|
hobbesmaster posted:Its literally the job of a judge so like thats the answer you'd expect for them to be qualified? Justices should know common law, even if we grant that we're not talking about specific state laws Or does the bar exam not cover that any more
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 01:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
We're talking about a woman who wrote an opinion that the involvement of the n- bomb in a workplace does not necessarily imply that the workplace is hostile. Guys, we really don't need to dig deep into ACB. It is all there, on the surface and in her copious legal opinions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 01:08
|
|
|
Flappy Bert posted:Kagan was Solicitor General so she wasn't purely in acedemia, but she was never a judge at all, was that as bad? solicitor general is still involved in practicing law; i'm not saying there should be hard or fast rules or strict qualifications, and obviously i'm more okay with kagan because her beliefs align with me more ideologically, but my point is acb is not getting this position on merit. it's to Own The Libs. i also think it's fine to have a diverse background of professions on the supreme court provided there is some meritorious reason that they should be allowed to render country changing legal opinions. but acb practiced law for a combined six years (three in private practice, three on the bench). kagan served as an attorney in private practice for about five years and worked alongside the senate judiciary committee and had several other white house appointments as counsel and also served as part of goldman sachs' legal department, and was due to be appointed as a federal judge before orrin hatch killed it (the more things change am i right?). she also had never argued a case in court before she was solicitor general. but at the end of the day, these are my opinions. they're not absolute. i am also prone to my own biases, as i would likely oppose kagan if she had the exact same resume but was a heritage foundation ghoul. but, for what it's worth, noted dead guy antonin scalia publicly lobbied for obama to nominate kagan to replace stevens when he retired, so whatever my opinions are, her credentials were up to that rear end in a top hat's snuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 01:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/theferocity/status/1316481343732224002?s=21
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 01:57
|
|
|
JordanKai posted:Cult or not, she signed a lifelong covenant. That alone should be 100% disqualifying. If you have sworn an oath to a private entity, that means you have loyalties to forces besides the people of the United States of America, which is not acceptable for a lifetime appointment of such massive power. In your opinion, should any Catholic who has undergone the sacrament of confirmation be disqualified, then? What about a Muslim who has sworn to obey Allah? There may be good reasons for which she is a bad candidate, but "is a Catholic" isn't among them unless you believe public servants should be atheists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 05:13
|
|
|
ACB isn't just tied to general catholicism tho, she's tied to an ultra-orthodox sect called People of Praise. the general reverence for paganistic beliefs over atheistic, supportable ones is not founded, if paganistic beliefs are considered sacrosanct for justices then humanistic beliefs should be as well. humanistic beliefs aren't and unless we're going to broach that subject now, with legal force and future effect, then paganistic beliefs shouldn't be either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 05:28
|
|
|
how catholic is the cult though, are they like "the pope is a lie, vatican 2 is heresy, the holy see has been occupied by pretenders after pius xii, restore communion for the mafia" or just the pedestrian "women are chattel, kids are toys, stay the gently caress out of our finances" stuff?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 06:00
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:If there's something someone who has been keeping up on the last four -- or seventy -- years of American history: Are you saying that people shouldn't be judged or categorized by superficial differences like skin color, but instead by their actions and the content of their character?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 06:31
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:Please correct me if I am wrong, as I'm not an expert on the subject, but wouldn't an ethnonationalist be against the idea of adopting children who are of a different ethnicity? It signals colorblind ideology to the gullible, and making "one of theirs" "white on the inside" to the cynical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 06:34
|
|
|
There is also (sometimes) some weird savior poo poo with religious people adopting kids from poorer countries. Even if they love the kid and treat them well, the underlying motivation is to demonstrate the power and superiority of the rich white parents, and the lower status and inferiority of the race / nationality of the kid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 07:25
|
|
|
Flappy Bert posted:Kagan was Solicitor General so she wasn't purely in acedemia, but she was never a judge at all, was that as bad?   Potato Salad posted:We're talking about a woman who wrote an opinion that the involvement of the n- bomb in a workplace does not necessarily imply that the workplace is hostile. Also that a college student losing his scholarship for raping a classmate was an example of anti-male bias. FronzelNeekburm fucked around with this message at 10:19 on Oct 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 10:17
