Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court Justice

[whatistrue]

The are real reasons against Trump, but this isn’t one

Maybe, maybe not. It’s not a particularly strong one, and it is just an impression rather than a verifiable fact. Which of course is why I tried to emphasize “possibly”.

besides most major politicians do the same thing

True or not, this doesn’t excuse anyone.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I believe the best and quickest way to stop abortions is education and convincing, along with help for the mother

Hasn’t worked yet. And in a society that affirms abortion as a “right”, it will never do so.

 

[pnewton]

However, Trump categorically stated he would concede in a free and fair election.

Are you suggesting the president ought not concede if the determination was not free or fair?

The president does not determine the election practices of a state. This is a matter of law. If California wants there electors determined by ballots made of rolling papers, that is their right as a state. That is where I object. I get he does not like mail in ballots. I don’t. But a state has a right to vote that way. He has no right to object, or disregard the results. Do Democratically lead states think they will fair better with mail in ballots? Of course, just like Republicans have tipped the balance for year by gerrymandering in states they control.

Oh, and Clinton did concede, November 9, 2016.

 

[Ender]

So it’s good to do something with a good result (ends) for bad reasons (means). Okay, if that’s what you think.

The actions were pro-life, were designed to have good results, and appear to have had the results intended. That much can be judged. You are judging the president’s intentions, and judging them in the worst possible light. That is what we are specifically forbidden to do, and your dislike of Trump does not justify your action.

 

[whatistrue]

You are judging the president’s intentions

No. I am pointing out a possibility (which is, again, why I bolded that term in the other post) based on his previous public behavior. I do not say that that is definitely his motivation, only pointing out that it could be and why. The fact that you don’t care about the motivation is another question entirely, and not one I intend to discuss further.

 

[27lw]

Ridgerunner:

So I don’t know, but I suspect a lot of the “can’t marry” problem is more due to economic expectations than absolutes.

I think you’re right. Many contemporary faithful Catholic women are very circumspect about finding husbands who can provide them with absolute financial security, not for any “golddigger” reasons, but to know that they can have several children without having to worry about how that family will be supported, and without being forced out into the workplace themselves. That’s a reasonable thing to consider, but — and there is no delicate way to put this — some women just do not have the attributes that would make them the most eligible partners for these men, whereas another woman would have those attributes. (Physical appearance is the least part of it, I refer more to personality, intelligence, resourcefulness, and personal charm.) Which one’s he going to pick?

When it comes to settling down and marrying, women are just as capable of becoming “incels” as men are. And in all fairness, many men set their own sights far too high, and fail to consider what they have to offer, versus what they do not have to offer. There are some things in oneself that just cannot be improved. And one man can only marry one woman (and vice versa). We are not polygamists.

Proverbs 31:30

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Possibility or not that is not something that matters.

 

[Ender]

The fact that you don’t care about the motivation is another question entirely, and not one I intend to discuss further.

Since there is nothing concrete whatever on which to base that supposition there is no justification whatever for suggesting it. Nor is it a question of my indifference. Charity obliges us to give people the benefit of the doubt and forbids us from assuming the worst. Sort of the opposite of what you have done.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

 

[Victoria33]

We are commanded to love each other. That can be construed in different ways, just saying. Having good intentions goes a long way with me.

 

[whatistrue]

Since there is nothing concrete whatever on which to base that supposition

Actually there is a long track record there.

Charity obliges us to give people the benefit of the doubt and forbids us from assuming the worst. Sort of the opposite of what you have done.

(bold mine)

So you assume that I assumed something? Interesting. But I don’t actually care, so have a nice day.

 

[Ender]

Early on in this thread someone pointed out Biden’s objection to confirming Barrett’s nomination: it would spell the end of the Affordable Care Act. This is a meme that is getting wide circulation, intended to scare voters, who will presumably contact their Senators, which will presumably scare them into voting against the nominee. It’s also pure speculation, and there are good arguments to doubt that any of the claims are true.

Judge Barrett And Your Health Care

 

[Rau]

However, Trump categorically stated he would concede in a free and fair election.

So long as it is he who declares it free and fair?

 

[Canvas]

I have to say I like Judge Amy Coney Barrett far, far more than I like the President that nominated her.

I also think she is a far better pick than Kavanaugh was.

The raw exercise of political power is unseemly, somehow.

True, but I didn’t have a high opinion of Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham’s integrity . However Judge Barrett seems to be an ethical person.

 

[Victoria33]

I like Trump.

Planned Parenthood doesn’t.

Also, let’s not forget how Kavanaugh was treated.

