Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court

[Gestopft]

Can some.one clarify a few questions i have

1. Why do you let president pick you heads of the judiciary when it supposed ot be a separate branch, and not have in independent judicial commission that makes appoints like most other places ?

2. Why is you judiciary political at all ?

1. They have to be confirmed by the other branch of government, so it's not just the president picking.
1a) We have a system that is in many ways outdated, and badly needs reforms in many key areas
1b) Many places here have elected judges, so...it could be worse than having presidential/Senate appointments for the Federal courts?

2. Because, as you have seen, due to 1a), whether or not a particular octogenarian lives or dies can make a profound difference on the laws of the country
2a) Congress has been very, very feckless for a long time
2b) Also because of 1a), the courts have the final say unless their decision gets overturned by a Constitutional Amendment, which is very hard to do (again see 1a)).
2c) Also because of 1), the nominations are inherently political because those doing the appointing and confirming are themselves political

[Kellhound]

At least you're admitting that the attack on personal freedom is entirely in their heads, lol.

The very concept of personal freedom is in our heads. Morality is subjective, politics is subjective, pretty much all human thought is subjective.

[Eviscero]

For starters, there are many people that argued that Democrats were the party of slavery historically.

Second of all, the Republicans passed the Civil Rights Bill with 80% support compared to the 60% support of the Democrats. Byrd had a 14 hour fillibuster against it.

At some point, we have to start calling a spade a spade.

And, to be fair, before referring to obvious factual historical data, you can see where the party (Democrats) of moral superiority and everything identitarian HAS to have history be this way, right?

And yet, the Republicans in spite of all the actual claims that they are racist, are not out there committing racist acts en masse.

What you will find are people who are very far left trying to classify what are either very loose interpretations or flat out over reaching to find examples of racism.

For example, people called building a wall racist. How exactly is building a wall racist? Is there like a little doggy door that says "No insert-race-name-here allowed"?

Or is this the part where special liberties are taken to tell people what they actually meant when they aren't the ones who said it?

Anyways, I don't think Republicans are perfect though. Being the "good guys" relative to a horrendously corrupt and racist counterpart still can leave a lot to be desired.

For example, I hated the 90s Bush administration. It was easily the lowest point for the Republican party as a whole (yes, worse than Trump).

However, I still think that we will look back upon this time period historically with the Democrats having been on the wrong side of history. Their quickness to censor free speech and exercise control over dissenting opinions will not age well. Their extreme dedication to absolutism and purity is not going to age well. Their inability to acknowledge that they lost in 2016 because they simply were out of touch with America and not robbed will not age well.

There are a lot of things that will not age well with the Democrats. Donald Trump's mouth and what comes out of it, much of which, probably won't age spectacularly well. As an instigator in chief, I think we could have better leadership on that front. I think he would have had to be the bigger man but, in the end, I am convinced he didn't have to be the enemy of the media. I'm convinced he did not have to be so abrasive to Democrats.

That being said, I believe most honest working class and tax paying Americans are going to look at this historical segment and chalk this period up to a bad look for Democrats. Republicans can still poop the bed later on in history though. Anything is possible.

Man this guy is going to get an A+ in Trump's Reeducation Courses. Can I copy off your essay about the true meaning of Trumpmas?

[Gestopft]

People in this thread really be making the Crash argument.

You'll have to remind me what that is; I saw it in high school and all I remember of it was Jennifer Esposito's nipples.

[TotallyGenericName]

More importantly the system itself is one of white supremacy.

People in this thread really be making the Crash argument.

No, I'm really not.

Calling someone a white supremacist cuts both ways.

Many Democrats suffer from the bigotry of low expectations. That, in itself, is a form of white supremacy. It's an equally valid form of subconscious racism as what you might propose.

It takes a great deal of arrogance to assume that African Americans' only path to success lies through the Democratic party. They never have and never will need the Democrats. Historically, they would have been better off without them honestly.

It's only a white supremacist who believes that their outstretched hand entails the pathway to the promised land for people based on a possessed abundance of melanin. Don't believe me? Look at the large portion of the African American community which assembled peacefully during the George Floyd protests only to have their honest intentions misrepresented by bored white liberals with no skin in the game and nothing on the line.

