Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Obama down to 3 picks for Supreme Court

imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 11:35:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Obama's previous list of 5 candidates has been narroed down to 3. He is now only considering Merrick Garland, Sri Srinivasan and Paul Watford for the nomination

http://www.reuters.com...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 11:37:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 11:35:52 PM, imabench wrote:
Obama's previous list of 5 candidates has been narroed down to 3. He is now only considering Merrick Garland, Sri Srinivasan and Paul Watford for the nomination

http://www.reuters.com...

Did they pick the 1st Bork yet?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 1:21:10 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 12:59:37 AM, TN05 wrote:
None are acceptable. Bork them all.

Why? What are the issues you have?
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 2:35:49 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 1:03:25 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/14/2016 12:59:37 AM, TN05 wrote:
None are acceptable. Bork them all.

Who is acceptable?

Someone who adheres to originalism or textualism. Does not necessarily have to be conservative, but it does have to be one who interprets the constitution as it was originally written. As Senator, I'd consider someone like Akhil Amar or the late Hugo Black - not necessarily vote for, but certainly hold a hearing for. I would outright reject any judge who adheres to a 'living Constitution' view.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 2:36:26 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 1:21:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/14/2016 12:59:37 AM, TN05 wrote:
None are acceptable. Bork them all.

Why? What are the issues you have?

I do not consider justices who are partisan liberals to be acceptable justices.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 1:10:26 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 2:35:49 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 1:03:25 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/14/2016 12:59:37 AM, TN05 wrote:
None are acceptable. Bork them all.

Who is acceptable?

Someone who adheres to originalism or textualism. Does not necessarily have to be conservative, but it does have to be one who interprets the constitution as it was originally written. As Senator, I'd consider someone like Akhil Amar or the late Hugo Black - not necessarily vote for, but certainly hold a hearing for. I would outright reject any judge who adheres to a 'living Constitution' view.

Oh, good, glad to see you're determined to make it partisan.
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 2:00:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 2:35:49 AM, TN05 wrote:

I would outright reject any judge who adheres to a 'living Constitution' view.

Lmao, so you think that anyone who doesn't believe that the Founding Fathers had impeccable psychic powers and god-like foresight is unqualified to be a US Supreme Court Justice?
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 2:13:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 2:00:34 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:35:49 AM, TN05 wrote:

I would outright reject any judge who adheres to a 'living Constitution' view.

Lmao, so you think that anyone who doesn't believe that the Founding Fathers had impeccable psychic powers and god-like foresight is unqualified to be a US Supreme Court Justice?

Do we interpret any other document as if it's "living" (a euphemism for perversion)? Can you cite any other US document that is allowed to be perverted because "times have changed" or does this just apply to the US constitution? If so why should it just apply to the US constitution?
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 2:16:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 2:13:05 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:00:34 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:35:49 AM, TN05 wrote:

I would outright reject any judge who adheres to a 'living Constitution' view.

Lmao, so you think that anyone who doesn't believe that the Founding Fathers had impeccable psychic powers and god-like foresight is unqualified to be a US Supreme Court Justice?

Do we interpret any other document as if it's "living" (a euphemism for perversion)? Can you cite any other US document that is allowed to be perverted because "times have changed" or does this just apply to the US constitution? If so why should it just apply to the US constitution?

Does any other US document serve as the fundamental framework for how the US government operates?
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 2:21:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 2:16:12 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:13:05 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:00:34 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:35:49 AM, TN05 wrote:

I would outright reject any judge who adheres to a 'living Constitution' view.

Lmao, so you think that anyone who doesn't believe that the Founding Fathers had impeccable psychic powers and god-like foresight is unqualified to be a US Supreme Court Justice?

Do we interpret any other document as if it's "living" (a euphemism for perversion)? Can you cite any other US document that is allowed to be perverted because "times have changed" or does this just apply to the US constitution? If so why should it just apply to the US constitution?

Does any other US document serve as the fundamental framework for how the US government operates?