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:how catholic is the cult though, are they like "the pope is a lie, vatican 2 is heresy, the holy see has been occupied by pretenders after pius xii, restore communion for the mafia" or just the pedestrian "women are chattel, kids are toys, stay the gently caress out of our finances" stuff? People of Praise is what's called Charismatic Catholicism; aka they practice speaking in tongues, weekly or more prayer groups, and encouraging their members to house and feed other members who are in need. So they're Catholics with a healthy dose of Evangelical (The ones that play with snakes). They're not sedes by any imagination. JordanKai posted:Cult or not, she signed a lifelong covenant. That alone should be 100% disqualifying. If you have sworn an oath to a private entity, that means you have loyalties to forces besides the people of the United States of America, which is not acceptable for a lifetime appointment of such massive power. Article 1 Section 6? Kazak_Hstan posted:There is also (sometimes) some weird savior poo poo with religious people adopting kids from poorer countries. Even if they love the kid and treat them well, the underlying motivation is to demonstrate the power and superiority of the rich white parents, and the lower status and inferiority of the race / nationality of the kid. That's a pretty cynical reading into people seeing in the news "woah there are people in need, let's help some orphans and adopt." The world is a better place with more adoptions, not less. There's plenty of legitimate things to criticize ACB over, this thread's drive to read into every single part of her life and actions these last three days and contribute them to evil or racist motivations (From her smile, forgetting part of an Amendment after 30+ hours of intense testimony, to her adoption) is just weird. Court cases and rulings perfectly legit targets, her kids and reasons to adopt? Nah. Can we just leave her kids out of this? Crazy Joe Wilson fucked around with this message at 11:18 on Oct 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 11:08
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:Can we just leave her kids out of this? Sure. She's disqualified on the basis of her law practice alone. The kids thing is a side story. Also oh boy, white savior trophy "they were so malnourished when we got him/her" adopted kids. That's a thing, also yikes her statement about her biological kids vs her adopted kids.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 13:05
|
|
|
Let's not get into talking about her kids. There's an incredible amount of awful and downright disqualifying info about her already, there's no need to drag her family into it - especially when there's not actually anything bad about her family and it's just goons wanting to get really fuckin weird about a bad conservative white person having black family members.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 14:10
|
|
|
Does ACB have any on-record statements about legalized divorce?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 14:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/1316487184443158530
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 15:24
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:The world is a better place with more adoptions, not less. There's plenty of legitimate things to criticize ACB over, this thread's drive to read into every single part of her life and actions these last three days and contribute them to evil or racist motivations (From her smile, forgetting part of an Amendment after 30+ hours of intense testimony, to her adoption) is just weird. Court cases and rulings perfectly legit targets, her kids and reasons to adopt? Nah. Main Paineframe posted:Let's not get into talking about her kids. There's an incredible amount of awful and downright disqualifying info about her already, there's no need to drag her family into it - especially when there's not actually anything bad about her family and it's just goons wanting to get really fuckin weird about a bad conservative white person having black family members. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 15:25
|
|
|
If someone is to wear robes, carry a gavel, and work in a temple as a priest, they should be loyal to the god the temple serves. Barret thinks that our temples to the law are temples to HER god. Her belief is that the laws of her false god, the god that can be debunked by reading the Bible, are supreme over the law she has sworn to enforce. She's a liar who wants to start a second Nullification Crisis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 15:49
|
|
|
Big Hubris posted:Her belief is that the laws of her false god, the god that can be debunked by reading the Bible, are supreme over the law she has sworn to enforce. She's a liar who wants to start a second Nullification Crisis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 16:49
|
|
|
Barrett's membership in a cult is the fight Republicans want to have over her. The reality is that her legal beliefs alone qualify her as a nutjob, regardless of her religious beliefs. She's not going to be the next Scalia, she's going to be the next Clarence Thomas, constantly writing bizarre opinions that are technically sound but only valid if you accept her nutbar axioms. The problem is that a majority of the court will concur with her for partisan reasons. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Oct 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 17:03
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:At this point, you're basically attacking her for her religious beliefs. I think that's uncalled for. That's dumb, religious beliefs are just like any other beliefs and equally worthy of criticism.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 17:29
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:At this point, you're basically attacking her for her religious beliefs. I think that's uncalled for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 17:31
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:She's not going to be the next Scalia, she's going to be the next Clarence Thomas, constantly writing bizarre opinions that are technically sound but only valid if you accept her nutbar axioms. The problem is that a majority of the court will concur with her for partisan reasons. Well, to be clear if it turns out that way it will be the partisans who write the opinions with her writing a grumpy concurrence calling the majority out as a bunch of cowards for not going further. Thomas rarely gets to write any important opinions, he gets all the easy 8-1, 9-0 opinions because his bizarre opinions cant hold a 5-4..
