[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Religion - oldviolin - Jun 30, 2022 - 4:24pm
 
Procrastinators Anonymous - oldviolin - Jun 30, 2022 - 3:36pm
 
New Song Submissions system - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 30, 2022 - 3:21pm
 
Trump - kcar - Jun 30, 2022 - 2:29pm
 
Hockey + Fantasy Hockey - black321 - Jun 30, 2022 - 12:48pm
 
The Obituary Page - kurtster - Jun 30, 2022 - 12:18pm
 
The Abortion Wars - R_P - Jun 30, 2022 - 11:31am
 
Joe Biden - kurtster - Jun 30, 2022 - 10:43am
 
Supreme Court Rulings - Red_Dragon - Jun 30, 2022 - 10:23am
 
Wordle - daily game - geoff_morphini - Jun 30, 2022 - 9:35am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Jun 30, 2022 - 9:34am
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Jun 30, 2022 - 7:10am
 
Poetry Forum - ScottN - Jun 30, 2022 - 6:50am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - sunybuny - Jun 30, 2022 - 5:14am
 
True Confessions - oldviolin - Jun 29, 2022 - 10:19pm
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Jun 29, 2022 - 4:18pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Jun 29, 2022 - 3:54pm
 
Beer - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 29, 2022 - 3:08pm
 
Education - Isabeau - Jun 29, 2022 - 2:47pm
 
Android 11 lock screen widget - jkforde - Jun 29, 2022 - 1:58pm
 
Marijuana: Baked News. - oldviolin - Jun 29, 2022 - 12:38pm
 
China - R_P - Jun 29, 2022 - 12:32pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 29, 2022 - 11:37am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 29, 2022 - 11:35am
 
Breaking News - R_P - Jun 29, 2022 - 11:20am
 
Chemosabe, the further adventures of ... - kurtster - Jun 29, 2022 - 9:04am
 
Art Show - oldviolin - Jun 28, 2022 - 9:52pm
 
RightWingNutZ - Steely_D - Jun 28, 2022 - 8:47pm
 
Living in America - Red_Dragon - Jun 28, 2022 - 2:58pm
 
Highly stylized photos that you've taken - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 28, 2022 - 2:54pm
 
Ukraine - miamizsun - Jun 28, 2022 - 1:40pm
 
Russia - miamizsun - Jun 28, 2022 - 1:00pm
 
Nuclear power - saviour or scourge? - miamizsun - Jun 28, 2022 - 11:58am
 
Fiverr Anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 28, 2022 - 11:27am
 
Love is... - Steely_D - Jun 28, 2022 - 9:55am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jun 28, 2022 - 9:38am
 
You might be getting old if...... - kurtster - Jun 28, 2022 - 7:31am
 
Things You Thought Today - oldviolin - Jun 28, 2022 - 6:40am
 
Fascism American-style - R_P - Jun 27, 2022 - 11:09pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - Steely_D - Jun 27, 2022 - 9:56pm
 
What is the meaning of this? - oldviolin - Jun 27, 2022 - 3:54pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 27, 2022 - 3:39pm
 
I am Thinking of: - maryte - Jun 27, 2022 - 2:14pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Jun 27, 2022 - 1:27pm
 
Guns - kcar - Jun 27, 2022 - 11:27am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - GeneP59 - Jun 27, 2022 - 10:39am
 
Economix - R_P - Jun 27, 2022 - 10:14am
 
M.A.G.A. - R_P - Jun 27, 2022 - 9:43am
 
Using Words to Frame a Political Issue - oldviolin - Jun 27, 2022 - 8:52am
 
Britain - Red_Dragon - Jun 27, 2022 - 8:40am
 
Words, acronyms, whatever, that changed meaning - Proclivities - Jun 27, 2022 - 7:43am
 
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 26, 2022 - 3:55pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 26, 2022 - 3:43pm
 
Tech & Science - miamizsun - Jun 26, 2022 - 8:29am
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - Antigone - Jun 25, 2022 - 4:48pm
 
Terrorist Watch! - Red_Dragon - Jun 25, 2022 - 2:58pm
 
I like cheese - GeneP59 - Jun 25, 2022 - 2:29pm
 
SECESSION: The Republic of Texas? - Isabeau - Jun 25, 2022 - 2:20pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Jun 25, 2022 - 10:28am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - Red_Dragon - Jun 25, 2022 - 9:52am
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - oldviolin - Jun 25, 2022 - 9:25am
 
How's the weather? - GeneP59 - Jun 24, 2022 - 6:49pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - lminfo - Jun 24, 2022 - 5:12pm
 
