• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump taps Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court, setting up confirmation sprint

Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but your argument is ridiculous on its face. She's going to be on the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
How does your decision that the confirmation of Ms Barrett is inevitable make my argument ridiculous. And what exactly is the "face" of an argument? You seem to think just throwing nonsense phrases around is a substitute for an intelligent discussion.
 
CaughtInThe said:
all you sane people explain to your kids what Mitch and Republicans did 11 months prior to the end of Obama's term. then explain what's happening now (same Mitch).

let them know how important it is to hold politicians accountable for this type of hypocrisy and the "words" Republicans will use to try to talk it away or justify the hypocrisy. that way they will be able to spot the hypocritical folks supporting Trump and Mitch now.
Click to expand...
As long as you mention the hypocritical flip-flops from Pelosi, Schumer, and Ginsburg between 2016 and now.
 
Jack Hays said:
There will be no court packing. There is a solid bi-partisan Senate majority against it.
Click to expand...

That is until the court strikes down health care and climate change legislation. You will see the tides shift.
 
weaver2 said:
How does your decision that the confirmation of Ms Barrett is inevitable make my argument ridiculous. And what exactly is the "face" of an argument? You seem to think just throwing nonsense phrases around is a substitute for an intelligent discussion.
Click to expand...
Your argument is ridiculous at first sight (colloquially, "on its face") because a woman who aims to ascend to the highest court obviously does not believe in the subordination of women.
 
Jack Hays said:
Your argument is ridiculous at first sight (colloquially, "on its face") because a woman who aims to ascend to the highest court obviously does not believe in the subordination of women.
Click to expand...
So on second sight it is not ridiculous? Care to explain then why she belongs to People of Praise?
 
weaver2 said:
So on second sight it is not ridiculous? Care to explain then why she belongs to People of Praise?
Click to expand...
You'd have to ask her. As David Brooks of the New York Times reported, People of Praise is a mainstream religious organization.
 
weaver2 said:
So on second sight it is not ridiculous? Care to explain then why she belongs to People of Praise?
Click to expand...
ask her. however that shows nothing that she will base any of her decisions on them.

she can belong to whatever organization she would like.

why are you being bigoted is the bigger question.
 
ludin said:
ask her. however that shows nothing that she will base any of her decisions on them. she can belong to whatever organization she would like.why are you being bigoted is the bigger question.
Click to expand...

Worrying about the hard won status of women is not being bigoted. It is a real fear especially since the people advocating for and supporting her world view will bring cases before the SC trying to deny women the right to make private decisions about their personal reproductive lives. I am old enough to remember when women were discriminated against in the work place, were denied entrance into certain university programs, could be denied professional status in certain professions, abortion was a crime and women could be jailed for buying contraceptives in some states. Of course I fear a woman on the SC who thinks women do not make decisions about how many children she has, where the family lives, how the children are educated, how money including her salary is managed and who she votes for. I'm assuming you think Ms Barretts world view about women is the right one. I and millions of other women do not.
 
I notice you're not acknowledge the hypocrisy of democrats who flipped flopped right along with Mitch. You're being hypocritical. If you think things would be different if the roles were reversed, you are sorely sorely mistaken and clueless.

As for Mitch. If they voters don't like what they did, they can vote him out. They can probably even impeach him.

CaughtInThe said:
all you sane people explain to your kids what Mitch and Republicans did 11 months prior to the end of Obama's term. then explain what's happening now (same Mitch).

let them know how important it is to hold politicians accountable for this type of hypocrisy and the "words" Republicans will use to try to talk it away or justify the hypocrisy. that way they will be able to spot the hypocritical folks supporting Trump and Mitch now.
Click to expand...
 
