Justice Antonin Scalia, RIP. Next up: nuclear :football: time!
-
the same concerns with the last Bush.
Dammit....
Bush is a liberal.
Everything he did that the Democrats hated, Obama doubled-down on.
-
They'll gladly ignore all the stuff that they don't like (e.g. all the places that support socialism)
Show me where socialism is supported in the Bible.
I see capitalism heavily supported. Rich kings, Job getting richer, Abraham getting richer, Solomon getting richer. I see Jesus using parables that supports capitalism (the vineyard owner, the 1/5/10 talents, the barn builder, the wedding, the shrewd manager).
Oh yeah, and good luck getting past heaven's border control.
Jesus supported charity. But charity is not socialist in the least.
People inject ideas into Jesus because it makes for a good shaming stick.
-
Except Obama... he can do what he wants... there's no reason to oppose anything he does.
He can propose people to be a new member of the SCOTUS. That's one thing that he's allowed to do according to the constitution. However, mere nomination doesn't mean that the nominee will get the post; there is a confirmation process that involves the senate. That's also in the rules. Whether the president and the senate can between them find a mutually acceptable candidate is a separate matter, though the current trend of “whatever else happens, do not agree with the other side” does not make me hopeful.
In the meantime, the SCOTUS will only have eight justices serving on it and will so be capable of deadlock. (There might be a legal process for handling this situation, but I don't know it.) Whether it actually deadlocks will depend on the cases brought; if there is never deadlock then the absence of Antonin Scalia won't make much difference as he couldn't have swayed anything one way or the other (since adding 1 to 5-3 on either side won't change which side has the majority).
To propose that the president refrain from doing something he is constitutionally-empowered to do just because there's an election coming up in a few months… that's just… Well, put it like this: Obama isn't @boomzilla and so ought to do his job at least some of the time.
-
Show me where socialism is supported in the Bible.
I think they'd likely take heart from things like this:
-
In the meantime, the SCOTUS will only have eight justices serving on it and will so be capable of deadlock. (There might be a legal process for handling this situation, but I don't know it.) Whether it actually deadlocks will depend on the cases brought; if there is never deadlock then the absence of Antonin Scalia won't make much difference as he couldn't have swayed anything one way or the other (since adding 1 to 5-3 on either side won't change which side has the majority).
And Justices occasionally abstain from a case. I think it's not entirely clear what will happen in the case of a tied vote.
-
though the current trend of “whatever else happens, do not agree with the other side” does not make me hopeful.
Why would you want to be hopeful.
My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage. - Sonia
Now replace gender or ethnicity with religion or replace the ethnicity with white. Watch people go up in arms.
"But I accept there will be some based on me being a man and me being white".
No, you should be saying. "I will not let my background or other biases affect my decisions."
But Obama didn't select people on their ability to ignore their background.
-
I think they'd likely take heart from things like this:
Cleansing of the Temple
Holy reading comprehension Batman!
Did he also rip off the walls of the temple because people were paid by King Solomon to build it, you know that guy that owned everything because he was King?
He was pissed off at them because they were selling sacrifices for profit, and gouging people, at the temple. It was the worship of God they were profiting off of.
God's said in many places that gouging prices is wrong.
He'd also turn over the tables of all of these evangelical send-me-money-now-and-you'll-be-rich preachers.
-
Show me where socialism is supported in the Bible.
I was specifically thinking of the pretty loose concept of land ownership. You weren't able to purchase someone's land, you could only rent it until the next Jubilee year. At that time, the land was returned to the person/family that you rented it from. The underlying theological concept was that people couldn't own land, but that the land was only "owned" by God. Socially, the purpose was to prevent ending up with a wealthy class of land owners and a class of poor, homeless people.
There are other laws that forced redistribution of wealth. If you were wealthy, you were required to lend money (with no interest) to others who couldn't afford basic necessities*. Farmers also weren't allowed to harvest all of their crops; you had to leave a portion of your fields for the poor to come and gather food.
* As a side note, this law is where the idea that Jews can only charge interest to non-Jews came from; a few thousand years ago, the unstated assumption was that a Jew who asked to borrow money was a fellow citizen who needed the money to survive, while a non-Jew who asked to borrow money was a travelling merchant looking for commercial investment. Obviously, this assumption doesn't hold anymore.
