Judge Amy Barret Confirmed As Supreme Court Justice

[Vu Den Voc]

Who said i thought he made the virus. While Covid was unexpected in certain degrees, the general public knew about this during late January/early febuary. Trump, being head of state probably knew about this virus way sooner than the public. Yet what did he do? He said it was the dems new hoax.

Because, with the entire world economy getting knee capped not just outs, Red States recovering faster than blue states, the only way i can imagine a Trump supporter buying Democrat spin, hook line and sinker, is that you think Trump actually caused the pandemic.

That's like saying Hebert Hoover caused the Great Depression. Both did not directly cause the crisis but did not effectively control and handle the problem correctly. Ironically both were businessmen .Trump could have done better and now he has to pay that in the polls and the election booths.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

You might disagree with the way things are measured, but everything I said is measurable. It's an objective statement rather than a subjective statement. The good thing about an objective statement is that you can disprove it, if you think you have better figures or a different interpretation of the figures.

'Objective' and 'true' are not synonyms. But I think what I said is true, and if you disagree, you are free to prove your own point.

Or, maybe more productive from your point of view, you could claim that everything is subjective and that Trump is somehow a good president, without having to prove anything because it's subjective. It's basically the tactic Trump is using himself.


So, there is an excuse of the dems? Just now, you said there is no excuse.

What is it?

A. Trump governed badly. Opinion not fact.
B. A President who endangers trans people is a bad president. Opinion, not fact. (even though I share the opinion)

Can you tell me in what way Trump governed well?

Also, how can someone be a good president if they are discriminating against some of their own citizens? Things like discrimination, racism, tyranny, are objectively bad. You can prove that states that discriminate are less free and less safe. It's a simple fact that discrimination is bad governance.

[Vu Den Voc]

Exactly, can we all agree Hitler is bad? If you can then we can all agree Trump is bad in some sort of sense as well.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

And this as the dissent argued, stretching the 14th amendment beyond any semblance of rigidity, and makes the equal protection clause cart blanche to justify really whatever you want.

The constitution shouldn't be so rigidly applied, it should be appropriately applied to a given situation where it would make reasonable sense. I.e. equal protection in terms of marriage equality, the right for gay people to even exist (Lawrence v. Texas which struck down sodomy laws which were definitely unequally enforced against gay people), etc.

Where he was wrong, however was asserting that protecting traditional marriage was a vested government interest. Government has no authority to regulate the institution of marriage.

As long as the government has a vested interest in the institution of marriage, particularly when it comes to hospital & Incarceration visitation rights, taxes & debt, power of attorney, legal guardianship of children born in wedlock, funeral & bereavement leave, etc. then the government will continue to maintain the authority to regulate marriage. Unless the United States somehow becomes a theocracy or some other garbage, marriage will not solely be religion's ball to play with, they're gonna have to keep sharing it with the government.

The issue isn't equal protection, or even privacy, but enumerated powers.

In that case then marriage regulation could be argued to be a power states have since marriage regulation isn't an enumerated power of the federal government. Though if, as with most powers states have, the regulation falls afoul of the constitution then that's where the federal government steps in as is the case with these court rulings.

I agree. However the court ruled the baker hadn't violated the law because he sold cakes to everybody. The issue was he refused to decorate a cake a certain way, which the court ruled was protected by both his freedom of religion and his freedom of expression.

I believe the court ruled in his favor because of the particularly zealous way his state prosecuted him, not really because his religious freedom and freedom of expression was violated.

On, The Crosses however, I think Valdomyr's take is extremely cynical, and a malicious mischaracterization of legitimate concerns, but RBG was wrong. Religious monuments are only a tacit endorsement of a religion if other religions are prohibited. The Atheists need to get over it, and accept that people have religious beliefs and are going to incorporate that into their memorials etc, and Christians need to get over themselves and accept that the protection that applies to them applies to everyone and means Satanists can set up a statue of Bahamet right next to their Nativity Scene.

Being a secular country, no religious monument or memorial should be a part of government property, that goes for both crosses and satanic statues, that's the kinda stuff that should remain on the grounds of places of worship.

[-Ra-]

Amy Coney Barrett is an excellent choice for associate justice. Very few jurists match her knowledge, devotion to the law and duty to country. The left cannot lay down any reasonable criticisms of her personally. They assail her anyway.

[Major-Tom]

Amy Coney Barrett is an excellent choice for associate justice. Very few jurists match her knowledge, devotion to the law and duty to country. The left cannot lay down any reasonable criticisms of her personally. They assail her anyway.

I mean...in the Senate, at least, barring the theatrics of a few people, her nomination hearings are very dry, very calm, and very tame compared to the fiasco that was the Kavanaugh hearings. Say what you will about what folks might post on social media, but the critiques of her within our halls of Congress have been overwhelmingly tame and composed.

