Biden on the Barrett Nomination

[OpportunityCost]

I never said I was against the pick, simply stating I am concerned about her defense of Scalia on the Obergefell decision. So far, I have seen no defense of Barrett on that.

My concern is policy, not whether or not she's a Catholic.

Your vote is held hostage according to the pick, by your own words. There is a needle to thread with how things are worded and you didn't manage it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You are begging the question. Some of us are against her nomination because of how we fear her religious views and overall judicial philosophy will result in bringing back e.g. discrimination against LGBT, bans on gay marriage, etc. So it's a problem with policy results, not her personal religious views, which she is required to set aside when they conflict with the law and the Constitution.

FWIW, she's also a reliable water carrier for corporate interests. The big money doesn't care about LGBT, or abortion, for that matter, but they do like it when justices like her rule in their favor and against the interests of the little guy. The social issue stuff is a distraction.

You mean like....the Affordable Care Act which has been insanely profitable for the health care industry?

 

[Rexedgar]

IHA - (I Hate Acronyms)..... You are going to have to spell out what ever IOKIYAR means to you because I have no frigging idea what the hell that is supposed to mean.

You learned something today!

 

[OpportunityCost]

If her religious views inform her that LGBT don't deserve protections, and the SC should again bless anti-sodomy laws that criminalize sex between gay individuals, then the opposition is not in fact to her views of gay sex. No one gives a damn whether she approves or not. If she doesn't approve of gay sex, she can choose not to have gay sex.

But if her religion informs her that because gay sex is condemned by the Bible that secular laws can and should be able to jail LGBT for having gay sex, that's a problem, because she's determining the state can discriminate against gays because they are gay. That's a policy problem, not a problem of her personal views of gay sex. Whether she's just grossed out by the thought of sex with another woman, is just a bigot, or whether her preacher tells her it's bad, isn't relevant.

The assumption that she cannot separate secular and religious views despite her long experience and multiple previous confirmations is duplicitous bullshit from you, isn't it?

Put another way, you believe its okay to discriminate, so long as you pick the basis.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

We’ve already won before she’s even confirmed.

Voters Believe Winner of Election Should Fill Court Vacancy, Poll Shows

A Times/Siena College poll showed that 56 percent said the next president should nominate a Supreme Court justice. And Joe Biden retained a clear lead over President Trump, 49 to 41 percent.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Aunt Antifa]

wrong please see the constitution.
not that you will facts do not care about your feelings.

Wha? You’re not suggestin

If there is no recourse, they can use whatever criteria they want...

You will just have to get over it

Am I misunderstanding his argument, is he saying senators *must* vote for any nom put before them? No, right? I missed a post?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

They created the strongest economy in the world. It's not that hard to understand.

With free labor.

 

[ludin]

Wha? You’re not suggestin


Am I misunderstanding his argument, is he saying senators *must* vote for any nom put before them? No, right? I missed a post?

you seem confused again.

 

[ludin]

With free labor.

unless you agree to work for free it is illegal not to pay someone for their work been US law for ages now.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

unless you agree to work for free it is illegal not to pay someone for their work been US law for ages now.

Gee, too bad slaves didn’t think of that.

 

[ludin]

Gee, too bad slaves didn’t think of that.

you said nothing of slavery.
this is the year 2020 unless you are being sexed trafficked slavery has been abolished for a good long time.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

you said nothing of slavery.
this is the year 2020 unless you are being sexed trafficked slavery has been abolished for a good long time.

The ramifications of a system built on the blood and work of others that shuts them out of their fair share have not ended. Trump is right now running on the theme of preventing Black people from advancing into the suburbs. Which, is 1980’s racism but we all get the point. Keep ‘em down but keep ‘em “essential” so we can force them to work and not pay them.

 

[BrotherFease]

Your vote is held hostage according to the pick, by your own words. There is a needle to thread with how things are worded and you didn't manage it.

I hope you have a good day. Anyway, I said nothing about her religious beliefs, just questioning her record on LGBTQ Americans. You will find ZERO posts of mine criticizing other people's religion. As I have said before, I am a Catholic too and want to hear more from her. This is my position.

 

[ludin]

The ramifications of a system built on the blood and work of others that shuts them out of their fair share have not ended. Trump is right now running on the theme of preventing Black people from advancing into the suburbs. Which, is 1980’s racism but we all get the point. Keep ‘em down but keep ‘em “essential” so we can force them to work and not pay them.

nothing stops them from living in the suburbs. please see the fair housing act that is decades old. the only thing that stops you from living in the suburbs is not being able to afford a house.

if you are a middle income family making at least median income for your area you can live in the suburbs.

facts trump your nonsense.

 

[Taylor]

I didn't mention pre-existing conditions in that post. What I pointed out is the GOP is worthless on healthcare. They've had a decade to show us how to provide cheaper healthcare to more people without raising taxes or costing anyone, anything. They've failed miserably. Instead we've had a decade of what you just did - bitching and whining about what the Democrats didn't do, with no clue how to do the job better.

And, yes, it is better to have tried and 'failed' than sit on the sidelines and throw rocks at those trying, and making progress, while the GOP is too incompetent, stupid, lazy, and/or indifferent to get off their asses and do the job better. How would that work in your household?

You to wife: You're worthless as a cook, terrible!
Wife: Fine, you can cook. The kitchen is yours!
You: What? Me cook? LOLOLOL. I'm just doing to sit her and bitch and whine at what you prepare, while I do nothing to help!!

Again, here's FDR who nailed the sentiment decades ago.

