Supreme court nominees

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kmcicco2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dvdjs said:
There are posters who have repeatedly indicated that Ford’s allegations should have gone to Md police rather than the SJC.
Click to expand...
You’re tripping over your own claims. What I objected to was this:

“It has been pointed out repeatedly that this approval process is not a criminal trial. Yet somehow that seems, to some, to be the required standard for considering the nominee.”

Responding that others have claimed Ford should have gone to the police to file criminal charges says nothing whatever about what the standards of evidence that should be required by the committee. As I said - and contrary to your claim - no one has suggested that criminal standards should be those applied by the committee.
 
Ender said:
Responding that others have claimed Ford should have gone to the police to file criminal charges says nothing whatever about what the standards of evidence that should be required by the committee. As I said - and contrary to your claim - no one has suggested that criminal standards should be those applied by the committee.
Click to expand...
I am happy for the posters to clarify, but it seems implicit in the statement, which was not a “do this too”, but more a sine qua non of bring the charge forward.
 
ConstantLearner said:
We don’t want an “all-Catholic court” if we want diversity. Right now, it’s not all-Catholic, so Trump should appoint a Jewish person or a Protestant if he gets another pick. Even an atheist or a Muslim. As long as they’re a fair and impartial jurist, with a good reputation. We don’t want an all-Jewish court, either, or an all-Protestant court.
Click to expand...
The count will be 5 Catholics, 3 Jews and 1 Presbyterian/Episcopalian, whichever Gorsuch is.

Yes, and the most important thing is to follow the constitution.

I still believe, it would be better for it to reflect the population of the USA.

Muslims and Atheists are minuscule amounts of the population. I would not be for that unless, they truly are constitutionally qualified.

2 times, I have posted the religious makeup of the court, anyone can just search for it with one’s favorite search engine.

religionnews.com

Why Catholics and Jews dominate at the Supreme Court

(RNS) — Historically, it has taken a while for Catholics and Jews to earn seats on the top court, which used to be composed entirely of Protestants.
religionnews.com religionnews.com
 
I don’t think anyone wants to turn the US into a theocracy. Some might thing it’s okay if it’s their religion, but a theocracy can always be overthrown by a stronger and more forceful religion. People in a theocracy face having their faith outlawed, even if they are currently in power.

I see nothing wrong with a Muslim or atheist on the court. It does add diversity, and the US is very, very secular even though most people say they believe in G-d.
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Or, it could be righteous anger expressed by those who feel attacked. I hear that is now a justifiable defense.
Click to expand...
And again, another variant of justifying actions based on the claim that “My opponents are evil”.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly what Kavanaugh and his supporters did, including many on this forum.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Or, it could be righteous anger expressed by those who feel attacked. I hear that is now a justifiable defense.
Click to expand...
So I just need to “feel attacked” by you or your beliefs, and I can start doing actually physically harassment of you?
 
Perhaps if you had included some broad statements about conservatives, I would not have felt obliged to add to your statement.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Which is exactly what Kavanaugh and his supporters did, including many on this forum.
Click to expand...
And yet again a response that doesn’t dispute behaving badly, but only impugns the behavior of others. But when one’s behavior (or that of those they support) is indisputably bad this is the only avenue available.
 
You cannot make the point that your behavior is defensible by claiming that mine is not. How I have or have not behaved says nothing about what you have done. Attacking me is not really a defense of your action; it is merely a justification for bad behavior by claiming you are not alone in behaving badly.
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Which is exactly what Kavanaugh and his supporters did, including many on this forum.
Click to expand...
And yet again a response that doesn’t dispute behaving badly, but only impugns the behavior of others. But when one’s behavior (or that of those they support) is indisputably bad this is the only avenue available.
Click to expand...
The line between “indisputably bad” and “I think it is bad” is a very thin one.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The line between “indisputably bad” and “I think it is bad” is a very thin one.
Click to expand...
That an articulate and intelligent person like yourself cannot look at the way Kavanaugh was treated and readily admit that his treatment was abysmal indicates that the line is disturbingly thick.
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The line between “indisputably bad” and “I think it is bad” is a very thin one.
Click to expand...
That an articulate and intelligent person like yourself cannot look at the way Kavanaugh was treated and readily admit that his treatment was abysmal indicates that the line is disturbingly thick.
Click to expand...
Have you ever seen basketball players fall really hard after contact to make it look like a foul? It is a common tactic. It is perhaps no coincidence that Kavanaugh was captain of his school’s basketball team.
 
😳 Now what do basketball captains have to do with all this,Leaf?
I guess more than one here is scatching their heads wondering what they did wrong this time!
 
Last edited:
It is called “flopping” and it is explained here.

So my reference to basketball is in response to Ender’s claim that Kavanaugh was “fouled” by the Democrats. I was saying that being familiar with how to use flopping to his advantage in basketball, he might realize he could use it to his advantage in these hearing. And judging by the number of people who really believe he was “fouled”, apparently it worked.
 
graciew said:
Now what do basketball captains have to do with all this,Leaf?
I guess more than one here is scatching their heads wondering what they did wrong this time!
Click to expand...
To repeat the comment I made in post 1142:

Liberals have essentially one argument: my opponent is evil.

There are any number of variations on this theme, but this concept underlies virtually every explanation they give (e.g. “flopping”).
 
Same as diving in football/soccer. It really is more common in that sport.
 
Ender said:
40.png
ConstantLearner:
Of course, you will try to justify that. I’ve already posted a long list of Republican misconduct.
Click to expand...
Let me repeat what I said. Perhaps reading it a second time will make it clearer.

“Give us just one example where a Democrat nominee to the Supreme Court was personally attacked like Kavanaugh was.”

The topic here is Supreme Court nominees, and how they are treated during the advise and consent process. So, again: just one example. Surely you can find one.
Click to expand...
I know of a few that should have been, like Roger Taney of Dred Scott fame.
 
Thank you Leaf and Ender
I will better go pick up the balls left around .And leave you to chat in peace.
I may miss some of what is being said. Sorry about that.
Thanks a lot both!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top