I'm not saying I agree with this overinflated narrative of police brutality but I will always support people's right to protest. Although, I will scratch my head as to how we cannot peacefully assemble at the voting booth but we can for another cause, but I suppose that's a conversation for another time.

Just silliness.

For what it's worth, I think the best outcome is for Democrats to lose this election, the party to implode, and a new party of logic and reason that is dedicated to justice to emerge like a phoenix from the Democratic ashes. It will be free of the historical failings of its predecessor (even if in name, which is still a lot in my book).

[Elegiac]

The very concept of personal freedom is in our heads. Morality is subjective, politics is subjective, pretty much all human thought is subjective.

That's nice but it really doesn't change the fact that "rural oppression" is a fiction and your only evidence for it existing is people believe in it really hard.

As opposed to actual oppression, which I take it y'all are unfamiliar with given your eagerness to be victimized.

[Machismo]

No, I'm really not.

Calling someone a white supremacist cuts both ways.

Many Democrats suffer from the bigotry of low expectations. That, in itself, is a form of white supremacy. It's an equally valid form of subconscious racism as what you might propose.

It takes a great deal of arrogance to assume that African Americans' only path to success lies through the Democratic party. They never have and never will need the Democrats. Historically, they would have been better off without them honestly.

It's only a white supremacist who believes that their outstretched hand entails the pathway to the promised land for people based on a possessed abundance of melanin. Don't believe me? Look at the large portion of the African American community which assembled peacefully during the George Floyd protests only to have their honest intentions misrepresented by bored white liberals with no skin in the game and nothing on the line.

I'm not saying I agree with this overinflated narrative of police brutality but I will always support people's right to protest. Although, I will scratch my head as to how we cannot peacefully assemble at the voting booth but we can for another cause, but I suppose that's a conversation for another time.

Just silliness.

For what it's worth, I think the best outcome is for Democrats to lose this election, the party to implode, and a new party of logic and reason that is dedicated to justice to emerge like a phoenix from the Democratic ashes. It will be free of the historical failings of its predecessor (even if in name, which is still a lot in my book).

You still cannot explain Stephen Miller.

[Elegiac]

You'll have to remind me what that is; I saw it in high school and all I remember of it was Jennifer Esposito's nipples.

Long and short of it is Crash is a terrible for-your-consideration Oscar bait movie that somehow won Best Picture despite being a terrible movie. I bring it up because Crash is a classic example of media that deals with race relations in a very clumsy way by painting racism as a function of people being mean to each other rather than like, a system.

The same thing applies to Bright, if you're looking for a more contemporary example.

[Kellhound]

That's nice but it really doesn't change the fact that "rural oppression" is a fiction and your only evidence for it existing is people believe in it really hard.

As opposed to actual oppression, which I take it y'all are unfamiliar with given your eagerness to be victimized.

That is your opinion, which is the whole point.

[Elegiac]

That is your opinion, which is the whole point.

It's "my opinion" and yet y'all feel the need to repeatedly dismiss the evidence its based on as the product of "liberal academia". If it were actually neutral you wouldn't be so desperate to discredit it. Lol.

Once again: I'm still waiting for examples of these perceived oppressions. Because y'all keep dancing around listing them off, and I suspect that's because they don't actually hold up to objective scrutiny in the same way actual oppression does.

[Machismo]

Are we really now down the rabbit hole that racists are oppressed, because they feel oppressed in their brains?

[TotallyGenericName]

How do you explain Stephen Miller?

Machismo, I'd have to look at them to see. I can't seem to find any hard copies or verified quotes from them so it's tough to tell.

One thing the media (Fox is guilty at times as well) does is say "sources indicate" and then insert outlandishly embellished claims.

I'll be the first to admit that the Trump administration is not lacking its fair share of bold claims and outlandish statements though.

[Machismo]

Machismo, I'd have to look at them to see. I can't seem to find any hard copies or verified quotes from them so it's tough to tell.

One thing the media (Fox is guilty at times as well) does is say "sources indicate" and then insert outlandishly embellished claims.

I'll be the first to admit that the Trump administration is not lacking its fair share of bold claims and outlandish statements though.

