Supreme Court Vacancy

[BVS]

I know you didn't address the question to me, but may I offer my opinion?

It's not murder. It's a horrible thing, but it's not murder. There are certain situations where it's neccessary. The ability of women to have that choice to make is one of the most important rights you can have. The government should stay the hell out of it. And democrats in congress should put up the fight of their live when Bush nominates whatever world-is-flat conservative he comes up with.

Noooo, don't take his bait!!! Let's actually try and keep a thread on topic for once.

 

[VertigoGal]

Did anyone catch Bork on CNN a few hours ago, making a complete ass of himself? Calling Sandra an activist judge, etc...It scares me to think we might have someone like him on the bench.

 

[BVS]

Did anyone catch Bork on CNN a few hours ago, making a complete ass of himself? Calling Sandra an activist judge, etc...It scares me to think we might have someone like him on the bench.

What the hell are they putting in these people's water.

America is snoring.

 

[XHendrix24]

Noooo, don't take his bait!!! Let's actually try and keep a thread on topic for once.

Arguing over abortion in the Supreme Court Vacancy thread makes baby Jesus cry.

 

[BonosSaint]

As if Reagan's 1984 "mandate" wasn't enough to give them a swift kick in the pants. Or how about a lifelong pampered rich kid successfully defaming two decorated veterans as "unpatriotic" (that's Max Cleland and John Kerry, for those not paying attention)?

I'm pretty much convinced the Democratic Party is in a persistent vegetative state and the only reactions we even continue to see are nothing more than non-conscious, primitive reactions.

Melon

No vision, no organization, no guts, no charisma. No hope. Couldn't agree with you more, Melon. I think Justice O'Connor held out as long as she could. Going to miss her.

Let the filibuster begin. The Democrats are still pretty good at a stalling game. Delay of the inevitable.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Noooo, don't take his bait!!! Let's actually try and keep a thread on topic for once.

Take MY bait? I'm not putting any bait out there. In fact, I'm the one who TOOK the bait. I was simply responding to verte, who said:

"I don't want to tell someone else what their morals should be"

Why is it okay in your mind for someone to say that abortion is a "morals" issue, but when I ask a question regarding that, I am the one derailing the topic?

 

[verte76]

Damn. I normally don't do abortion discussion on the Internet and I did it. It's such a hot button issue, and I'm not going to change anyone's mind. Sorry, that was a screw-up. I can't believe I'm not drunk or something. No excuses, just me being an idiot.

 

[verte76]

I like O'Connor, too. She's a moderate. Her successor, I'm afraid, is going to be an extremist.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Damn. I normally don't do abortion discussion on the Internet and I did it. It's such a hot button issue, and I'm not going to change anyone's mind. Sorry, that was a screw-up. I can't believe I'm not drunk or something. No excuses, just me being an idiot.

Eh, no worries. This thread was doomed to turn into the abortion issue from the get go, and neither you nor I were the ones who brought it up in the first place, anyway. Pax did, on the 3rd post:

"bids fond farewell to reproductive rights"

But I don't mind Pax bringing it up. The biggest issue revolving around this Supreme Court vacancy is abortion, so how can anyone expect it not to be brought up? If Pax or someone else hadn't been the first to bring it up, I would have.

 

[BVS]

Take MY bait? I'm not putting any bait out there. In fact, I'm the one who TOOK the bait. I was simply responding to verte, who said:

"I don't want to tell someone else what their morals should be"

Why is it okay in your mind for someone to say that abortion is a "morals" issue, but when I ask a question regarding that, I am the one derailing the topic?

First of all I've never met anyone who didn't refer to abortion as a "moral" issue. Secondly she didn't get into the specifics of what abortion is or isn't. She just stated where she stood on the issue. If you had just stated where you stood on the subject fine, but you wanted to start getting into the debate as to what you think abortion is, that's the difference I see.

 

[nbcrusader]

secular values are the absence of the endorsement and imposition of *any particular values* by the government.

in that case, secularism is an illusion. The government always imposes a particular set of values.

 

[verte76]

Eh, no worries. This thread was doomed to turn into the abortion issue from the get go, and neither you nor I were the ones who brought it up in the first place, anyway. Pax did, on the 3rd post:

"bids fond farewell to reproductive rights"

But I don't mind Pax bringing it up. The biggest issue revolving around this Supreme Court vacancy is abortion, so how can anyone expect it not to be brought up? If Pax or someone else hadn't been the first to bring it up, I would have.

I agree, abortion is going to be the big issue with this Supreme Court vacancy and someone would have raised it if I hadn't mentioned it. The guess here is that Roe vs. Wade is indeed going to be overturned during this presidential term.

 

[80sU2isBest]

First of all I've never met anyone who didn't refer to abortion as a "moral" issue. Secondly she didn't get into the specifics of what abortion is or isn't. She just stated where she stood on the issue. If you had just stated where you stood on the subject fine, but you wanted to start getting into the debate as to what you think abortion is, that's the difference I see.

For me, it's only a "moral" issue as far as murder is a "moral" issue, the moral being that it's wrong to kill a human being. That was the entire point of my question to her.

Since your problem with I wrote, what you called "bait", is that I made my point in the form of a question, I'll ask you this:

Are you saying that you would have had no problem with me saying "Abortion is murder, and therefore I'm happy that Sandra Day O'Connor will be replaced"?

 

[80sU2isBest]

in that case, secularism is an illusion. The government always imposes a particular set of values.

They sure do. Every law is based on a value.

 

[BVS]

Since your problem with I wrote, what you called "bait", is that I made my point in the form of a question, I'll ask you this:

Are you saying that you would have had no problem with me saying "Abortion is murder, and therefore I'm happy that Sandra Day O'Connor will be replaced"?