-
I was specifically thinking of the pretty loose concept of land ownership.
But the king replied to Araunah, "No, I insist on paying you for it. I will not sacrifice to the LORD my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing." So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen and paid fifty shekels of silver for them. 2 Samuel 24:24
Jeremiah 32
8 “Then my cousin Hanamel came to the guard’s courtyard as the Lord had said and urged me, ‘Please buy my field in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin, for you own the right of inheritance and redemption. Buy it for yourself.’ Then I knew that this was the word of the Lord.Farmers also weren't allowed to harvest all of their crops; you had to leave a portion of your fields for the poor to come and gather food.
That's called a tax.
Socialism is telling the farmer that he doesn't own anything, and letting anyone plant on that land whatever they want.
-
White House says Obama ‘regrets’ filibuster against Samuel
The White House said Wednesday that President Obama "regrets" his filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito in 2006, but insisted the situation was different than Republicans
The White House said Wednesday that President Obama “regrets” his filibuster as a senator in 2006 against Republican Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, as Democrats and liberal activists gear up to pressure Senate Republicans to allow a vote on Mr. Obama’s eventual nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
No kidding?
-
Oh, no, they'll say he didn't participate in the filibuster. And that there was no filibuster...
It doesn't matter anyway.
Everyone that gets a vote on the candidate should be able to choose freely.
Recent double-speak has it to where being against Obama is being a traitor.
Tell a foreign country that executive order is temporary. Treason.
Stall Obama. Treason.He's an ideological dictator for some of these liberals.
They, of course, also bitched and moaned at Bush's executive orders, Bush's wars in the Middle East, Bush's spending, Bush's amnesty, Bush's trickle down.
But when banks are too big to fail, Obama has a line of exec orders, Obama fights in the Middle East without even a vote from Congress....
He's a liberal hero.
-
Oh, no, they'll say he didn't participate in the filibuster. And that there was no filibuster...
>The White House said Wednesday that President Obama “regrets” his filibuster as a senator in 2006
-
Bush was not a "lame duck president" in 2006, not according to the usual definition, as he was still on the first half of his second term.
The Democrats were the minority party, with no hope of blocking the nomination.
Most of the Democrats did not support the filibuster; it wasn't supported by the leadership and 20 of them voted with the Republicans for cloture. (Yes, I know that's a 25/20 split, but voting against cloture is only the same as supporting a filibuster if there is hope of a filibuster.)
There was no filibuster.
Why would you present such a lame-ass example and try to sell it as anything like consistent with what the Republicans are proposing now? Oh, never mind, I forgot, ObamaaaAAA!!! did it.There was no filibuster
Like I said.
-
Like I said.
Oh...well...it's just pointing out that Obama isn't included in:
>Most of the Democrats did not support the filibuster;
-
If someone wants to place the ten commandments on the front of a congressional building, it's not establishing a legal religion.
It's inappropriate for religion to have any part of law, lawmaking or public policy decisions. Even the appearance, such as prayers before parliamentary sessions, or prayers or quotes of scriptures during official duties, is inappropriate. It's a clear conflict of interest of the most profound and corrupt kind.
-
I hope Sanders gets the nomination, myself. He's an old deluded crank
Doesn't this apply to all of the Republican candidates too?
basically honest and not a crook
I guess not.
-
It's inappropriate for religion to have any part of law, lawmaking or public policy decisions. Even the appearance, such as prayers before parliamentary sessions, or prayers or quotes of scriptures during official duties, is inappropriate. It's a clear conflict of interest of the most profound and corrupt kind.
Then we fucked up before we began... with all the founding fathers in Congress holding services and praying.
Or, maybe that's just your interpretation that clashes with the documents that the people who wrote it.
Oh I get it...
Interpretation has nothing to do with the original intent and meaning. It has everything to do with fitting the document to your own worldview.
quotes of scriptures
Good luck with avoiding that one.
A lot of common phrases come from Proverbs.
-
Doesn't this apply to all of the Republican candidates too?
No. They're all pretty young compared to him. Trump is kind of nuts. He's stopped saying super liberal things for the last year or so, but I don't believe that he's really over that crap.
I guess not.
The best guy in the race right now is Cruz. I think he's too young and inexperienced, to be frank, but he's miles ahead of everyone else otherwise. Aside from maybe Sanders, he's the guy I think who is most willing to stand up for what he believes in. Fortunately, he by and large believes in the right thing, so that's pretty cool.
It's inappropriate for religion to have any part of law, lawmaking or public policy decisions.
This sounds pretty insane, honestly. If religious can't guide a person's conscience and so forth, then you're no better than a state with a compulsory religion.
Even the appearance, such as prayers before parliamentary sessions, or prayers or quotes of scriptures during official duties, is inappropriate. It's a clear conflict of interest of the most profound and corrupt kind.
Heartily disagree.
-
He was pissed off at them because they were selling sacrifices for profit, and gouging people, at the temple. It was the worship of God they were profiting off of.
God's said in many places that gouging prices is wrong.
He'd also turn over the tables of all of these evangelical send-me-money-now-and-you'll-be-rich preachers.
And the Catholic church.
Well...most churches actually...
All of them but the really poor ones.
-
All of them but the really poor ones.
I would say it would be more like all of them but the ones that focus on ministry.
It's ok to have a grand church building, as long as you're using it to take care of needs and reach people.
You are not required to be poor to be faithful.
-
Then we fucked up before we began
Well, yes. You didn't do much worse than anyone else at the time though.
Or, maybe that's just your interpretation that clashes with the documents that the people who wrote it.
Which document(s)?
A lot of common phrases come from Proverbs.
That's not what I meant and you know it. A common phrase, devoid of religious meaning, is just a cultural artifact. Language drifts over time, especially English, and origins of phrases are often lost.
Quoting scripture and intending the full religious meaning is a very different thing.
-
-
Well, yes. You didn't do much worse than anyone else at the time though.
Well, unless you want to rewrite the constitution, you have to live within the original meaning.
Interpreting it to "fit the times" is not the original intention either.
Interpreting it to fit the context is however. If you have copyright laws when there were only books, then you have to interpret it now that we have the internet.
But you don't start changing what "no laws... a religion ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means to fit an atheist paradise. The establishment clause doesn't supersede the free exercise clause. And establishment does not mean acting on conviction.
If acting on conviction due to personal beliefs is establishing a religion, then you really only allow atheists to act freely.
If you want to change it such that the establishment clause refers to people acting on personal conviction and not setting up an official religion as government, then you need to start a new nation.
And you know full well that this is what they meant, because the context is clear, they were escaping a country, at the time, that was historically run by religious authority.
-
Actually, atheism wasn't even thought of in the original framework.
Multiple parallel interpretations of monotheism was.
So you couldn't say that everyone MUST be a protestant. But having religious symbolism on government grounds fits well within the intention and framework.
-
Quoting scripture and intending the full religious meaning is a very different thing.
But, what else will people say when a Christian President happens to say something found in Proverbs.
If scripture isn't allowed in office, you know full well people are going to abuse that concept to pin people down like a reverse salem witch trial.
-
He's stopped saying super liberal things
If religious can't guide a person's conscience and so forth, then you're no better than a state with a compulsory religion.
A person who needs religion to guide them is morally bankrupt, and your statement about compulsory religion is a non-sequitor.
Heartily disagree.
Because you suffer from the corrupting influence I'm talking about. I don't expect to be able to explain it to you in a way that you understand.
-
Well, unless you want to rewrite the constitution
Which constitution are you talking about? Most of them define a modification process. Ours is likely to be modified in the near(ish) future when Liz carks it and Charlie takes over.
-
Ours defines rights with the first amendment.
Rights are required to enforce an allowable range on laws.
-
I was sitting in the cafe eating lunch today, and saw the TV across the room had Fox News on it. They were complaining about Obama saying he wouldn't be attending the funeral. The scrolling text at the bottom read, "First time since 1954 that a President has not attended the funeral for a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court."
I immediately thought, "Hm, I wonder how many sitting Justices have died since 1954? There was Rhenquist a few years back, but that's all I remember. Knowing Fox News, it was probably nobody."
So, I looked it up. Other than Rhenquist, the last sitting Justice who died in office was in 1954.
-
A person who needs religion to guide them is morally bankrupt, and your statement about compulsory religion is a non-sequitor.
TDEMSYR
Because you suffer from the corrupting influence I'm talking about. I don't expect to be able to explain it to you in a way that you understand.
So you assume. I don't expect you can explain it in a way that makes sense either. Prejudice is like that.
-
A person who needs religion to guide them is morally bankrupt, and your statement about compulsory religion is a non-sequitor.
The statements that apply to day to day interaction can be divorced from the religion. Therefore, you're basically saying that if a person needs instruction to make moral choices they are morally bankrupt.
Unless you mean if a person needs the reward of heaven or the punishment of hell to persuade them, then they are morally bankrupt.
At which I ask you, what is a prison system? Is it not the punishment of imprisonment?
The concept of an afterlife isn't to put fear into people, a death without an afterlife is something to be more afraid of. What is nonexistence? Certainly more scary than any hell that God can devise.
The fear of hell is naive and only lasts as long as someone who chooses to sit in on church twice a year will comprehend. It is the burden of sin where people are convicted to have morals. To me this is far more deep of a conviction than any secular reasoning.
The concept of an afterlife is to give hope to people that their accomplishments are long-lasting. You can find the same sense of woe from an atheist if you told them that someone specifically chose to undo each of their actions no matter what they chose and erase their name from history. People want to leave a legacy, and religion gives them that hope.
In the end the draw to religion has very little to do with morals. If you aren't a moral person, you won't be attracted to religion.
I don't expect to be able to explain it to you in a way that you understand.
People who think that understanding means agreeing, because if we just "understood" then we would agree, because they are awesome and everything they think of is a great idea.
If that's the case, then I'd be willing to wager that any third party is going to find that attitude to be more suspect than someone who has taken the time to "understand" your ideas and chose to throw them in the trash.
-
So, I looked it up. Other than Rhenquist, the last sitting Justice who died in office was in 1954.
The only difference I've found between Fox and other news sources, isn't how many times they lie, but how often they apologize when caught lying.
I'm still waiting for CNN to bite that bullet. Nope, they just pretend they didn't say it.
Not saying that makes Fox any better...
Just saying, it's funny when people catch Fox lying and say "those rascals!"
My memory brings up the absolute paranoia MSNBC had of non-toxic tarballs during the BP oilspill.
"These deadly tarballs are coming up on our beaches."
Yeah, it's the gulf, they're more concerned about tourism than actual danger to the environment.
I remember the unions getting mad at volunteers that tried to help clean up. Those volunteers are taking our jobs!!!
-
I think it's not entirely clear what will happen in the case of a tied vote.
Well, generally, the lower court ruling stands.
-
It's inappropriate for religion to have any part of law
Mmm, why don't you try explaining that to, say, the Saudis, Mr searching-under-the-streetlight?
-
if a person needs instruction to make moral choices they are morally bankrupt.
Yes.
if a person needs the reward of heaven or the punishment of hell to persuade them, then they are morally bankrupt.
Yes.
what is a prison system? Is it not the punishment of imprisonment?
Yes.
What is nonexistence? Certainly more scary than any hell that God can devise.
No. Before I existed I was nothing. After I cease existing I will be nothing.
It is the burden of sin where people are convicted to have morals. To me this is far more deep of a conviction than any secular reasoning.
Some higher authority told you what actions are wrong and that you should feel bad?
People want to leave a legacy, and religion gives them that hope.
Weak people. Live the life you've got because there's nothing else.
If you aren't a moral person, you won't be attracted to religion.
Holy fuck, the ignorance!
-
Mmm, why don't you try explaining that to, say, the Saudis, Mr searching-under-the-streetlight?
What makes you think that anything I've said doesn't also apply to the Saudi theocracy?
-
#BREAKING: OBAMA MURDERED SCALIA
#NEXT UP: HILLARY CLINTON MURDERED SCALIA
#AFTER THAT: BERNIE SANDERS MURDERED SCALIA
#TOMORROW'S LEAD: SCALIA MURDERED IN DEM CONSPIRACY
-
Put an Atheist on the Supreme Court.
Our strange attitudes about atheism warp our politics and our laws. It’s time to remove the stigma attached to it. One way to do that is by appointing an atheist to the Supreme Court. Happily, such an appointment would be a tribute to the spirit, if not the letter, of one of Scalia’s last opinions. More than that, it would be a tribute to the secular principles upon which this country was founded.