So your reason for why we should treat the US constitution differently is that? So you agree this shouldn't apply to any other document then? My next question is that what circumstances justify perversion of the US constitution? Changing societal views? The progression of technology? Also if we are going to pervert the constitution to adapt to the "progression" of society, why should we even have an amendment process? And I almost guarantee you will come back and say that amending the constitution is difficult and that's why we can't rely on it to adapt (if you say something else I stand corrected), but is your stance then that it should be easy to pervert the constitution or change it?
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 2:48:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 1:10:26 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:35:49 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 1:03:25 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/14/2016 12:59:37 AM, TN05 wrote:
None are acceptable. Bork them all.

Who is acceptable?

Someone who adheres to originalism or textualism. Does not necessarily have to be conservative, but it does have to be one who interprets the constitution as it was originally written. As Senator, I'd consider someone like Akhil Amar or the late Hugo Black - not necessarily vote for, but certainly hold a hearing for. I would outright reject any judge who adheres to a 'living Constitution' view.

Oh, good, glad to see you're determined to make it partisan.

I gave two liberal justices I would consider.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 2:49:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 2:00:34 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:35:49 AM, TN05 wrote:

I would outright reject any judge who adheres to a 'living Constitution' view.

Lmao, so you think that anyone who doesn't believe that the Founding Fathers had impeccable psychic powers and god-like foresight is unqualified to be a US Supreme Court Justice?

The Constitution means what it meant when it was written. We have an amendment process to change it.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 3:33:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 2:49:44 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:00:34 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:35:49 AM, TN05 wrote:

I would outright reject any judge who adheres to a 'living Constitution' view.

Lmao, so you think that anyone who doesn't believe that the Founding Fathers had impeccable psychic powers and god-like foresight is unqualified to be a US Supreme Court Justice?

The Constitution means what it meant when it was written. We have an amendment process to change it.

+1 retweet
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 3:51:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 2:13:05 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:00:34 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:35:49 AM, TN05 wrote:

I would outright reject any judge who adheres to a 'living Constitution' view.

Lmao, so you think that anyone who doesn't believe that the Founding Fathers had impeccable psychic powers and god-like foresight is unqualified to be a US Supreme Court Justice?

Do we interpret any other document as if it's "living" (a euphemism for perversion)? Can you cite any other US document that is allowed to be perverted because "times have changed" or does this just apply to the US constitution? If so why should it just apply to the US constitution?

You could make the case that laws declaring homosexual behavior a criminal offense have slowly become unenforceable as science proves that homosexuality is a normal condition.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 3:56:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 3:51:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:13:05 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:00:34 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:35:49 AM, TN05 wrote:

I would outright reject any judge who adheres to a 'living Constitution' view.

Lmao, so you think that anyone who doesn't believe that the Founding Fathers had impeccable psychic powers and god-like foresight is unqualified to be a US Supreme Court Justice?

Do we interpret any other document as if it's "living" (a euphemism for perversion)? Can you cite any other US document that is allowed to be perverted because "times have changed" or does this just apply to the US constitution? If so why should it just apply to the US constitution?

You could make the case that laws declaring homosexual behavior a criminal offense have slowly become unenforceable as science proves that homosexuality is a normal condition.

The constitution doesn't outlaw homosexuality..
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 4:02:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 3:56:35 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/14/2016 3:51:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:13:05 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:00:34 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:35:49 AM, TN05 wrote:

I would outright reject any judge who adheres to a 'living Constitution' view.

Lmao, so you think that anyone who doesn't believe that the Founding Fathers had impeccable psychic powers and god-like foresight is unqualified to be a US Supreme Court Justice?

Do we interpret any other document as if it's "living" (a euphemism for perversion)? Can you cite any other US document that is allowed to be perverted because "times have changed" or does this just apply to the US constitution? If so why should it just apply to the US constitution?

You could make the case that laws declaring homosexual behavior a criminal offense have slowly become unenforceable as science proves that homosexuality is a normal condition.

The constitution doesn't outlaw homosexuality..

You asked for an example of the perversion of law. Also, see sanctuary cities. The law is frequently perverted in this country per the norm.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 4:13:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 4:02:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/14/2016 3:56:35 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/14/2016 3:51:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:13:05 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:00:34 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:35:49 AM, TN05 wrote:

I would outright reject any judge who adheres to a 'living Constitution' view.

