Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court

[Gestopft]

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

Like I said, nobody is arguing against the history of the Democratic Party. Key word italicized.

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.

Misleading statistic. The split was really between the South and everybody else. And Democrats, as we have established, dominated the South at that time, and Southern Democrats were a much bigger chunk of the Democratic Party than Southern Republicans were of the GOP. Once you control for region, however, Democrats were MORE likely to support it than the GOP. In former Confederate states, ZERO of the Republicans voted for the 1964 CRA while a small number of Democrats did, and among the rest of the states, it garnered 95% of Democrats supporting and 85% of Republican support.

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"?

This is you not understanding what racism is.

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.

The politics of the youngest two voting generations says otherwise. Or at least that they will the GOP in worse regard than the Dems.

[Kellhound]

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.

You have a complete lack of understanding about what makes human thought an opinion vs a fact.

They see it one way based on their perception of the world, you see it another way. You assume you are correct and they are wrong, just as they assume they are correct and you are wrong.

[Elegiac]

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.

"If I state things in a civil way and pretend to be giving a concession maybe at least part my totally unproven claim will get overlooked", essentially.

[Machismo]

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.

The evidence has been provided, Miller admitted the e-mails are genuine.

Until you can explain how a white supremacist is running around Trump's administration, you don't have shit.

[Elegiac]

You have a complete lack of understanding about what makes human thought an opinion vs a fact.

They see it one way based on their perception of the world, you see it another way. You assume you are correct and they are wrong, just as they assume they are correct and you are wrong.

I don't "assume" I or anyone is correct: I base my opinions on evidence. They don't, and decide on the merits of evidence after.

You're basically just accusing rural people of Dunning-Kruger, here.

[TotallyGenericName]

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.

I mean I guess you can be an asshole and point out that me being humble about the fact I'm not a professional is somehow an admittance of being wrong: it's not.

Since you're the professional, maybe you can explain to me why this seems to cover a lot of his behaviors.

To pick a few out of the 10 given:

1. Confusion with time or place
2. Problems with words in speaking or writing
3. Decreased or poor judgement (like, gee, I don't know - threatening to fight union workers)
4. Withdrawal from work or social activities

Not sure what number coincides with forgetting what your wife looks like or what not.

Anyways, so there's that.

[Monster Hunter]

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

Elected judges seems like a bad idea, politicians apointing judges also seems like a bad idea. To me the point of the judiciary is to check both the power of the government and also the power of the people and thus ensure that the rights of individual's isn't harmed by the will of the majority,

Over here our judges are appointed by judges, by the independent judicial Committee in the name of her majesty, the highest rank being the Lord chief justice who is also appointed by the committee, there's no party political involvement allowed as part of the unwritten constitution mandates the indepance of the judiciary from Parliament under the crown, this allows the judiciary to perform is functions of holding Parliament to the law when needed without political loyalty or fear of political reprisals, the closest they get to political is the Lord chief justice gets a non affiliated seat in the house of Lords so that they can over see and scrutinise new legislation with the other Lords of the house.

Which is a much older system than america has even been a nation but is far better than this weird way you guys seem to have it. :/

[Kellhound]

I don't "assume" I or anyone is correct: I base my opinions on evidence.

You're basically just accusing rural people of Dunning-Kruger, here.

You assume, based on your understanding of the world and your level of trust in those who provide you the evidence, that the evidence means what you think it means.

So, in fact, you assume everything concerning any human construct.

[Themius]

And forcing the millions of people that would be in Dixieland to live under laws they see as directly attacking their personal freedom wouldn't be a breeding ground for terrorist because they would have more reason to fight?

The idea of Dixieland freedom is "fuck everyone fuck welfare, fuck socialism. Now give me money because my state is poor as fuck because we don't contribute to the union" Dixieland states would die. Well the people would anyway... it'd just be handmaidens tale with people fleeing north for salvation.

just imagine what would happen to dixie states without California , new york, nj , Washington, Washington dc, ct.

[Gestopft]

Elected judges seems like a bad idea, politicians apointing judges also seems like a bad idea. To me the point of the judiciary is to check both the power of the government and also the power of the people and thus ensure that the rights of individual's isn't harmed by the will of the majority,

Like I said, see 1a)

People make a lot of noise about how the judiciary is supposed to be just what you said it is, but again...1a)

[Elegiac]

I see we've entered "none of my ethical positions are defensible, time for solipsism" territory.

