Guy Incognito
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 14, 2010
- Messages
- 11,216
- Reaction score
- 2,846
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
who is paying for the stuff?
Let's imagine this scenario: Congress takes the advice of President Bush's bioethics advisor Leon Kass and enacts a total ban on all human cloning. Which type of judge would be more likely to strike it down?
probably one who understands that congress doesn't have that power. that could be Justice Thomas who actually respects the 10th amendment. It could be Justice Ginsburg who has had major health issues
What you said about Thomas does not ring true. I am sure he could. One up with a clever bit of sophistry to justify a cloning ban, considering what an activist he is. Frankly your naïveté surprises me. Is it an act or sincere?
It's none of your business what courts I may or may not have files briefs in, and until you've argued cases in the supreme court you are in no position of superior knowledge. You're not even admitted to the Supreme Court are you?When you have filed briefs with the USSC or argued cases in front of any federal court then get back to me about how much you know about the Justices. Your pronouncements are idiotic and have no basis in fact
It's none of your business what courts I may or may not have files briefs in, and until you've argued cases in the supreme court you are in no position of superior knowledge. You're not even admitted to the Supreme Court are you?
you aren't a lawyer and you have admitted that before. there are people on this board who know I am an attorney and I have had numerous federal appellate cases.
Let's imagine this scenario: Congress takes the advice of President Bush's bioethics advisor Leon Kass and enacts a total ban on all human cloning. Which type of judge would be more likely to strike it down?
I don't really care what you think about me, TD, but you should try to keep your own story straight. You know precious little about the SCOTUS. Have you ever even been to DC on business?
You're a funny guy TD.
Precisely correct. If you support advancements in human clonig research, the only way to ensure it is by appointing liberal judges and justices, wouldn't you agree?Since most of the judges on the Supreme Court are less likely to rule based upon any consistent legal principles than upon their personal political views, I would suggest that liberal judges would be more likely to strike it down. This is for the simple reason that I think people who are ideologically liberal are more likely to regard technology as inherently good for its own sake, whereas people who are ideologically conservative are more likely to be worried about the bioethics of new technology.
so tell me Guy-what sort of law degree do you have? I need a great laugh before retiring for the evening
I have been to DC a few times including three weeks for a trial
Precisely correct. If you support advancements in human clonig research, the only way to ensure it is by appointing liberal judges and justices, wouldn't you agree?
Incidentally, what is your opinion on the issue?
Since we're a long way from the point where important cloning issues are definitively ruled upon by the courts, I'd suggest that a better way to advance that cause is to elect liberal legislators and executives.
I'm generally supportive of more research and development on human cloning...specifically the possibility of cloning organs and tissues for medical procedures. I'm much more hesitant about the idea of cloning an entire human being due to the genetic errors that have been quite common in other cloned animals.
What you said about Thomas does not ring true. I am sure he could. One up with a clever bit of sophistry to justify a cloning ban, considering what an activist he is. Frankly your naïveté surprises me. Is it an act or sincere?
You can't ensure that liberals will be elected every time, these things are cyclical.
Federal judges and supreme court justices have lifetime appointments. If we pack the courts wih liberals we can be assured that if a republican legislature manages to sneak by with a cloning ban it will be assured to be struck down.
Cloning is too important to leave to the whims of the voting public.
Let's imagine this scenario: Congress takes the advice of President Bush's bioethics advisor Leon Kass and enacts a total ban on all human cloning. Which type of judge would be more likely to strike it down?
Supreme court judges are corporately OWNED and controlled
If Human cloning can produce higher profits in any industry or sector, then it will be legalised
The Corpocracy has no sustancial morals to contend with other than its fascist ideology and power concentration
This is exactly why the US supreme court in 2010, bestowed upon the Corporation the classification of personhood
Now a Corporation, can not only shaft the citizens of the USA, it is also protected by the US constitution
(ironically the US constitution is currently impotent due to the Patriot Acts and the NDAA signing - the fascist Corpocratic tyranny in the USA has been securely embedded in the legal, political, social and financial systems. The people of the USA can either continue enduring the pain of slavery, or they can rebel and dismantle this inhumane totalitarian fascist Corpocracy - and that will happen one day)
How would judges be owned by corporations? They're appointed for life. They wouldn't care if companies were pleased with them.
You have a lot to learn about your own Tyrannical fascist Corpocracy that enslaves you
Do you believe a corporation is a person and should be afforded the rights that you believe are available to you?
The US Supreme Court bench is a Corporate entity
it does not care about the rights of ordinary Americans
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?