Lmao, so you think that anyone who doesn't believe that the Founding Fathers had impeccable psychic powers and god-like foresight is unqualified to be a US Supreme Court Justice?

Do we interpret any other document as if it's "living" (a euphemism for perversion)? Can you cite any other US document that is allowed to be perverted because "times have changed" or does this just apply to the US constitution? If so why should it just apply to the US constitution?

You could make the case that laws declaring homosexual behavior a criminal offense have slowly become unenforceable as science proves that homosexuality is a normal condition.

The constitution doesn't outlaw homosexuality..

You asked for an example of the perversion of law. Also, see sanctuary cities. The law is frequently perverted in this country per the norm.

Knowingly refusing to enforce the law or violating it is not perverting it. Perverting it is applying a knowingly false or distorted interpretation of something.
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 4:34:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 2:49:44 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:00:34 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:35:49 AM, TN05 wrote:

I would outright reject any judge who adheres to a 'living Constitution' view.

Lmao, so you think that anyone who doesn't believe that the Founding Fathers had impeccable psychic powers and god-like foresight is unqualified to be a US Supreme Court Justice?

The Constitution means what it meant when it was written. We have an amendment process to change it.

Why can't there be more than one way to change it ?
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 4:38:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 4:34:50 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:49:44 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:00:34 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:35:49 AM, TN05 wrote:

I would outright reject any judge who adheres to a 'living Constitution' view.

Lmao, so you think that anyone who doesn't believe that the Founding Fathers had impeccable psychic powers and god-like foresight is unqualified to be a US Supreme Court Justice?

The Constitution means what it meant when it was written. We have an amendment process to change it.

Why can't there be more than one way to change it ?

If you wanted to pass an amendment to the Constitution to create an alternative way to change it, I suppose you could do that.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 4:45:06 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 4:36:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
A society governed by a dead document can only decay. Inflexibility is not a virtue.

Right, the Constitution is not a death-pact.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 4:48:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 4:45:06 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/14/2016 4:36:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
A society governed by a dead document can only decay. Inflexibility is not a virtue.

Right, the Constitution is not a death-pact.

It is a dead document, however. Or at least many people would like it to be. The Constitution needs to live. Breathe. Be organic. Be adaptable.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 4:59:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 11:35:52 PM, imabench wrote:
Obama's previous list of 5 candidates has been narroed down to 3. He is now only considering Merrick Garland, Sri Srinivasan and Paul Watford for the nomination

http://www.reuters.com...

He'll find a Muslim to put in there.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 5:00:25 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 4:48:08 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/14/2016 4:45:06 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/14/2016 4:36:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
A society governed by a dead document can only decay. Inflexibility is not a virtue.

Right, the Constitution is not a death-pact.

It is a dead document, however. Or at least many people would like it to be. The Constitution needs to live. Breathe. Be organic. Be adaptable.

That's what the amendment process is for.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 5:03:01 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 5:00:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/14/2016 4:48:08 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/14/2016 4:45:06 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/14/2016 4:36:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
A society governed by a dead document can only decay. Inflexibility is not a virtue.

Right, the Constitution is not a death-pact.

It is a dead document, however. Or at least many people would like it to be. The Constitution needs to live. Breathe. Be organic. Be adaptable.

That's what the amendment process is for.

Yeah, controlled by a bunch of old white dudes 70 years behind public opinion. No, that's not enough.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 6:41:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 5:03:01 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/14/2016 5:00:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/14/2016 4:48:08 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/14/2016 4:45:06 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/14/2016 4:36:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
A society governed by a dead document can only decay. Inflexibility is not a virtue.

Right, the Constitution is not a death-pact.

It is a dead document, however. Or at least many people would like it to be. The Constitution needs to live. Breathe. Be organic. Be adaptable.

That's what the amendment process is for.

Yeah, controlled by a bunch of old white dudes 70 years behind public opinion. No, that's not enough.

Not so. You can start the amendment process at the state level. It's far easier, though, to just appoint someone who agrees with you and have him declare everything you do to be right and just and everything everyone else does to be evil.