[Stylan]

Amy Coney Barrett is an excellent choice for associate justice. Very few jurists match her knowledge, devotion to the law and duty to country. The left cannot lay down any reasonable criticisms of her personally. They assail her anyway.

She's anti-abortion, didn't know that the right to protest was protected in the Constitution, is borderline racist and homophobic/transphobic in some cases, and constantly sides with businesses.

[Vu Den Voc]

"In 2016 McConnell caused controversy when he refused to bring Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, to a vote in the Senate. McConnell claimed that because it was an election year, the vacancy should remain open until a new president was inaugurated."

Merrick Garland was perfectly capable, and he in fact was very moderate. Amy is conservatives and party minded. The court is supposed to be a non partisan area. Instead of caring for the needs of the people, appointing a judge that is known for being conservative only the needs of the party, not the people will be addressed.

[Stylan]

"In 2016 McConnell caused controversy when he refused to bring Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, to a vote in the Senate. McConnell claimed that because it was an election year, the vacancy should remain open until a new president was inaugurated."

Merrick Garland was perfectly capable, and he in fact was very moderate. Amy is conservatives and party minded. The court is supposed to be a non partisan area. Instead of caring for the needs of the people, appointing a judge that is known for being conservative only the needs of the party, not the people will be addressed.

Exactly.

[La Xinga]

1. My goodness, stop saying stuff are objective when they're not.
2. It's weak. There's such a thing as an excuse although it's not strong. Yet you seem to be dodging the excuse of the Dems.
3. No, it's not an excuse at all.

So, there is an excuse of the dems? Just now, you said there is no excuse.

What is it?

I can not provide something that doesn't exist.

[Plzen]

I’ve made the point earlier that the way the Senate is elected heavily favours the Republicans, so I wouldn’t really count on a Democratic Senate come these elections. Or a Democratic President, for that matter, what with the Electoral College having a bent in the same direction.

While this current issue is about Supreme Court Justices, at some point the Democrats have to face the fundamental issue that the American electoral system is a joke. Until that gets addressed, by reform or revolution, the Democrats will not be able to stop the Republicans doing anything.

[Pilont]

Amy Coney Barrett is an excellent choice for associate justice. Very few jurists match her knowledge, devotion to the law and duty to country. The left cannot lay down any reasonable criticisms of her personally. They assail her anyway.

If they, meaning the left that you describe, agreed with her, would they still be protesting the process as they are now?

[Tarsonis]

A. Trump governed badly. Opinion not fact.
B. A President who endangers trans people is a bad president. Opinion, not fact. (even though I share the opinion)

Can you tell me in what way Trump governed well?

Also, how can someone be a good president if they are discriminating against some of their own citizens? Things like discrimination, racism, tyranny, are objectively bad.

No they're opinions we hold in common as a society (for the most part).

You can prove that states that discriminate are less free and less safe. It's a simple fact that discrimination is bad governance.

that assumes freedom is a good thing.

once again it is your opinion, not an object fact of the universe.

You need to learn the difference between fact and opinion.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Can you tell me in what way Trump governed well?

Also, how can someone be a good president if they are discriminating against some of their own citizens? Things like discrimination, racism, tyranny, are objectively bad.

No they're opinions we hold in common as a society (for the most part).

You can prove that states that discriminate are less free and less safe. It's a simple fact that discrimination is bad governance.

that assumes freedom is a good thing.

once again it is your opinion, not an object fact of the universe.

You need to learn the difference between fact and opinion.

Alright, name me a fact.

[La Xinga]

No they're opinions we hold in common as a society (for the most part).


that assumes freedom is a good thing.

once again it is your opinion, not an object fact of the universe.

You need to learn the difference between fact and opinion.

Alright, name me a fact.

Oranges are orange.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Alright, name me a fact.

Oranges are orange.

Colour is just a perception of the human eye of a particular wavelength of light. Colour is only a perception, not a fact. What is more, some humans and most species can't see colour, or can't optically interact with the world at all. You can't even prove that your orange is the same as my orange.

And then, there is the fact that some oranges are not orange.

This, according to the definition of Tarsonis, is not an unmutable fact of the universe, and therefore, not a fact.

[La Xinga]

Oranges are orange.

Colour is just a perception of the human eye of a particular wavelength of light. Colour is only a perception, not a fact. What is more, some humans and most species can't see colour, or can't optically interact with the world at all. You can't even prove that your orange is the same as my orange.

And then, there is the fact that some oranges are not orange.

This, according to the definition of Tarsonis, is not an unmutable fact of the universe, and therefore, not a fact.

1. Yeah. According to that, it's orange.
2. The fact that something is a color, to your eye, is a fact.
3. And?
4. Yet, generally, oranges, are, well orange.
5. Generally, oranges are orange.

