Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by GingerCoffee, Feb 13, 2016.
I know you are supposed to speak well of the dead but a burden on this country has been lifted.
Looks like the Court will be swinging more or less to the left once his successor is nominated and confirmed. Thoughts?
Now to revisit Citizen's United.
Now watch the Republicans do everything in their power to deny Obama the Constitutional right to appoint the next Justice... because they have such respect for the Constitution.
I wouldn't be too optimistic. Given the state of Congress right now, what this really means is that we're more-or-less permanently down to 8 justices.
"Swinging to the left?" Is there some kind of sexiest joke in there somewhere?
The Senate may force it to wait until after the election. If Obama were to nominate a moderate, they might feel pressure to let it go to a vote, but otherwise I think they're going to say let the people have a say in the decision. Which could just as easily hurt the GOP as help them.
Jack's wife comes home, and he tells her, "Antonin Scalia is dead."
"Really?" She asks.
"Did they cut off his head to make sure?"
Unfortunately, I have little doubt the Republicans will use this to motivate their base in the upcoming election. It's one thing to make a general statement the SCOTUS appointments are on the line, it's another to have a position actually up for an appointment.
In fact, that's what McConell has already said. I think it's a real gamble, since there's no guarantee that a Republican will take the White House. Not to mention how it might look if they keep shooting down nominees.
And it gives the Dems something to use to increase turnout.
Yeah, if it's Obama's right to do it, the Republicans can fuck off with hypocritical "constitutionalist" rhetoric. http://www.salon.com/2016/02/13/ted_cruz_leads_republicans_rush_to_demand_justice_scalias_scotus_replacement_be_named_by_next_potus_not_obama/. Especially since Scalia was an active anti-gay, and your country's constitution says all men are born equal. I envy your country for gay marriage, but I don't envy you the annoyingness of the Republican party.
I suppose my thread should be merged here instead of vice versa since I posted it in the lounge not the debate room.
Scalia was a piece of shit a week ago, and he's still a piece of shit now. His death didn't turn him into a saint.
Hopefully the justice (can't remember which) who was essentially Scalia's serpent will start voting differently.
To be clear though, I'm sure Scalia, like most bigots, saw himself as simply standing by moral values, and he does not seem to have been particularly hateful, more the patronising kind who "don't want to hurt you" but feel they must "follow the word of God." And of course, not every Republican is like the dickbags that prevail in their leadership, there are plenty of right-wing Americans I'm sure I would respect or maybe even admire in some of the Libertarian cases.(Libertarians are kind of cool).
NPR has a good account of Scalia's life. It's pretty painful to read at times--he really was a hateful old hypocrite, even more so than I realized.
(I'm waiting for someone to come into this thread who actually liked Scalia. No bites so far . . .)
LOl, if they do come, I'll be sure to ask then my favourite question of this subject. "Sure, if you guys believe in God, then following God's will is certainly an idea. But why does GOD believe gays are bad ?Why doesn't he just tell you that reason rather than you dancing around with words like "unnatural" which aren't really arguments? The only consequences I've ever heard is bad parenting; proven untrue by studies, and AIDs; simply unjustified to blame us because we have the highest rate."
I rather liked a lot of Scalia's dessents. I prefer a stricter interpretation of the Constitution, and would leave a good chunk of what the Supreme Court has decided by the due process clause to the states to figure out.
If they do replace him with someone more left, I hope it doesn't unbalance things. As much as I would like your country to have a Supreme Court with only Bernie Sanders supporting judges, that would be unfair.
What exactly would you have the states deciding for themselves?
Just for clarity, there's a wide range of interpretation for what God intends of this. The thinking that "God [thinks] gays are bad" is simply unbiblical and shouldn't be viewed as a popular Christian teaching. The real argument centers around what is to be expected of a gay person who experiences God's welcoming, since all people are sinners and so singling out LGBT folk who are not Christian is suspicious to say the least. And, why, might you ask it becomes important if they want to be Christian? God empowers his believers to live in a holy way and so with that strength, the expectations change. This article explains that better than I can, but I should say that I'm not necessarily in 100% agreement with it, just that it deals with the reality that gets drowned out by the debates over whether or not homosexuality can be a sin and gay marriage's legitimacy.
You say "not 100%" in agreement. That's still agreement. Sooo, I shouldn't show you my gay porn then?
What I mean is that I have either a different or inconclusive view of some things the author states.
The difference being? Are you able to accept that being super chaste is not a good idea just because you're gay? Are you okay with the fact that I not only enjoy gay porn, but fully intend to have a boyfriend? Or are you as tragic as that other guy? Oh god, I feel so sorry for him. "Letting Jesus into his heart" did the exact opposite of heal him.
I'm a science-loving atheist by the way so don't expect me to be convinced by preachy bullshit if you do have a problem with homosexuality.
No one's behaviour alone makes them right with God, so, like I said, it's one thing to say people have done terrible things to LGBT people in Christ's name and it is quite another to say that God is against gay people.
Separate names with a comma.