherence to the faith she practices in her personal life. That said, I don't agree with all of her rulings as a judge.

To which rulings do you object?

It's the Martin vs Milwaukee County for me.

[Tarsonis]

To which rulings do you object?

It's the Martin vs Milwaukee County for me.

dude we already discussed that case on here at length. By the laws she got it right when she ruled against the paintiff in the first trial, and correct again when she ruled for the plaintiff in the retrial. Lawyers in the first case made the thr wrong argument, lawyers in the second case made the right argument.

[Super Duper Nice People]

well broskies

an open apology to anyone who was on here who was arguing with me

i was dumb
and im definitely not the same now hehe

i dont like ACB anymore-
I wouldn't even call myself anti abortion anymore

wow i was stupid

and had a lot of free time apparently

well i guess you learn as you grow

no one ever explained to me what abortion was when i was younger and as i'm pretty much an adult now and not 15, i've had time to search things for myself lol

[New Visayan Islands]

Please do not gravedig. Thread locked.

New Visayan Islands
Game Moderator