Supreme Court Vacancy - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-01-2005, 05:57 PM   #76
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


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)
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 06:05 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 01:30 AM
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?
__________________

__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 06:17 PM   #78
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 06:22 PM   #79
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


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.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 06:52 PM   #80
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


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.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 07:05 PM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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?


Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
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.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 07:10 PM   #82
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:00 AM
I say.....Bill Clinton for the Supreme Court....oh wait...isn't his license to practice law suspended?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 07:26 PM   #83
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:00 PM
it was a temporary suspension


and btw

one of the compromise judicial appointments






Quote:
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.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 08:05 PM   #84
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I say.....Bill Clinton for the Supreme Court....oh wait...isn't his license to practice law suspended?
Hillary still has hers.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 08:33 PM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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?
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.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 08:43 PM   #86
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:00 PM
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 09:22 PM   #87
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
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 is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 09:25 PM   #88
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
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
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 10:36 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:00 AM
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.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 10:40 PM   #90
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com