[Tarsonis]

And this as the dissent argued, stretching the 14th amendment beyond any semblance of rigidity, and makes the equal protection clause cart blanche to justify really whatever you want.

The constitution shouldn't be so rigidly applied, it should be appropriately applied to a given situation where it would make reasonable sense. I.e. equal protection in terms of marriage equality, the right for gay people to even exist (Lawrence v. Texas which struck down sodomy laws which were definitely unequally enforced against gay people), etc.

No. A foundation must by definition be rigid. If there's an improper part you amend it.

Where he was wrong, however was asserting that protecting traditional marriage was a vested government interest. Government has no authority to regulate the institution of marriage.

As long as the government has a vested interest in the institution of marriage, particularly when it comes to hospital & Incarceration visitation rights, taxes & debt, power of attorney, legal guardianship of children born in wedlock, funeral & bereavement leave, etc. then the government will continue to maintain the authority to regulate marriage. Unless the United States somehow becomes a theocracy or some other garbage, marriage will not solely be religion's ball to play with, they're gonna have to keep sharing it with the government.

But the state has no authority to define marriage. Everything you described is satisfied via contract law.

The issue isn't equal protection, or even privacy, but enumerated powers.

In that case then marriage regulation could be argued to be a power states have since marriage regulation isn't an enumerated power of the federal government. Though if, as with most powers states have, the regulation falls afoul of the constitution then that's where the federal government steps in as is the case with these court rulings.

Sure but the courts aren't the legislature. So that's a moot point.

I agree. However the court ruled the baker hadn't violated the law because he sold cakes to everybody. The issue was he refused to decorate a cake a certain way, which the court ruled was protected by both his freedom of religion and his freedom of expression.

I believe the court ruled in his favor because of the particularly zealous way his state prosecuted him, not really because his religious freedom and freedom of expression was violated.

Clarence Thomas disagrees.

On, The Crosses however, I think Valdomyr's take is extremely cynical, and a malicious mischaracterization of legitimate concerns, but RBG was wrong. Religious monuments are only a tacit endorsement of a religion if other religions are prohibited. The Atheists need to get over it, and accept that people have religious beliefs and are going to incorporate that into their memorials etc, and Christians need to get over themselves and accept that the protection that applies to them applies to everyone and means Satanists can set up a statue of Bahamet right next to their Nativity Scene.

Being a secular country, no religious monument or memorial should be a part of government property, that goes for both crosses and satanic statues, that's the kinda stuff that should remain on the grounds of places of worship.

Except we're not a secular country.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Colour is just a perception of the human eye of a particular wavelength of light. Colour is only a perception, not a fact. What is more, some humans and most species can't see colour, or can't optically interact with the world at all. You can't even prove that your orange is the same as my orange.

And then, there is the fact that some oranges are not orange.

This, according to the definition of Tarsonis, is not an unmutable fact of the universe, and therefore, not a fact.

1. Yeah. According to that, it's orange.
2. The fact that something is a color, to your eye, is a fact.
3. And?
4. Yet, generally, oranges, are, well orange.
5. Generally, oranges are orange.

1. Well, according to your observation. Similarly, to my observation, Trump is a bad president. Others might disagree about his 'colour', but then you have to argue that position.
2. Similarly, the fact that hurting your people makes you a bad leader, is a fact. It is a fact that that is generally considered bad leadership.
3. And what? You are not qouting a particular bit.
4. Generally is a strong word. If something is 'generally true', how can it be a fact?
5. But what does generally mean? Generally cannot denote fact, because generally means something different for everyone. But even the statement "this orange is orange" is not factual, according to Tarsonis, because an orange being orange is not an unmutable fact of the universe.

All this obtuseness just to show that Tarsonis' definition of what is and isn't fact, namely that something is an unmutable property of the universe, does not work.

[Tarsonis]

1. Yeah. According to that, it's orange.
2. The fact that something is a color, to your eye, is a fact.
3. And?
4. Yet, generally, oranges, are, well orange.
5. Generally, oranges are orange.

1. Well, according to your observation. Similarly, to my observation, Trump is a bad president. Others might disagree about his 'colour', but then you have to argue that position.
2. Similarly, the fact that hurting your people makes you a bad leader, is a fact. It is a fact that that is generally considered bad leadership.
3. And what? You are not qouting a particular bit.
4. Generally is a strong word. If something is 'generally true', how can it be a fact?
5. But what does generally mean? Generally cannot denote fact, because generally means something different for everyone. But even the statement "this orange is orange" is not factual, according to Tarsonis, because an orange being orange is not an unmutable fact of the universe.

All this obtuseness just to show that Tarsonis' definition of what is and isn't fact, namely that something is an unmutable property of the universe, does not work.

Your arguments are irrelevant though because you're trying to equate perception of reality to an opinion of reality.