A simple "I don't believe in abortion therefore..." would have sufficed.

I think in threads like this, arguing about whether it should be called this or that etc should be left out, because then you start talking about the issue of abortion and not the Supreme Court. In a thread about abortion talk about it all you want, but not in here. That goes for both sides...but that's just my opinion.

 

[BVS]

They sure do. Every law is based on a value.

But some are universal values and some are strictly religious.

Stealing = bad = law(universal)

2 women marrying = because my religion says = law(religous)

 

[trevster2k]

I guess Canada should start preparing for more visitors besides gays and lesbians in the coming years according to the speculation in this thread.

Regarding the vacancy, what happens now, does Bush make a recommendation to Congress, they bitch amongst themselves about it, and then the Senate and back to Bush or what?

 

[80sU2isBest]

But some are universal values and some are strictly religious.

Stealing = bad = law(universal)

2 women marrying = because my religion says = law(religous)

From where do the "universal" laws originate?

 

[BVS]

From where do the "universal" laws originate?

Mostly common sense and centuries of history. Laws are in constant evolution, due to changing of technology, bigotries(getting over and forming of new ones), etc, it's the beauty of our constitution. Our fore fathers knew there weren't absolutes and that government would be constantly changing.

 

[Irvine511]

in that case, secularism is an illusion. The government always imposes a particular set of values.

let me clarify -- secularism allows for the coexistence of a plurality of values that are elastic and dynamic.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Mostly common sense and centuries of history. Laws are in constant evolution, due to changing of technology, bigotries(getting over and forming of new ones), etc, it's the beauty of our constitution.

But where did the common sense that murder is wrong start? Murder, as in sacrifice of babies and virgins, wasn't wrong to many an ancient civilization. Why?

Our fore fathers knew there weren't absolutes and that government would be constantly changing.

Our forefathers knew that absolutes didn't exist? I don't know what would lead you to that conclusion.

 

[Dreadsox]

I say.....Bill Clinton for the Supreme Court....oh wait...isn't his license to practice law suspended?

 

[deep]

it was a temporary suspension


and btw

one of the compromise judicial appointments

Judicial Nominee Practiced Law Without License in Utah

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer


Thomas B. Griffith, President Bush's nominee for the federal appeals court in Washington, has been practicing law in Utah without a state law license for the past four years, according to Utah state officials.

 

[anitram]

I say.....Bill Clinton for the Supreme Court....oh wait...isn't his license to practice law suspended?

Hillary still has hers.

 

[BonosSaint]

I guess Canada should start preparing for more visitors besides gays and lesbians in the coming years according to the speculation in this thread.

Regarding the vacancy, what happens now, does Bush make a recommendation to Congress, they bitch amongst themselves about it, and then the Senate and back to Bush or what?

Something like that. Bush nominates someone who will take the country back 100 years. He might choose a woman or possibly a Hispanic. The Democrats protest. Talk radio says "The Democrats are holier than thou about being the party for minorities, but they are the ones who do not want to see Hispanics rise to a place of power. They are the ones keeping the minorities down. This is the first President... The Republicans are truly the party of inclusion." Bitter battle ensues.
Republicans act bewildered about why the Democrats are obstructionist, that the President is looking simply for a straight up and down vote--which is the only thing provided for in the Constitution. The President is only looking for a strict constructionist and the Democrats want activist judges
The President makes speeches, sounding alternately angry and bewildered as to why these nasty Democrats are thwarting his will, for which he has a mandate. More nasty talk between the parties. Attempted filibuster. Threat of nuclear option. Democrats talk tough and then cave. Filibuster ends after Democrats make token protest to save face, no nuclear option and Bush gets his candidate.

 

[deep]

 

[melon]

But where did the common sense that murder is wrong start? Murder, as in sacrifice of babies and virgins, wasn't wrong to many an ancient civilization. Why?

3000 years ago, the answer was "just because." But we aren't living 3000 years ago anymore. We know have about 300 years of solid secular philosophy and extremely high education. 3000 years ago, the sun rose and set "just because." Today, we know exactly why that happens and explain it according to modern knowledge.

Whereas religion is exclusionary and sets laws based on the "just because" principle to the point that many wars and mass genocides have been declared on the excluded, classical liberalism operated on the principle that one should have maximum freedom, but that "freedom" should not be extended to infringe on others' rights to life, liberty and happiness.

As such, murder is wrong, because it is an infringement on others' rights to life. And, indeed, I would say that would lead to a secular debate on the merits of legalizing or decriminalizing abortion, depending on how you define "life." But in most circumstances, secular humanism allows for everything from religious freedom to sexual freedom, as long as it involves consenting adults and does not infringe on others' rights to life, liberty, and happiness in the process.

Melon

 

[melon]

Our forefathers knew that absolutes didn't exist? I don't know what would lead you to that conclusion.

Let's put it this way. Our Founding Fathers did not believe in religious absolutes.

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

-- John Adams, "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-1788)

Melon

 

[80sU2isBest]

melon, that's just one fella, and I don't see anything in that dealing with "no religious absolutes". Maybe you could say that what Adams is getting at is that no man knows how God would want a government run, and maybe, therefore, that man cannot know religious absolutes regarding governement, but there is nothing in there that even hints that Adams believes religious absolutes don 't exist.

 

[melon]

melon, that's just one fella, and I don't see anything in that dealing with "no religious absolutes". Maybe you could say that what Adams is getting at is that no man knows how God would want a government run, and maybe, therefore, that man cannot know religious absolutes regarding governement, but there is nothing in there that even hints that Adams believes religious absolutes don 't exist.

As long as his governmental sensibilities are officially neutral, why would I even care what he believed in his private life? That's the beauty of separation of church and state for those who take it seriously.

Melon