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
The rise of evanglicalism is IMO directly a consequence of Brown in that the southern church remained the last socially and legally acceptable place to segregate. The blossoming of church affiliated schools in the south is a plain demonstration. Fun to note, Louisiana de-segregated public education during reconstruction and the exact same thing happened. Religion especially in the south is utterly political. Hell its the reason why “southern” baptism is a thing at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
Lol way to just roll over
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 17:57
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Lol way to just roll over It's not rolling over to know that you're not going to get a different answer. Getting a "doesn't believe in science" answer is as good as you're going to get, so you move on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Lol way to just roll over What are you expecting her to do? Leap over the table with a ballpoint pen and try to stab her in the eye? What does "not rolling over" look like?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
You can point out it's only a "debate" because one side is rejecting reality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:Please correct me if I am wrong, as I'm not an expert on the subject, but wouldn't an ethnonationalist be against the idea of adopting children who are of a different ethnicity? Bioshuffle posted:I found it really jarring to see the sexism out on full display. Children would have never even entered the picture if this was a male nominee. Thanks for putting a stop to this. If that's how you feel, on behalf of the thread I accept your apology for trying to utilize her children to your rhetorical ends. It truly was sexist and abhorrent of you and I'll thank you to never do so again. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:You can point out it's only a "debate" because one side is rejecting reality. Maybe the audience should be trusted to be smart enough to make this connection themselves?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
I thought it was one of Harris' best responses, but seeing as how these things tend to be scripted in advance with the assistance of staffers, it might have been better as "You've made your point clear that you disagree with 99% of climate scientists on it being a debatable point." galenanorth fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Oct 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Maybe the audience should be trusted to be smart enough to make this connection themselves? Really digging deep for a reason to attack the perfectly reasonable thing Harris said there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Lol way to just roll over Yeah this cowardice from Harris really sucks to see
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
Rigel posted:What are you expecting her to do? Leap over the table with a ballpoint pen and try to stab her in the eye? What does "not rolling over" look like? Push back, even the tiniest bit
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 20:00
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Push back, even the tiniest bit Uhhh, she did. Her questioning was crafted to make her look like a crazy nutjob. It is not necessary to explain in detail why the sky is blue to an idiot when the audience watching the question knows the sky is blue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 20:03
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:That's a pretty cynical reading into people seeing in the news "woah there are people in need, let's help some orphans and adopt." I am speaking from watching my right wing Southern Baptist family’s involvement and support for adoptions and missionary work in Africa. I don’t know or care why Barrett adopted kids, but she’s never done anything to earn any benefit of the doubt so I’m not going to waste time giving her any. And no, she’s going to do everything she can to destroy any “non-traditional” family she can, so gently caress her family. She wants gay kids to be forced so far back into the closet they hang themselves in their bedrooms. gently caress her kids.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Push back, even the tiniest bit Jesus gently caress. You mean like saying "so you think the existence of climate change is a matter for debate?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Uhhh, she did. Her questioning was crafted to make her look like a crazy nutjob. It is not necessary to explain in detail why the sky is blue to an idiot when the audience watching the question knows the sky is blue. You know it's a lovely post when it starts with a mouth-breathing, sarcastic 'uhhh.' (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1316805807753879555
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Push back, even the tiniest bit "You've made it clear that you believe the existence of this undeniably existent thing is somehow up for debate." I know it's not the world's biggest zinger, and the dig is a bit subtle, but you did ask for the tiniest bit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 20:49
|
|
