Jump to content

Senate confirms Justice Handmaid One

SaysWho?

By SaysWho?
in The Political Re-Education Camp

 Share

Recommended Posts

Commissar SFLUFAN

Commissar SFLUFAN

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, ort said:

The constitution is dumb.

 

I'm pretty sure that if the founding fathers came back to life and (once the shock wore off) had some time to observe the modern world... they would all say that the constitution in it's current form is not doing the job it's supposed to be doing.

 

We should not be being ruled by a party that is supported by the minority of Americans.

 

FUCK THAT.

 

Truth be told, even if they felt that way, I really wouldn't give a damn about their opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joe

Joe

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

 

Truth be told, even if they felt that way, I really wouldn't give a damn about their opinion.

 

I would care in the sense that the dumbasses that rule this country use it as an excuse and wouldn't be able to anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
b_m_b_m_b_m

b_m_b_m_b_m

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, sblfilms said:


This is not the same, and more in line with the question of whether you could make the article five amendment that started this line of discussion. The 17th amendment is not in violation of the constitution, it is implicitly a repeal. The type of amendment I described would not implicitly repeal equal protection, it simply would violate it.

You're getting too far into your hypothetical example which would require a specific reading of all impacted texts, and depending on the court reviewing the original meaning and/or intent of the most recent amendment.

 

When it comes to the federal constitution, the most recent amendment always supercedes the older amendment if there is a logical inconsistency.

 

Luckily your hypothetical example is logically consistent, though not equitable. Yes all people are entitled to equal protection under the law BUT the constitution is the law of the land; further, the constitution says nothing with regard to one person, one vote, or the weights of votes except for in the Senate where it explicitly states in article 1 section 3 that each senator is entitled to one vote. So now the constitution has specifically called out weighting of votes (unequally but based on gender)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

You're getting too far into your hypothetical example which would require a specific reading of all impacted texts, and depending on the court reviewing the original meaning and/or intent of the most recent amendment.

 

When it comes to the federal constitution, the most recent amendment always supercedes the older amendment if there is a logical inconsistency.

 

Luckily your hypothetical example is logically consistent, though not equitable. Yes all people are entitled to equal protection under the law BUT the constitution is the law of the land; further, the constitution says nothing with regard to one person, one vote, or the weights of votes except for in the Senate where it explicitly states in article 1 section 3 that each senator is entitled to one vote. So now the constitution has specifically called out weighting of votes (unequally but based on gender)


I‘m explaining some that has actually happened :p  It is a separate issue whether or not it should be that way, we do know that in practice it has been viewed that way by other courts in the nation. It is easily the most commonly held view by judges. How they would apply it does come back to an earlier issue we discussed which is that interpretation is inherently political :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperSpreader

SuperSpreader

Posted
Posted

:lol: Democrats should have an easy time scaring the GOP with this but they dumb

 

3000.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=8

favicon-32x32.ico Amy Coney Barrett: spotlight falls on secretive Catholic group People of Praise | US news | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM
Trump’s expected pick is a member of a ‘covenant community’ that faces claims of a ‘highly authoritarian’ structure


 

Quote

 

The “sisterhood” is described as living “simply, frugally, and generously”, with about $36 put aside per week per person for food and dry goods and $10 for pocket money to buy “Slurpees and movie tickets”. They buy clothes at thrift stores and garage sales and 10% of their income is directed to People of Praise.

 

The article quotes a head sister named Nano as saying: “If each of us had her own money, it would change everything. Just as we would have our own shelf in the refrigerator, so we would probably partition off other parts of our lives and be more guarded in certain areas. Having money in common moves you to put everything in common.”


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
b_m_b_m_b_m

b_m_b_m_b_m

Posted
Posted

Also if you are a so-called liberal you'd want an absolute dunce on the court, assuming you buy into the bullshit that content of opinions matter and not the composition of the court.

 

But this guy doesn't. He wants to try to make sure some conservative will come to his aid should he be nominated for a similar post because of his LSAT and elite recommendations, and pretend this shit is content neutral and has no effect on actual people's lives

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperSpreader

SuperSpreader

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:


Everyone drinks wine out of the same cup 🤷‍♂️

Yup. There's a lot for the GOP to hate about them lol

Quote

 

While the handbook does not describe its objection to such relationships, one expert who asked not to be named, because they had already received online abuse for speaking critically about People of Praise, said it revealed the importance the group put on the concept of community, rather than individual relationships.

 

“It’s typical of these charismatic communities that friendship is seen as a danger to the community,” the person said. “That’s normal.”

 

hahaha, in a way she is such a normal Catholic that there's a lot for both the GOP and Democrats to fear. 

 

Democrats main fear is her anti-abortion stance, but like.. that was her key issue with ACA.

 

If she's *this* Catholic she's probably cool with everyone having healthcare without the abortion mandate. I know that's not ideal but neither is the ACA as it was with the coverage. Will they outlaw it? Maybe at the federal level, but states will override, which some states already do more conservatively. 

 

I don't know, this might not be the end of the world. If she's for "collective good" and community ownership, the Republicans are gonna get some upset rulings, maybe more than Dems?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, SlipperySlope said:

If she's for "collective good" and community ownership, the Republicans are gonna get some upset rulings, maybe more than Dems?


There is zero chance of this :p 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ricofoley

Ricofoley

Posted
Posted

Remember all those op-eds that there like, "I know Brett Kavanaugh personally and he's a nice guy who coaches girl's basketball in his spare time" published right before his hearing where he just screamed about the Clintons and beer the whole time. Same shit different day. Just absolutely painful that newspapers continue to publish this shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Coney Barrett will be confirmed, but I’ll be interested to see if Mitch pushes the vote past the election to keep attention off Covid and the overall displeasure Americans have with the president’s handling of it.  Or does he just rush it through and hope the conservatives reward him for flipping the Ginsburg seat.
 

That guy is feeling so good about himself right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joe

Joe

Posted
Posted
200926-amy-coney-barrett-al-1715_c9d0cba

android-icon-192x192.png Who is Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's Supreme Court nominee?

WWW.NBCNEWS.COM
The Notre Dame law school grad and mother of seven is expected to consolidate the conservative majority.

 

 

Small bright spot: 

 

Quote

In 1998, while serving as an appeals court law clerk, she and a Notre Dame professor wrote that, "Catholic judges (if they are faithful to the teaching of their church) are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty" and they argued that the church's prohibition against abortion is absolute.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...