Me Stabbing a person harms them, that is a fact.
Whether or not harming said person is a bad thing, is a matter of opinio, and situation.

[Tarsonis]

Because, with the entire world economy getting knee capped not just outs, Red States recovering faster than blue states, the only way i can imagine a Trump supporter buying Democrat spin, hook line and sinker, is that you think Trump actually caused the pandemic.

That's like saying Hebert Hoover caused the Great Depression. Both did not directly cause the crisis but did not effectively control and handle the problem correctly. Ironically both were businessmen .Trump could have done better and now he has to pay that in the polls and the election booths.

could have done better, sure, but also could have done worse. I'm skeptical Clinton would have been better

[Telconi]

A. Trump governed badly. Opinion not fact.
B. A President who endangers trans people is a bad president. Opinion, not fact. (even though I share the opinion)

Can you tell me in what way Trump governed well

Well one example is literally the title of this thread.

[La Xinga]

1. Yeah. According to that, it's orange.
2. The fact that something is a color, to your eye, is a fact.
3. And?
4. Yet, generally, oranges, are, well orange.
5. Generally, oranges are orange.

1. Well, according to your observation. Similarly, to my observation, Trump is a bad president. Others might disagree about his 'colour', but then you have to argue that position.
2. Similarly, the fact that hurting your people makes you a bad leader, is a fact. It is a fact that that is generally considered bad leadership.
3. And what? You are not qouting a particular bit.
4. Generally is a strong word. If something is 'generally true', how can it be a fact?
5. But what does generally mean? Generally cannot denote fact, because generally means something different for everyone. But even the statement "this orange is orange" is not factual, according to Tarsonis, because an orange being orange is not an unmutable fact of the universe.

All this obtuseness just to show that Tarsonis' definition of what is and isn't fact, namely that something is an unmutable property of the universe, does not work.

1. Yet you're not doing that and saying "trump is bad" is objective.
2. And?
3. Each digit represents one of your statements. Count your statements.
Not only is it a fact, but even you say it is "strong."
5. Not it doesn't.

Example:

You cannot live if you're lungs are not working.

BU BUH BUH BU VENTILATOR!

Yes. But generally.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

1. Well, according to your observation. Similarly, to my observation, Trump is a bad president. Others might disagree about his 'colour', but then you have to argue that position.
2. Similarly, the fact that hurting your people makes you a bad leader, is a fact. It is a fact that that is generally considered bad leadership.
3. And what? You are not qouting a particular bit.
4. Generally is a strong word. If something is 'generally true', how can it be a fact?
5. But what does generally mean? Generally cannot denote fact, because generally means something different for everyone. But even the statement "this orange is orange" is not factual, according to Tarsonis, because an orange being orange is not an unmutable fact of the universe.

All this obtuseness just to show that Tarsonis' definition of what is and isn't fact, namely that something is an unmutable property of the universe, does not work.

Your arguments are irrelevant though because you're trying to equate perception of reality to an opinion of reality.

Me Stabbing a person harms them, that is a fact.
Whether or not harming said person is a bad thing, is a matter of opinio, and situation.

The goal of good governance is agreed upon by most people: it is to achieve happiness among those governed, which entails the protection of the minority against the majority, and the equitable division of resources. Given that, it is a fact that what Trump is doing does not achieve that goal. The goal is a given, and may be a matter of opinion, but since we generally agree on the general goal, we can debate on whether certain policies will achieve that goal. Trump, by any measure, objectively makes life worse for a lot of people, and objectively, fails to achieve that goal.

Can you tell me in what way Trump governed well

Well one example is literally the title of this thread.

One act makes good governance?

1. Well, according to your observation. Similarly, to my observation, Trump is a bad president. Others might disagree about his 'colour', but then you have to argue that position.
2. Similarly, the fact that hurting your people makes you a bad leader, is a fact. It is a fact that that is generally considered bad leadership.
3. And what? You are not qouting a particular bit.
4. Generally is a strong word. If something is 'generally true', how can it be a fact?
5. But what does generally mean? Generally cannot denote fact, because generally means something different for everyone. But even the statement "this orange is orange" is not factual, according to Tarsonis, because an orange being orange is not an unmutable fact of the universe.

All this obtuseness just to show that Tarsonis' definition of what is and isn't fact, namely that something is an unmutable property of the universe, does not work.

1. Yet you're not doing that and saying "trump is bad" is objective.
2. And?
3. Each digit represents one of your statements. Count your statements.
Not only is it a fact, but even you say it is "strong."
5. Not it doesn't.

Example:

You cannot live if you're lungs are not working.

BU BUH BUH BU VENTILATOR!

Yes. But generally.

What does it mean for your lungs to work?

[Albrenia]

This thread got weird. I don't think subjectivity vs objectivity is particularly on topic.