The inherent unknowability behind existence doesn't make someone less of an ignorant bigot, y'all.

[TotallyGenericName]

Like I said, nobody is arguing against the history of the Democratic Party. Key word italicized.



Misleading statistic. The split was really between the South and everybody else. And Democrats, as we have established, dominated the South at that time, and Southern Democrats were a much bigger chunk of the Democratic Party than Southern Republicans were of the GOP. Once you control for region, however, Democrats were MORE likely to support it than the GOP. In former Confederate states, ZERO of the Republicans voted for the 1964 CRA while a small number of Democrats did, and among the rest of the states, it garnered 95% of Democrats supporting and 85% of Republican support.



This is you not understanding what racism is.



The politics of the youngest two voting generations says otherwise. Or at least that they will the GOP in worse regard than the Dems.

I mean I guess you can keep throwing lots of words at the glaring obvious truth born by history.

And in the meantime, here's another interesting read.

[Gestopft]

I see we've entered "none of my ethical positions are defensible, time for solipsism" territory.

Or as we should call it, the "Primary Color" Defense

[Monster Hunter]

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.

Sounds really really messy, and doomed to keep ending up with this sort of stuff happening.

But makes some sense if what they wanted was to ensure the judiciary only ever paid lip service to checking the power of the people and government.

And I don't disagree on the slavery thing, one thing left out of American education on the revolution but included elsewhere is a contributing factor to wanting places in Parliament and later going for independence was growing fear in the colonys of the abolitionist movement which at that time had many prominent mps and Lords amongst its members.

There had also been a court rulings that went against American slave owners who had brought there slaves to England not realising slavery had been illegal in England since the 1600s thus legaly there slaves were free the moment they entered the jurisdiction of England

One slave even successfully sued his ex owner for back pay for the time served when he was in England awaiting the trial results.

[Gestopft]

I mean I guess you can keep throwing lots of words at the glaring obvious truth born by history.

And in the meantime, here's another interesting read.

Way to not actually address any of the content. Also, your article makes my point...the breakdown was geographic. It was a bipartisan beatdown on the South and their racism.

[Kellhound]

The idea of Dixieland freedom is "fuck everyone fuck welfare, fuck socialism. Now give me money because my state is poor as fuck because we don't contribute to the union" Dixieland states would die. Well the people would anyway... it'd just be handmaidens tale with people fleeing north for salvation.

just imagine what would happen to dixie states without California , new york, nj , Washington, Washington dc, ct.

NJ? No loss. Cali? Only lose the coast. Washington, only losing Sea-Tac. Washington D.C., really no loss outside its political power.

I do love how you assume people just cannot survive without liberals overseeing them...

- - - Updated - - -

I see we've entered "none of my ethical positions are defensible, time for solipsism" territory.

The inherent unknowability behind existence doesn't make someone less of an ignorant bigot, y'all.

I know you cannot defend them, but it is your right to have them. Its the desire for everyone else to be force to agree that your view alone is correct that should be upsetting to even yourself.

[Monster Hunter]

Like I said, see 1a)

People make a lot of noise about how the judiciary is supposed to be just what you said it is, but again...1a)

Sounds like what you guys really need is major structural reform.

Probly a de powering of the president, which as they are now is kinda based on the outdated concept of needing some one with almost monarch level power, making the judiciary completely independent, empowering the house and house speaker to something akin to a priminister and re think of what the purpose of the senate is and re aligning it to that.

But dunno how possible that is with a system of just 2 partys that enjoy the semi favor of the current system.

[Themius]

NJ? No loss. Cali? Only lose the coast. Washington, only losing Sea-Tac. Washington D.C., really no loss outside its political power.

I do love how you assume people just cannot survive without liberals overseeing them...

California is 14% of the entire GDP of this country... new york is 8%...

You think Dixieland can survive after they lose over 27% of the GDP in just those few states... that prop up dixieland??? Where will Kentucky get the 160 billion it took?

[Machismo]

The guy who defends racism is now defending the idea of a racist utopia...

Man, I love that I was right about him all along.

[Elegiac]

California is 14% of the entire GDP of this country... new york is 8%...

You think Dixieland can survive after they lose over 27% of the GDP in just those few states... that prop up dixieland??? Where will Kentucky get the 160 billion it took?

Selling corn and lumber to China through the ports on the West Coast that --

Oh, wait.

I'm not surprised these are the same people that come up with money pit secession propositions like the state of Jefferson, lol.