Good to know where you stand. Half the time Democrats want to take credit for Obamacare, the other half of the time they call it a Republican plan devised by Mitt Romney or the Heritage Foundation.

We do know that it was highly unpopular when it was passed, and that people seem to like it much more now with the changes made by republicans than at any time under Obama.

 

[JasperL]

The assumption that she cannot separate secular and religious views despite her long experience and multiple previous confirmations is duplicitous bullshit from you, isn't it?

Not when she's commented on the subjects and has opined the courts got to the wrong answer. Or, to put it another way, a fair question is whether or not she believes the constitution protects the right of LGBT to engage in consensual sex in their own homes. Or whether she agrees that the constitution guarantees a right to SSM. How she views those acts from a religious standpoint isn't relevant, but whether the constitution protects the disfavored minority, or not.

Put another way, you believe its okay to discriminate, so long as you pick the basis.

Sure, you believe that as well. The act of confirming a judge is to grant a given Senator the right to "discriminate" against that judge on whatever basis they choose. To vote NO is to "discriminate."

But the point is it's not about her religious beliefs but the policy implications of those beliefs if they guide her judicial decision making. And let's point out the obvious here - if this was a member of the Taliban who believed as part of his religion that women should be forced to ask permission from a male family member to leave the house, you'd have no problem for good reason discriminating against that nominee based on his religious views.

 

[JasperL]

Good to know where you stand. Half the time Democrats want to take credit for Obamacare, the other half of the time they call it a Republican plan devised by Mitt Romney or the Heritage Foundation.

The point of attributing some of the basic concepts to conservatives is to point out that the ACA wasn't some radical liberal socialist commie plan. Much of the basics were endorsed by conservatives, until Obama did them, and then they were the worst thing ever. But, yeah, Democrats want to take credit because it was a big ****ing deal and they got it passed. That's hard to do. The GOP can't find their asses with both hands on this subject.

We do know that it was highly unpopular when it was passed, and that people seem to like it much more now with the changes made by republicans than at any time under Obama.

Which of those 'changes' made it more popular?

And it's good that it is more popular than ever, AND the GOP is trying to get the courts to legislate from the bench and repeal it and replace it with nothing. What's your point?

 

[Taylor]

Which of those 'changes' made it more popular?

Getting rid of the individual mandate was a big one. It seems that as enrollment numbers decline, popularity increases. Go figure.

And it's good that it is more popular than ever, AND the GOP is trying to get the courts to legislate from the bench and repeal it and replace it with nothing. What's your point?

How exactly do they plan to "legislate from the bench"?

 

[Ginza]

With free labor.

The vast majority of labor was not free. Labor is also just one of several factors of production. Without ingenuity and capital very little can be created.

 

[Ginza]

How did they create the economy?

Try reading a history book.

African-Americans have benefited greatly from living in a majority white country, as have people of African descent who live in other majority white nations.

it is a pity that MLK never had dreams about this. He was never thankful for what he had but always wanted more.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Try reading a history book.

African-Americans have benefited greatly from living in a majority white country, as have people of African descent who live in other majority white nations.

it is a pity that MLK never had dreams about this. He was never thankful for what he had but always wanted more.

I would invite YOU to read a history book.

The original assertion is that blacks benefited off the backs of white people, when it was in fact the other way around. Whites benefited from free labor for hundreds of years and accumulated vast wealth off black people. Blacks effectively built America, while blacks continued to struggle under white-centric policies until recent years.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Not when she's commented on the subjects and has opined the courts got to the wrong answer. Or, to put it another way, a fair question is whether or not she believes the constitution protects the right of LGBT to engage in consensual sex in their own homes. Or whether she agrees that the constitution guarantees a right to SSM. How she views those acts from a religious standpoint isn't relevant, but whether the constitution protects the disfavored minority, or not.



Sure, you believe that as well. The act of confirming a judge is to grant a given Senator the right to "discriminate" against that judge on whatever basis they choose. To vote NO is to "discriminate."

But the point is it's not about her religious beliefs but the policy implications of those beliefs if they guide her judicial decision making. And let's point out the obvious here - if this was a member of the Taliban who believed as part of his religion that women should be forced to ask permission from a male family member to leave the house, you'd have no problem for good reason discriminating against that nominee based on his religious views.

This is secular morality pushing against religious morality. Think back to religious exemptions to the ACA, they got no full defense or even consideration from the Obama administration. But the court, eventually, pushed back. There is always going to be push and pull between the two viewpoints on morality and our laws and judicial decisions will continue to reflect that.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I hope you have a good day. Anyway, I said nothing about her religious beliefs, just questioning her record on LGBTQ Americans. You will find ZERO posts of mine criticizing other people's religion. As I have said before, I am a Catholic too and want to hear more from her. This is my position.

Like Scalia, she could believe that an amendment would have been a better, more thorough solution for LBGTQ people in the US. Laws can be changed, decisions can be overturned but amendments are the most iron clad guarantees our government can make.

 

[BrotherFease]

Like Scalia, she could believe that an amendment would have been a better, more thorough solution for LBGTQ people in the US. Laws can be changed, decisions can be overturned but amendments are the most iron clad guarantees our government can make.

That's why I want to hear a clarification.

Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is a violation of the 14th amendment, both the due process clause and equal protection clause.

By her "Scalia logic", Brown vs. the Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia cases were incorrectly decided.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

The vast majority of labor was not free. Labor is also just one of several factors of production. Without ingenuity and capital very little can be created.

I hear cheating on your taxes creates capital.