Germany - R_P - Jun 24, 2022 - 2:38pm
 
Stuff you bought today. - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 24, 2022 - 10:25am
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - oldviolin - Jun 24, 2022 - 8:42am
 
Memorials - Remembering Our Loved Ones - miamizsun - Jun 24, 2022 - 8:12am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - oldviolin - Jun 23, 2022 - 4:25pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 23, 2022 - 3:46pm
 
Outstanding Covers - Steely_D - Jun 23, 2022 - 8:24am
 
Summer vacation plans? - Skydog - Jun 23, 2022 - 5:46am
 
how do you feel right now? - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 22, 2022 - 9:51pm
 
TV shows you watch - Steely_D - Jun 22, 2022 - 5:54pm
 
Crazy conspiracy theories - Steely_D - Jun 22, 2022 - 2:06pm
 
Mars Exploration Rover Mission Status - miamizsun - Jun 22, 2022 - 10:14am
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Supreme Court: Who's Next? Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 37, 38, 39  Next
Post to this Topic
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 26, 2020 - 5:03am

 Red_Dragon wrote:
 islander wrote:

Sure, let's play the semantics game. Since the Republicans have used every available procedure available to stifle their opposition, then they shouldn't be surprised when the Dems do the same thing back. Court packing isn't illegal, and they may find themselves with the votes and the will to do it. 

Personally, I don't think they should (unless they add one seat specifically for Merick Garland), but I also don't think I'll be able to give much credence to their sudden outrage at the oppositions use of the same tactics they have been running amok with for the last decade. 

It's pretty clear to me that we need reform in a dozen areas from healthcare, to the selection process for our leaders. It's also clear to me that the nation is not in a place to make the compromises that would be required for that kind of work. So we'll have more of the same for the foreseeable future. 
 
Still buying lottery tickets so that we can immigrate to Canadia... no idea why you haven't yet.
 

he's sea-steading on a budget

and yes i'm jealous
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 25, 2020 - 1:58pm



 Red_Dragon wrote:


 islander wrote:

Sure, let's play the semantics game. Since the Republicans have used every available procedure available to stifle their opposition, then they shouldn't be surprised when the Dems do the same thing back. Court packing isn't illegal, and they may find themselves with the votes and the will to do it. 

Personally, I don't think they should (unless they add one seat specifically for Merick Garland), but I also don't think I'll be able to give much credence to their sudden outrage at the oppositions use of the same tactics they have been running amok with for the last decade. 

It's pretty clear to me that we need reform in a dozen areas from healthcare, to the selection process for our leaders. It's also clear to me that the nation is not in a place to make the compromises that would be required for that kind of work. So we'll have more of the same for the foreseeable future. 
 


Still buying lottery tickets so that we can immigrate to Canadia... no idea why you haven't yet.
 

I don't have a lot of confidence in our immediate future. But I haven't given up on our long term yet. 
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Oct 25, 2020 - 1:56pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
Red_Dragon wrote:

"Elections have consequences."
—Barack Obama

But to answer the question: nobody. Nobody is currently packing the courts, because filling vacancies is not court packing. Court packing means expanding the court to create more seats to create a majority of friendly judges.

You're welcome.
 
It's a bit counter-intuitive, but apparently correct (and specific). I suppose the confusion comes from/with "court-stacking." And of course both major parties have used the misnomer when expedient.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Oct 25, 2020 - 1:52pm



 islander wrote:

Sure, let's play the semantics game. Since the Republicans have used every available procedure available to stifle their opposition, then they shouldn't be surprised when the Dems do the same thing back. Court packing isn't illegal, and they may find themselves with the votes and the will to do it. 

Personally, I don't think they should (unless they add one seat specifically for Merick Garland), but I also don't think I'll be able to give much credence to their sudden outrage at the oppositions use of the same tactics they have been running amok with for the last decade. 

It's pretty clear to me that we need reform in a dozen areas from healthcare, to the selection process for our leaders. It's also clear to me that the nation is not in a place to make the compromises that would be required for that kind of work. So we'll have more of the same for the foreseeable future. 
 


Still buying lottery tickets so that we can immigrate to Canadia... no idea why you haven't yet.
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 25, 2020 - 1:49pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
Red_Dragon wrote:

"Elections have consequences."
—Barack Obama

But to answer the question: nobody. Nobody is currently packing the courts, because filling vacancies is not court packing. Court packing means expanding the court to create more seats to create a majority of friendly judges.

You're welcome.
 