What color do you think the national handmaiden uniforms should be? I'm hoping for something purpleish.

weaver2 said:
People of Praise is not the Catholic Church. It is not even a Catholic organization. it is a 'club' that says men make the decisions in life and women are handmaids serving those decisions. Feinstein was not attacking Ms Barrett's religion nor was she accusing Catholics of taking cues from Rome. She was concerned how Barrett's personal view of how the world is ordered, that men have dominion over all decision making and women are subservient would figure in cases that dealt with issues of women's rights. That is not unfair questioning nor is it smearing the Catholic Church. If Democrats get a chance to question Ms Barrett it will not be about her Catholicism but about her view that men have legal rights not allowed to women.
Click to expand...
 
weaver2 said:
Worrying about the hard won status of women is not being bigoted. It is a real fear especially since the people advocating for and supporting her world view will bring cases before the SC trying to deny women the right to make private decisions about their personal reproductive lives. I am old enough to remember when women were discriminated against in the work place, were denied entrance into certain university programs, could be denied professional status in certain professions, abortion was a crime and women could be jailed for buying contraceptives in some states. Of course I fear a woman on the SC who thinks women do not make decisions about how many children she has, where the family lives, how the children are educated, how money including her salary is managed and who she votes for. I'm assuming you think Ms Barretts world view about women is the right one. I and millions of other women do not.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Amy Coney Barrett: A New Feminist Icon

Erika Bachiochi, Politico
 
weaver2 said:
Worrying about the hard won status of women is not being bigoted. It is a real fear especially since the people advocating for and supporting her world view will bring cases before the SC trying to deny women the right to make private decisions about their personal reproductive lives. I am old enough to remember when women were discriminated against in the work place, were denied entrance into certain university programs, could be denied professional status in certain professions, abortion was a crime and women could be jailed for buying contraceptives in some states. Of course I fear a woman on the SC who thinks women do not make decisions about how many children she has, where the family lives, how the children are educated, how money including her salary is managed and who she votes for. I'm assuming you think Ms Barretts world view about women is the right one. I and millions of other women do not.
Click to expand...
your fear is no one else's fear but your own.
you should get over your fear.
 
weaver2 said:
It is not just my fear. It is shared by millions of other women.
Click to expand...
your projection and ad populem fallacy noted doesn't change the argument.

she is qualified and that is all that matters only thing next is the senate vote.

i suggest trying being less sexists and sypport a working mom who has several kids along with special needs kids and minority kids.

yet here you are bashing her. live up to your leftist standard and denounce those that attack her as sexist and bigots like you normally would do.
 
Jezcoe said:
I disagree with that opinion.

I am not arguing whether or not they have the Constitutional mandate to seat a judge... they do. They are simply showing themselves to say some bullshit when it is politically expedient on one hand and some other when the opposite is true.

This action leads to a very predictable outcome if the Democrats win big in a month and a half. I don't want that outcome of packing the courts... but man oh man are they going to fight for it. And those who will raise objections will simply have to understand that they were told that this would be the response and it will escalate further and further and further.

That isn't a future that I want... but it is what is going to happen.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of Democrats who don’t support the idea of expanding the court and packing it with rubber stamp justices.
 
They had their say in 2016.

lwf said:
Perhaps she does deserve to be on the Supreme Court. But shouldn't we wait until after the election to decide whether to seat her? You know, to give the voters a say?
Click to expand...
 
Tahuyaman said:
How so, specifically?
Click to expand...
I'm tired of finding and posting answers to question for people too lazy to use the internet or too partisan to read anything except that which legitimizes their position. When there is a controversy I look up literature and statistics posted from both sides of the discussion/argument. Is there some intellectual reason you can't do the same?
 
lwf said:
Perhaps she does deserve to be on the Supreme Court. But shouldn't we wait until after the election to decide whether to seat her? You know, to give the voters a say?
Click to expand...
please see the constitution. the president appoint the senate confirms or denies.
no where does it mention the people.
 
ludin said:
please see the constitution. the president appoint the senate confirms or denies.
no where does it mention the people.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they can't seat her because of the constitution. I'm saying they shouldn't seat her because it is an election year, and the people should have a say, since that is the precedent.
 
lwf said:
I'm not saying they can't seat her because of the constitution. I'm saying they shouldn't seat her because it is an election year, and the people should have a say, since that is the precedent.
Click to expand...

please see the constitution. the president nominates the Senate approves or disproves.

no where does it say the people.
no it isn't precedent. the constitution sets the precedent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom