American Politics XI: No Moe Roe(Likely, Anyway)

[Ifreann]

Every Christian on the Supreme Court is a Catholic, so similar questions probably did happen.

---

What do you think you would be saving by eroding what little democracy America has?

[Citation needed for the 'every Christian on the supreme court is a catholic']

You got it, chief.
Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are all Catholics. Gorsuch was raised Catholic, but has been known to attend non-Catholic services. Breyer and Kagan are Jewish.

[American Legionaries]

Every Christian on the Supreme Court is a Catholic, so similar questions probably did happen.

I doubt it. Especially that they were asked by anyone in the government.

They were, as recently as the last confirmation.

[Nora Xent]

[Citation needed for the 'every Christian on the supreme court is a catholic']

You got it, chief.
Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are all Catholics. Gorsuch was raised Catholic, but has been known to attend non-Catholic services. Breyer and Kagan are Jewish.

Wikipedia told me that he is an Episcopalian. So a catholic turned protestant and as such a protestant.

[Duvniask]

I hope you guys will be happy with your principles when the Trumpists hangs America from the gallows in 2025.

What do you think you would be saving by eroding what little democracy America has?

American democracy is so thoroughly broken and compromise so hard to find that even a moderate effort at change appears increasingly impossible; so much so that a military coup at times seems like a more likely avenue for change.

[Ngelmish]

Every Christian on the Supreme Court is a Catholic, so similar questions probably did happen.

I doubt it. Especially that they were asked by anyone in the government.

'
It's not necessarily completely unreasonable to ask a nominee (particularly if they have a track record of jurisprudence that lines up with their religious convictions) to what extent they separate their religious convictions and their judgement of law. Does it run afoul of the "no religious test" rule? Perhaps, but it's not a bad question.
"How can you judge Protestants (or Jews, Muslims, Sikh's etc)?!!" is a bad question in no small part because of the specificity. But then so is gloating "questions" about nominees like, "I think it's great that you're a conservative woman and conservative religious woman, don't you?"

Like, if there's genuine and documented cause for questioning the separation of legal and religious judgement, there should be some scope to consider that. But most of these questions are mind numbingly stupid attempts to get some attention or generate gotchas.

[Kowani]

Jesus Christ cormyn’s an idiot

He doesn’t know what substantive due process is but it’s a right-wing buzzword so into the mulch it goes
“Dred Scott was decided by substantive due process” “dred Scott was overturned by the Supreme Court” open a history book

[Ifreann]

What do you think you would be saving by eroding what little democracy America has?

American democracy is so thoroughly broken and compromise so hard to find that even a moderate effort at change appears increasingly impossible; so much so that a military coup at times seems like a more likely avenue for change.

Change towards being worse.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Every Christian on the Supreme Court is a Catholic, so similar questions probably did happen.

I doubt it. Especially that they were asked by anyone in the government.

'
It's not necessarily completely unreasonable to ask a nominee (particularly if they have a track record of jurisprudence that lines up with their religious convictions) to what extent they separate their religious convictions and their judgement of law. Does it run afoul of the "no religious test" rule? Perhaps, but it's not a bad question.
"How can you judge Protestants (or Jews, Muslims, Sikh's etc)?!!" is a bad question in no small part because of the specificity. But then so is gloating "questions" about nominees like, "I think it's great that you're a conservative woman and conservative religious woman, don't you?"

Like, if there's genuine and documented cause for questioning the separation of legal and religious judgement, there should be some scope to consider that. But most of these questions are mind numbingly stupid attempts to get some attention or generate gotchas.

Yes, but since they didn’t ask that about Barrett, I think it’s clear they don’t really care much about separation of Church from State.

[Nora Xent]

Jesus Christ cormyn’s an idiot

He doesn’t know what substantive due process is but it’s a right-wing buzzword so into the mulch it goes
“Dred Scott was decided by substantive due process” “dred Scott was overturned by the Supreme Court” open a history book

Dred scott was invalidated by the reconstruction amendments correct?

[Ifreann]

'
It's not necessarily completely unreasonable to ask a nominee (particularly if they have a track record of jurisprudence that lines up with their religious convictions) to what extent they separate their religious convictions and their judgement of law. Does it run afoul of the "no religious test" rule? Perhaps, but it's not a bad question.
"How can you judge Protestants (or Jews, Muslims, Sikh's etc)?!!" is a bad question in no small part because of the specificity. But then so is gloating "questions" about nominees like, "I think it's great that you're a conservative woman and conservative religious woman, don't you?"

Like, if there's genuine and documented cause for questioning the separation of legal and religious judgement, there should be some scope to consider that. But most of these questions are mind numbingly stupid attempts to get some attention or generate gotchas.

Yes, but since they didn’t ask that about Barrett, I think it’s clear they don’t really care much about separation of Church from State.

It's Lindsey Graham, of course he's contributing nothing but shit to the hearing.

[San Lumen]

Jesus Christ cormyn’s an idiot

He doesn’t know what substantive due process is but it’s a right-wing buzzword so into the mulch it goes
“Dred Scott was decided by substantive due process” “dred Scott was overturned by the Supreme Court” open a history book

Dred scott was invalidated by the reconstruction amendments correct?

Yes.

[American Legionaries]

'
It's not necessarily completely unreasonable to ask a nominee (particularly if they have a track record of jurisprudence that lines up with their religious convictions) to what extent they separate their religious convictions and their judgement of law. Does it run afoul of the "no religious test" rule? Perhaps, but it's not a bad question.
"How can you judge Protestants (or Jews, Muslims, Sikh's etc)?!!" is a bad question in no small part because of the specificity. But then so is gloating "questions" about nominees like, "I think it's great that you're a conservative woman and conservative religious woman, don't you?"

Like, if there's genuine and documented cause for questioning the separation of legal and religious judgement, there should be some scope to consider that. But most of these questions are mind numbingly stupid attempts to get some attention or generate gotchas.

Yes, but since they didn’t ask that about Barrett, I think it’s clear they don’t really care much about separation of Church from State.

Republicans didn't ask Barrett. Just like Democrats won't ask Jackson. Partisan judges are a helluva drug.

[Kowani]

Jesus Christ cormyn’s an idiot

He doesn’t know what substantive due process is but it’s a right-wing buzzword so into the mulch it goes
“Dred Scott was decided by substantive due process” “dred Scott was overturned by the Supreme Court” open a history book

Dred scott was invalidated by the reconstruction amendments correct?

13th and 14th specifically

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Yes, but since they didn’t ask that about Barrett, I think it’s clear they don’t really care much about separation of Church from State.

Republicans didn't ask Barrett. Just like Democrats won't ask Jackson. Partisan judges are a helluva drug.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Barrett is much more influenced by her faith in her rulings and political opinions than Jackson.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Yes, but since they didn’t ask that about Barrett, I think it’s clear they don’t really care much about separation of Church from State.

It's Lindsey Graham, of course he's contributing nothing but shit to the hearing.

I wasn’t really expecting much else, but I think it should be getting more attention.

[American Legionaries]

Republicans didn't ask Barrett. Just like Democrats won't ask Jackson. Partisan judges are a helluva drug.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Barrett is much more influenced by her faith in her rulings and political opinions than Jackson.

Arguable.

And the point still stands that previous judges have been attacked for their religious beliefs by opposition senators.

[Major-Tom]

Republicans didn't ask Barrett. Just like Democrats won't ask Jackson. Partisan judges are a helluva drug.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Barrett is much more influenced by her faith in her rulings and political opinions than Jackson.

Maybe, maybe not, but I think the overall consensus that "judges are influenced by partisanship" still holds true, whether you're ACB or Jackson.

In a perfect system, that wouldn't be the case. However, our judicial system is flawed from the top to the bottom, so I can at least appreciate Jackson on the merits of her experience and commitment to criminal justice reform.