-
This sounds pretty insane, honestly. If religious can't guide a person's conscience and so forth, then you're no better than a state with a compulsory religion.
Worse, actually, because there's no objection to having a secular belief system guide policy.
-
What makes you think that anything I've said doesn't also apply to the Saudi theocracy?
Well, around here, people deliberately misconstrue what people say and assume all kinds of things about the scope of same. Therefore you must have been fine with the Saudis doing whatever it is.
/blakeyrat
-
-
-
@boomzilla said:
politics
But but supreme court is supposed to be non-political.
I'm not the one unsarcastically advocating choosing the next Justice based on identity.
-
BREAKING: OBAMA MURDERED SCALIA
This just answers sooooooooooooo many questions. It all makes sense now.
-
Holy fuck, the ignorance!
I'm not meaning to say immoral people aren't attracted to religion, for whatever purpose they have in mind. Usually if people have no moral fiber in their being, they aren't going to be interested in religion. Of course, if I say that in absolutes, then you'll just call me ignorant.
I'm pretty confident that most people, no matter how evil they appear, are driven by some form of conviction.
Even Hitler had moral convictions. They were just wrong.
Quite often, when you find some terrible actions like that, you'll find a person who has convinced themselves that some demographic is not human or subhuman or deserve the treatment they are getting.
Very few people are comic book villains.
Some higher authority told you what actions are wrong and that you should feel bad?
That's not how it works.
People don't just walk into church and someone says, "Murder is bad" and the person says, "Le GASP, I never knew".
You're impression of religious people is very ill informed, two dimensional, and severely naive.
I could make the same naive impression of people guided by convictions that aren't religious. I find that a lot of secular people are driven by guilt. And guilt as a reason to behave could fall under your measure of moral bankruptcy. It is a selfish form of morality.
But now we're getting into philosophical arguments, where any action no matter how "selfless" can be presented as "selfish" because of the fact that people find following their convictions rewarding.
Ironically, you're onto something though, because everyone is morally bankrupt as you describe. It's just that, in their own echo chamber, each person convinces themselves that they are moral and other people are not.
Weak people. Live the life you've got because there's nothing else.
Yes, just as everyone is morally bankrupt, everyone is also emotionally weak.
You're level of acceptable moral and convictions seems to sit at a robot level.
-
BREAKING: OBAMA MURDERED SCALIA
I can find any lunatic to paint any group as insane.
-
Worse, actually, because there's no objection to having a secular belief system guide policy.
I fail to see it as superior. In fact, how does anyone have any moral conviction. It simply becomes what is best for the group competing with what's best for the individual.
One might make logical and scientific arguments for choices made, but why would one care for a person halfway across the world?
I'm convinced that they simply don't. Often the people on the other side of the world carry a different opinion or set of beliefs or even want to kill you, but in your own mind you build a representation of them that you find appealing.
In other words, you're really just caring for / wanting to help a figment of your imagination.
Of course, that level of care stops once it no longer benefits yourself. There has to be some benefit. Even the person caring for another that is current in the process of killing them, is benefiting from appeasement of their moral conviction. So it is simply a matter of the strength of the conviction on how far one would be willing to go.
In this way, being told what to care about, and producing that on your own are little different from each other.
But of course, at some point everyone is given their morals. It's built up by information that you've accepted and rejected. You don't create information. Something instills a value to life other than your own. Babies are rather selfish beings.
To say that one can be superior by finding conviction on their own, is just to produce an echo chamber, because, of course, one finds their own morals to be superior, if one cares to be a moral person. But even if one did find an acceptable morality, or one that has people convinced is superior, it would simply be a matter of random chance.
To convince someone that another decision is morally superior, you have to show how their current moral system contradicts itself. You have to give them something they will agree with. They have to believe their current system is flawed.
Even thieves have a code of honor.
-
-
Does this make it all better now?
I shit you not, I had intended to post that earlier but got sidetracked.
Yes, I was going to post it as a joke.
-
Yes, I was going to post it as a joke.
Care to vote on which candidate we hear it from first?
[poll]
- Jeb Bush
- Ben Carson
- Ted Cruz
- John Kasich
- Marco Rubio
- Donald Trump
[/poll]
Cleansing of the Temple - Wikipedia
Tie votes will lead to reargument, not affirmance