The existence of Stephen Miller undermines your entire bullshit.

So, until you can explain why there is a noted white supremacist in charge of Trump's immigration policy... you don't have shit.

[TotallyGenericName]

Simplest answer: A bunch of formerly English white slaveowners wanted to live in an aristocratic society very much like England, but without the pesky nuisance of having to pay taxes to the Crown.

And then, of course, they also decided to create a massive system of checks and balances that never existed in the same context as the crown. The checks and balances, naturally, designed to avoid a governance that looked even remotely like the crown. I mean, but sure, I guess.

[postman1782]

Machismo, I'd have to look at them to see. I can't seem to find any hard copies or verified quotes from them so it's tough to tell.

One thing the media (Fox is guilty at times as well) does is say "sources indicate" and then insert outlandishly embellished claims.

I'll be the first to admit that the Trump administration is not lacking its fair share of bold claims and outlandish statements though.

Stephen Miller LITERALLY visited Nazi websites and wrote for them. He was the dumbass with his barbaric concentration camps that are now accused of removing immigrant womens' uteruses for no reason.

[Monster Hunter]

Simplest answer: A bunch of formerly English white slaveowners wanted to live in an aristocratic society very much like England, but without the pesky nuisance of having to pay taxes to the Crown.

But England dosnt have a politicised judiciary.

We have a lord chief justice who sits unaffiliated in the house of Lords appointed by a judiciary Committee of judges.

One of the oldest conventions of our government pre dating even americas existence is the independence of her majesty's justice from Parliament, this allows the judiciary to function in its role of upholding the law even on Parliament (as recently seen this time last year when bojo was raken to court for misleading the monarch ) without fear of political reprisals.

If they wanted a system like England they have done a shit job at it,

[Elegiac]

Stephen Miller LITERALLY visited Nazi websites and wrote for them. He was the dumbass with his barbaric concentration camps that are now accused of removing immigrant womens' uteruses for no reason.

You didn't read their post.

Basically, any claim that might force them to question their beliefs is "bold and outlandish".

Meanwhile, accusing someone they've never met of having Alzheimer's (based on fuck all since they've admitted they are not an expert and have no sources) is neither bold nor outlandish.

[TotallyGenericName]

The existence of Stephen Miller undermines your entire bullshit.

So, until you can explain why there is a noted white supremacist in charge of Trump's immigration policy... you don't have shit.

Wait, have you seen the emails? I have done a few Google searches looking and not found any actual verified quotes or citations from them.

I'm not being willfully ignorant here, man. I just can't find any actual creditable sources. It was, after all, leaked or otherwise, still an internal government document.

But, even still, I guess I can stoop to a petty low too and ask how anyone can vote for a Democratic candidate that has made any of the overtly and painfully racist remarks Joe Biden has?

Between referring to desegregated schools as racial jungles, talking about Obama as a fine clean man, saying you aren't black if you don't vote for me, or insinuating that African Americans are some monolithic voting block with no original ideas of their own. I mean the list is like endless.

I'm not being petty but we should both agree that a singular instance is not a good idea. We need to look at an entirety of a body of work.

My concern with Trump has been that, while he is absolutely a shithead at times, his level of shitheadery is so hyperbolic that it is very hard to tell what is real and what is not anymore.

[Elegiac]

But England dosnt have a politicised judiciary.

Mhm. Precisely.

Because an apolitical judiciary might actually take that thing about "all men being created equal" seriously and, as they did in England, declare that "the United States does not know slavery".

There's a reason the Senate, and not the House, confirms these appointments.

[Eviscero]

Machismo, I'd have to look at them to see. I can't seem to find any hard copies or verified quotes from them so it's tough to tell.

One thing the media (Fox is guilty at times as well) does is say "sources indicate" and then insert outlandishly embellished claims.

I'll be the first to admit that the Trump administration is not lacking its fair share of bold claims and outlandish statements though.

This is how you sound:

"I'm not claiming that up is down without exception. I can admit that occasionally down is down and up might be easily confused with over there."

You'll have to do more than adopt a reasonable tone to convince anyone with at least half a brain that you're not full of shit.