Even if Dems win both seats in GA....

[cabse5]

?

You're saying that Biden should just be authoritarian, set up a 'blue ribbon panel' about court packing and have the 'blue ribbon panel' decide on court packing while leaving out input from the American people or SCOTUS?

 

[Juks]

You're saying that Biden should just be authoritarian, set up a 'blue ribbon panel' about court packing and have the 'blue ribbon panel' decide on court packing while leaving out input from the American people or SCOTUS?

I am not saying that, he is, I am quoting the article.

 

[Juks]

You're saying that Biden should just be authoritarian, set up a 'blue ribbon panel' about court packing and have the 'blue ribbon panel' decide on court packing while leaving out input from the American people or SCOTUS?

But thinking about it I believe his way is a better way than stacking the court.

The political influence in the judiciary is a great risk of irregularities and bias in the judgments given. It actually does not matter if it is democratic bias or republican. It would be best if you could turn the entire supreme court into not being politically appointed. To do that, he needs the Republicans with him. It all really depends on whether the Democrats get the two seats from Georgia or not. If they get it, Biden has the threat of "stacking the court" to put in the heads of the Republicans and they will be much more likely to once and for all change the system to a more legally secure system.

 

[roguenuke]

I agree. Other protected classes don’t have the right to require a business to create something that expresses a message the business disagrees with. So, the LGBTQ class should not have any such right either. They should have the same rights as any other class. No more. No less.

Actually, you are wrong. If an interracial couple comes into a bakery looking for a wedding cake, even if the baker finds such relationships violate their personal beliefs, their religious beliefs, they still have to do it or face discrimination charges. And yes, there are some religious beliefs that people hold that say such relationships are wrong. Just as there are some religious beliefs held that say interfaith relationships are wrong. Again, baker still cannot deny service based on those beliefs.

 

[cabse5]

I am not saying that, he is, I am quoting the article.

You're OK with Biden's authoritarianism concerning court packing decisions?

 

[cabse5]

But thinking about it I believe his way is a better way than stacking the court.

The political influence in the judiciary is a great risk of irregularities and bias in the judgments given. It actually does not matter if it is democratic bias or republican. It would be best if you could turn the entire supreme court into not being politically appointed. To do that, he needs the Republicans with him. It all really depends on whether the Democrats get the two seats from Georgia or not. If they get it, Biden has the threat of "stacking the court" to put in the heads of the Republicans and they will be much more likely to once and for all change the system to a more legally secure system.

The people (or their representatives) are greatly needed in the court selection process to insure the people are involved in the process.
That's why the executive gets to nominate court appointees. That's why the Senate gets to consent court appointees.

 

[haymarket]

You're busting a gut to tell me, so, tell me.

When you are peacefully sleeping and suddenly awoken by armed people , reaching for protection would seem to be a reasonable and rational response. At least that is what my right wing gun nut friends tell me.

 

[Noodlegawd]

At least you got this one right. What do you want with a semiautomatic weapon in the first place? What are you going to use it for? If you shot a burgler (which is the standard excuse to why americans needs guns) with a semiautomatic weapon, you risk killing innocent people walking by outside.

So you admit that he's basically lying. Fair enough. What I want with a semiautomatic weapon is no more your business than what you want with a car that can go 90mph is my business.

 

[Randomutation]

Actually, you are wrong. If an interracial couple comes into a bakery looking for a wedding cake, even if the baker finds such relationships violate their personal beliefs, their religious beliefs, they still have to do it or face discrimination charges. And yes, there are some religious beliefs that people hold that say such relationships are wrong. Just as there are some religious beliefs held that say interfaith relationships are wrong. Again, baker still cannot deny service based on those beliefs.

It would depend on the baker’s overall policy.
If he refuses to create any cakes that celebrate IR marriage, then he’s not breaking any law as far as I know. Furthermore, he does have a free speech right to refuse to make cakes celebrating IR marriage. It would be a reprehensible policy, but free speech protects reprehensible speech as well as other speech. Being reprehensible is not the same as being illegal.

 

[roguenuke]

It would depend on the baker’s overall policy.
If he refuses to create any cakes that celebrate IR marriage, then he’s not breaking any law as far as I know. Furthermore, he does have a free speech right to refuse to make cakes celebrating IR marriage. It would be a reprehensible policy, but free speech protects reprehensible speech as well as other speech. Being reprehensible is not the same as being illegal.

No it wouldn't. It would only depend on whether he was refusing to bake a wedding cake for an interracial couple. And no, he actually does not have the freedom to break the law by refusing to abide by anti discrimination laws (public accommodation laws). This isn't about free speech. Nothing is being written on the cake, and it would be the same sort of cake he would make for a single race (opposite sex) couple. That is what is at issue. Not willing to sell the same cake, same products to certain couples that the person is willing to sell to other couples.

 

[Randomutation]

No it wouldn't. It would only depend on whether he was refusing to bake a wedding cake for an interracial couple. And no, he actually does not have the freedom to break the law by refusing to abide by anti discrimination laws (public accommodation laws). This isn't about free speech. Nothing is being written on the cake, and it would be the same sort of cake he would make for a single race (opposite sex) couple. That is what is at issue. Not willing to sell the same cake, same products to certain couples that the person is willing to sell to other couples.

He's not refusing because of the couple (SS, IR, etc.). He's refusing to make the cake because of what the cake celebrates. He's refusing because of the message. He refuses to make any cake that expresses any message he objects to. He won't do that for anyone.

 

[roguenuke]

He's not refusing because of the couple (SS, IR, etc.). He's refusing to make the cake because of what the cake celebrates. He's refusing because of the message. He refuses to make any cake that expresses any message he objects to. He won't do that for anyone.

No. They are refusing because of the couple. Wedding cakes are wedding cakes, regardless of which couple uses them. There is no message that has to be written on the cake. If he is willing to make a cake for an opposite sex couples or a single race couple or a single religion couple, then he has to make the same cake for a same sex couple or an interracial couple or an interfaith couple, anyone. That is how these laws work. Just like the Jewish bakery cannot refuse to sell kosher foods to people who are not Jewish if they will sell them to Jewish people or vice versa. A grocer could not refuse to sell non Kosher foods only to Jewish people. It doesn't matter what they feel the sin or message is in the transaction.

If you don't believe that, just see if people can refuse to sell a cake to an interracial couple. I guarantee any baker who does would lose that suit in a heartbeat.

 

[Randomutation]

No. They are refusing because of the couple.

The couple is irrelevant. The baker would refuse to make a cake celebrating interracial (or same sex) marriage even if there is no couple. If a movie producer needs it for a scene in a movie, he'll need to get it somewhere else. If a group of people want it for a celebration of the Supreme Court ruling on interracial (or same sex) marriage, they'll need to get it somewhere else.