Sure, let's play the semantics game. Since the Republicans have used every available procedure available to stifle their opposition, then they shouldn't be surprised when the Dems do the same thing back. Court packing isn't illegal, and they may find themselves with the votes and the will to do it. 

Personally, I don't think they should (unless they add one seat specifically for Merick Garland), but I also don't think I'll be able to give much credence to their sudden outrage at the oppositions use of the same tactics they have been running amok with for the last decade. 

It's pretty clear to me that we need reform in a dozen areas from healthcare, to the selection process for our leaders. It's also clear to me that the nation is not in a place to make the compromises that would be required for that kind of work. So we'll have more of the same for the foreseeable future. 
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 25, 2020 - 1:14pm

Red_Dragon wrote:

"Elections have consequences."
—Barack Obama

But to answer the question: nobody. Nobody is currently packing the courts, because filling vacancies is not court packing. Court packing means expanding the court to create more seats to create a majority of friendly judges.

You're welcome.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Oct 24, 2020 - 9:13pm

kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 4:39pm



 KarmaKarma wrote:


 kcar wrote:


 KarmaKarma wrote:


 kcar wrote:


 KarmaKarma wrote:


It's very interesting to see KK's thoughts and diction improve so dramatically from the time when s/he first started posting here. How many people have been paid to post under the KarmaKarma username? 



 
Your onto us now. 

 

Clever me! 

You have zero credibility here. You should start fresh on another forum or just find another job/hobby. 

 
Posting to this webpage pays well.

 

You've said that before, but at this point I have to assume you're joking. BillG pointed out that less than 1% of all RP members post here. And many who do post here don't discuss politics. Who would pay to have someone stir up a teacup? 

My hunch is that you're one particular longtime participant in this forum (using a different username) with too much time on his hands. Have you grown as much broccoli this year? How's your dog? 

I really hope you'll disappear after Trump loses but like a bad case of hemorrhoids I doubt you will. 
KarmaKarma

KarmaKarma Avatar



Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 3:49pm



 kcar wrote:


 KarmaKarma wrote:


 kcar wrote:


 KarmaKarma wrote:


It's very interesting to see KK's thoughts and diction improve so dramatically from the time when s/he first started posting here. How many people have been paid to post under the KarmaKarma username? 



 
Your onto us now. 

 

Clever me! 

You have zero credibility here. You should start fresh on another forum or just find another job/hobby. 

 
Posting to this webpage pays well.

kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 3:45pm



 KarmaKarma wrote:


 kcar wrote:


 KarmaKarma wrote:


It's very interesting to see KK's thoughts and diction improve so dramatically from the time when s/he first started posting here. How many people have been paid to post under the KarmaKarma username? 



 
Your onto us now. 

 

Clever me! 

You have zero credibility here. You should start fresh on another forum or just find another job/hobby. 

KarmaKarma

KarmaKarma Avatar



Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 3:35pm



 kcar wrote:


 KarmaKarma wrote:


 rgio wrote:


 pigtail wrote:

One's religion or lack there of should have absolutely nothing to do with this appointment!
 
The elephant in the room with regard to religion is abortion, and 73% of Americans don't believe Roe should be overturned.  That said, here we are about to confirm another judge with what appears to be (since noone answers questions anymore) opinions that differ from 3 out of 4 Americans? 

Religion is an attribute that helps understand the individual. It should not be a primary reason in favor of or in opposition to a judge, but it definitely has something to do with the appointment.  If you have any doubts, what do you think would happen if a President nominated a Muslim?

 
This may come as a shock to you, but there's actually a thing, commonly referred to as the "No Religious Test Clause".  This bit of idealism is found in a document commonly referred to as the Constitution.

The elephant in *this* room is you are suggesting racism would play a significant part in the selection of a Justice by a President.  Did you have a particular party in mind - a Democrat or Republican President, which might be more susceptible to this influence?

 

It's very interesting to see KK's thoughts and diction improve so dramatically from the time when s/he first started posting here. How many people have been paid to post under the KarmaKarma username? 



 
Your onto us now. 

kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 3:35pm



 KarmaKarma wrote:


 rgio wrote:


 pigtail wrote:

One's religion or lack there of should have absolutely nothing to do with this appointment!
 
The elephant in the room with regard to religion is abortion, and 73% of Americans don't believe Roe should be overturned.  That said, here we are about to confirm another judge with what appears to be (since noone answers questions anymore) opinions that differ from 3 out of 4 Americans? 