[Major-Tom]

Yes, but since they didn’t ask that about Barrett, I think it’s clear they don’t really care much about separation of Church from State.

It's Lindsey Graham, of course he's contributing nothing but shit to the hearing.

Lindsey Graham always finds a way to get even stranger during judicial hearings.

[American Legionaries]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Barrett is much more influenced by her faith in her rulings and political opinions than Jackson.

Maybe, maybe not, but I think the overall consensus that "judges are influenced by partisanship" still holds true, whether you're ACB or Jackson.

In a perfect system, that wouldn't be the case. However, our judicial system is flawed from the top to the bottom, so I can at least appreciate Jackson on the merits of her experience and commitment to criminal justice reform.

We're at a point where there's no way for a judge to not be partisan. Because we've made everything a partisan issue. Or at the very least most things.

[The Jamesian Republic]

This ^

I hope you guys will be happy with your principles when the Trumpists hangs America from the gallows in 2025.

Bold of you to assume it wouldn’t happen in Sweden.

[Kowani]

Hearings are back, Mike Lee starts by defending the private healthcare industry

[Ifreann]

Hearings are back, Mike Lee starts by defending the private healthcare industry

Defending the private healthcare industry...in the judicial appointment hearings?

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Hearings are back, Mike Lee starts by defending the private healthcare industry

what the heck does this have to do with anything? are they trying to accuse Jackson of socialism now or something?

[Eahland]

Yes. Though how he isn’t dead because of that I don’t know.

Wow. That is an extreme position. To avoid the death penalty, Hanssen pleaded guilty to 14 counts of espionage and one of conspiracy to commit espionage.

Here's a thought. Instead of listing infamous criminals and asking if universal rights should include them, why don't you just make an argument in favour of disenfranchising prisoners? Don't bother listing all the bad people you think shouldn't be allowed to vote, just explain why you think that bad people in general should not be allowed to vote.

Part of being sentenced is a loss of some rights. Once your released it gets restored. I see no reason why someone facing a life sentence with zero chance of it ever getting overturned should get any say whatsoever in government.

They're living under it. That's reason enough.

Despite your constantly trotting out your canned responses, one vote very, very seldom actually matters. Hannibal Lector's vote is not going to even tip the election for dogcatcher, much less be instrumental in legalizing cannibalism.

If you have millions of people incarcerated, though, and use that as an excuse to strip them of their fundamental rights, that can and does influence elections. And that opens up an easy exploit: There's something your political opponents do much more often than your political base? Make it illegal! Now you can throw all your political opponents in prison and deny them the right to vote not for "being your political opponents", but for "committing this felony we just made up".

Sound paranoid? Try it like this:

1. Get people to buy that someone imprisoned for a felony loses their fundamental human rights.
2. Hey, those Negros and hippies sure do smoke a lot of weed.
3. Make smoking weed a felony.
4. Throw millions of people in prison for a victimless "crime".
5. Now millions of black, young, and lefty people have been denied their right to vote, thus eliminating a threat to your racist establishment.

Throw in the usual uneven enforcement. Add embellishments like, "Hey, rich white people snort cocaine. Poor black people smoke crack. Let's make the punishments for crack way harsher than the punishments for powder coke." Add laws that prevent felons from regaining their right to vote even after they're released. Note that you can enslave people for committing crimes. Add restrictions on ex-cons that make it difficult for them to rejoin society, so they end up back in prison. Mix well. Viola, one politically-motivated prison-industrial complex incarcerating, and so enslaving and disenfranchising, more people that any other country in the world.

Vermont doesn't deny felons the right to vote. We have not collapsed into anarchy.

[Kowani]

Hearings are back, Mike Lee starts by defending the private healthcare industry

Defending the private healthcare industry...in the judicial appointment hearings?

Socialism fearmongering

Hearings are back, Mike Lee starts by defending the private healthcare industry

what the heck does this have to do with anything? are they trying to accuse Jackson of socialism now or something?

In a roundabout way, yes