 

[JSRG]

PaulinVA:

Thank you for the thoughtful replies.

However, I could never in good conscience vote for Trump. Never. I think the Republic is in jeopardy. I’ve stated the reasons many times. The ends don’t justify the means.

But you are okay with packing the SC, making DC and Puerto Rico states in order to name four more Democrat Senators,

While Washington D.C. would be hard Democrat, it is highly unlikely Puerto Rico will give them two guaranteed Senators.

Firstly, from my understanding, Puerto Rico is relatively liberal on economic issues but more conservative on social issues. This seems like a mix that would make it into a swing state. For the record, Puerto Rico’s current resident commissioner (Puerto Rico’s non-voting representative in the House of Representatives) is affiliated with the Republican party.

Second, why do people assume that the parties of those elected would even be one of the two primary US parties (Democrats and Republicans)? Yes, those are the primary parties for most of the country… but not Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico’s two primary parties are the New Progressive Party and the Popular Democratic Party (neither exactly matches up with the Republican or Democratic party). They have been the two major political parties in Puerto Rico for decades at this point. It is rather questionable that people are spontaneously going to dump the political parties that have been ruling for decades for the Democrats and Republicans upon achieving statehood.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

While in law school, my son was proposed to by more than one young female law student. They were sort of like “grazers”, going from one guy to the next and if they didn’t hit it off big right away, they went on to another guy.

Do you mean literally proposing marriage, shortly after meeting or becoming acquainted? That’s awfully brazen.

Having been a liberal arts major in undergraduate and graduate school, I never had that problem — getting degrees that are commonly perceived as preparing the bearer to do nothing besides teach, is not exactly making oneself into a wife-magnet, especially in an economically-depressed part of the country with an extremely soft job market, as was my situation. Even in graduate business school (MBA), I only had the pleasure of (basically) being propositioned by one, and only one, female fellow student in almost four years (I went part-time evenings and weekends while working full-time). I resisted this temptation.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

However, Trump categorically stated he would concede in a free and fair election.

Are you suggesting the president ought not concede if the determination was not free or fair?

The president does not determine the election practices of a state. This is a matter of law. If California wants there electors determined by ballots made of rolling papers, that is their right as a state. That is where I object. I get he does not like mail in ballots. I don’t. But a state has a right to vote that way. He has no right to object, or disregard the results. Do Democratically lead states think they will fair better with mail in ballots? Of course, just like Republicans have tipped the balance for year by gerrymandering in states they control.

Oh, and Clinton did concede, November 9, 2016.

Yeah, in a manner of speaking. Two days after the election and after appeals from Obama’s people and others. She has also, this year, told Biden not to concede for any reason and under no conditions.

 

[jeannetherese]

Yes. I wonder how many people would just not vote at all if they get this Supreme; that is, just planning to vote for Trump to replace RBG.

Probably quite a few, who will be delighted that the President continues to follow through with his commitment to the pro life community. Others may be excited to have another justice who shares their views about interpreting the constitution.
If the president is giving you what you want, wouldn’t that be an incentive to keep him in office?

 

[HarryStotle]

Rau:

HomeschoolDad:

The medieval Catholic ideal (sorry, I can’t find a source, I just know I read this one time) was that one-third of society would marry and have children, one-third stays single, and one-third follows a priestly or religious vocation.

One priest per 3 persons? Would make priests fairly expensive to support for the remainder!

My math would reckon one in six - one sixth would be priests.

One third marry (2/6), one third single (2/6) and one third priests OR religious (2/6). So if half of the one third (2/6) that follow a religious vocation are priests that would be half of one third or 1/6th.

Why “half of one third”? Why are you making the assumption that every other vocation is a priestly vocation?

That would be because the time period being referred to was the medieval Catholic one. As a rough guesstimate I was supposing that the number of priests would have been matched by the numbers of women religious and religious who were not ordained as priests.
[/QUOTE]

 

[jeannetherese]

Trump could easily have appointed someone the Democrats could support. He didn’t–basically he stuck his finger in the Democrats’ eye. Can he? Sure. Is it a good idea? We’ll see how it plays out, but I see a short term win and a long term loss.

Given that supreme court justices have pretty much lifetime appointments, the potential gains may well be of a longer term than you imagine.
As Planned Parenthood notes:
" One of the most important powers of the president is nominating federal judges. And President Trump is doing this at record speed, moving quickly to appoint nearly 200 judges.
In vote after vote, senators are confirming Trump’s nominees to lifetime positions as federal judges — where they’ll be able to make rulings that will affect our rights and access to health care for generations to come."