Religion is an attribute that helps understand the individual. It should not be a primary reason in favor of or in opposition to a judge, but it definitely has something to do with the appointment.  If you have any doubts, what do you think would happen if a President nominated a Muslim?

 
This may come as a shock to you, but there's actually a thing, commonly referred to as the "No Religious Test Clause".  This bit of idealism is found in a document commonly referred to as the Constitution.

The elephant in *this* room is you are suggesting racism would play a significant part in the selection of a Justice by a President.  Did you have a particular party in mind - a Democrat or Republican President, which might be more susceptible to this influence?

 

It's very interesting to see KK's thoughts and diction improve so dramatically from the time when s/he first started posting here. How many people have been paid to post under the KarmaKarma username? 



R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 3:18pm

 rgio wrote:
 If you have any doubts, what do you think would happen if a President nominated a Muslim?
 
There would be a lot of frothing from the usual suspects. It's mostly hypothetical (because it's unlikely to happen any time soon).

And while not directly related to the US Constitution, it's easy to point to bigotry in several State constitutions (which are not as shy and in some cases spell out the elephant) e.g.:

Arkansas Art. 19, § 1: No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
KarmaKarma

KarmaKarma Avatar



Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 12:47pm



 rgio wrote:


 pigtail wrote:

One's religion or lack there of should have absolutely nothing to do with this appointment!
 
The elephant in the room with regard to religion is abortion, and 73% of Americans don't believe Roe should be overturned.  That said, here we are about to confirm another judge with what appears to be (since noone answers questions anymore) opinions that differ from 3 out of 4 Americans? 

Religion is an attribute that helps understand the individual. It should not be a primary reason in favor of or in opposition to a judge, but it definitely has something to do with the appointment.  If you have any doubts, what do you think would happen if a President nominated a Muslim?

 
This may come as a shock to you, but there's actually a thing, commonly referred to as the "No Religious Test Clause".  This bit of idealism is found in a document commonly referred to as the Constitution.

The elephant in *this* room is you are suggesting racism would play a significant part in the selection of a Justice by a President.  Did you have a particular party in mind - a Democrat or Republican President, which might be more susceptible to this influence?

westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 12:24pm



 Red_Dragon wrote:
ANY organized, politicized religion is a problem for me, because it's all bullshit.
 

That is too bad because all social organizations are political in nature  and many organized religions house a lot of really decent, caring people.
rgio

rgio Avatar

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 11:44am



 pigtail wrote:

One's religion or lack there of should have absolutely nothing to do with this appointment!
 
The elephant in the room with regard to religion is abortion, and 73% of Americans don't believe Roe should be overturned.  That said, here we are about to confirm another judge with what appears to be (since noone answers questions anymore) opinions that differ from 3 out of 4 Americans? 

Religion is an attribute that helps understand the individual. It should not be a primary reason in favor of or in opposition to a judge, but it definitely has something to do with the appointment.  If you have any doubts, what do you think would happen if a President nominated a Muslim?

pigtail

pigtail Avatar

Location: Southern California
Gender: Female


Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 11:34am



 KarmaKarma wrote:


 Red_Dragon wrote:
ANY organized, politicized religion is a problem for me, because it's all bullshit.
 
Have you heard of the First Amendment to the Constitution?
No?  Too many words ?

So you're intolerant of others who have beliefs that don't align with your own.

Totalitarian much?  Consider retiring to North Korea.  You'll fit right in.
 

One's religion or lack there of should have absolutely nothing to do with this appointment!
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 11:17am



{#Lol}
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 17, 2020 - 9:28pm

R_P wrote:
Dodgeball.


Gosh, it's almost as if there hadn't been a 14th amendment to the constitution for 152 years, and a 19th amendment for 100 years. That you could read. That anyone, even a political cartoonist, even a poster on the RP forums, could read.

Those amendments are part of the constitution, which an originalist would regard as the law. And which all Supreme Court Justices (and all members of Congress; officers of the executive branch, including the president and vice president; and even members of state legislatures) swear an oath to support and defend.

But maybe that's too difficult a concept to communicate in one panel of a cartoon, which seems to be the predominant level of historical scholarship these days.
KarmaKarma

KarmaKarma Avatar



Posted: Oct 17, 2020 - 6:36pm



 Red_Dragon wrote:
ANY organized, politicized religion is a problem for me, because it's all bullshit.
 
Have you heard of the First Amendment to the Constitution?
No?  Too many words ?

So you're intolerant of others who have beliefs that don't align with your own.

Totalitarian much?  Consider retiring to North Korea.  You'll fit right in.
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 37, 38, 39  Next