Supreme Court of the United States

[Zkribbler]

Regardless the travel ban will be re-written and back in effect within a few days. So it was all rather pointless unless you guys get lucky and a terrorist slips through during this window of opportunity. Then we'd have some dead Americans and you guys can all do your little death to America dance and feel all warm and fuzzy.

Here's Trump's corundum: If he re-writes it as a Muslim ban, it will run afoul of the 1st Amendment. If he doesn't re-write it as a Muslim ban, he won't have Muslim ban.

 

[Cutlass]

How does limiting the number of potential terrorists into the country promote 'more dead Americans'?

You are intentionally creating new terrorists out of people who otherwise would not be.

If it was up to me I'd find an area near Syria that could be secured and protected and move the refugees there until a more permanent home could be found, preferably in a culture similar to where they came from. People who are cool with Sharia Law are not going to integrate well into a liberal democracy like USA, better to send them somewhere that they'll fit in.

Yeah, because concentration camps work so well in making a peaceful population. Tried that with the Palestinians, remember?

As far as which side is taking away rights, it's you guys on the left who advocate for violence against anyone with a different viewpoint. That's a pretty big assault on the First Amendment.

Excect, of course, that didn't happen.

Where is similar behavior from the right? Even all the birther questions about President Obama were all talking, no riots ever occurred.

And then there's all that, you know, actual terrorism. http://observer.com/2016/12/nypd-reports-huge-spike-in-hate-crimes-since-donald-trumps-election/



[/QUOTE] President Bush started the Patriot Act with support from Sen. Clinton and President Obama continued the program, you should be angry at them for the trampling of freedom not President Trump. I'd rather have America First and isolationism rather than a continuation of the past sixteen years of wars of foreign adventurism, which Hillary Clinton would have continued.[/QUOTE]


I'm always unhappy when a conservative program is continued by others. Doesn't make it not a conservative program.

That American fist isolationism is going to get millions of innocent people killed. And many of the dead will be American. You don't make America safer by making the world less safe.

 

[metalhead]

That you got right, mostly. They fully politicized what had been held apart from the usual. JR has provided considerable evidence that it was handled differently.

J

No, he really didn't. "Fully politicized" is just more of your patented backtracking.

Please explain how previous cases of nominees being denied were not "fully politicized." Otherwise, JR is clearly right and you are clearly wrong.

 

[onejayhawk]

OK. Try this. If you don't get the comparison I despair of teaching you.

Two QBs play the same game. At the end of the game, one QB's uniform is covered with dirt and grass stains. The other QB's uniform looks almost fresh washed. Same game. Same field. Same rules. The SCOTUS nominees were the second QB.

J

 

[JollyRoger]

Since 1987, only Bork and Thomas have really been roughed up. Everything else has been theater. Not that far off from our first century or so.

 

[Cutlass]

And Bork and Thomas brought it on themselves by being notably unfit for the position.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, he really didn't. "Fully politicized" is just more of your patented backtracking.

Please explain how previous cases of nominees being denied were not "fully politicized." Otherwise, JR is clearly right and you are clearly wrong.

Jay provides a perfect example. Reasoning with his ilk is a waste of time, because even when caught out cleanly they just move the goalposts or blithely move on to their next false narrative. The liberal era of "respect all men no matter how odious their behavior and lead by example using patience and reason to forward mankind" has clearly not worked.

You get the satisfaction of proving they are wrong, while they burn down your house.

 

[metalhead]

OK. Try this. If you don't get the comparison I despair of teaching you.

Two QBs play the same game. At the end of the game, one QB's uniform is covered with dirt and grass stains. The other QB's uniform looks almost fresh washed. Same game. Same field. Same rules. The SCOTUS nominees were the second QB.

J

So your contention is that no SCOTUS nominees prior to Robert Bork ever got dirt on their uniforms? Or that they did much less frequently than they have since? Because either claim would be completely false.

 

[Old Hippy]

How does limiting the number of potential terrorists into the country promote 'more dead Americans'? If it was up to me I'd find an area near Syria that could be secured and protected and move the refugees there until a more permanent home could be found, preferably in a culture similar to where they came from. People who are cool with Sharia Law are not going to integrate well into a liberal democracy like USA, better to send them somewhere that they'll fit in.

the whole sharia law argument thing actually is a way of attacking all the 3.3 million Muslims in the US in 2010 it continually attacks their identity they are just not us ,when we know that they are quite happy with following the American dream they still believe in it
even after its been pronounced dead
here in Australia we have a bunch of idiots trying to ban 'halal' certified food sales because next Muslims will want sharia law for everyone, no they want a kebab and chips their way

if someone just cracks like right-wing fundamentalists have in the past and decides to blow up federal buildings it promotes more dead Americans
It wasn't political correctness that makes lefties not use certain words when talking about terrorism its an understanding of what causes people to spontaneously decide to become one. there is a lot of research about it
Having your government attacking a group of people daily is pretty silly if you have roughly 1 million Iranian/Americans living there

overseas its been noted that just months before a terrorist goes off the deep end they were not even considered religious by their own religious communities they grew up in, you know the ones who are not terrorist, the leap to fanaticism happens fast
its not the refugees coming in that you have to worry about its the propaganda of the US hates them that matters, presidential decrees that certain people are not welcome
it only plays to the terrorists propaganda, it reinforces " the USA hates Muslims'' BS just like stick them all in a concentration camp in a desert does even if they have family in the US.
it does not just put Americans in danger it puts everyone in danger in countries like Australia Canada the UK Germany France even Indonesia a Muslim country

 

[JollyRoger]

Myth three: The Senate used to defer to the president’s choice.

Tell that to George Washington, whose 1795 nomination of John Rutledge to Chief Justice was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 10 to 14. Or to President John Tyler, who had all six of his Supreme Court nominations rejected by the Senate in the 1840s. (Don’t feel too badly for Tyler—he kind of deserved it.)

On average, about 20 percent of nominees fail to win Senate confirmation. According to The Supreme Court Compendium, this is a higher rejection rate than that of any other federal office. But the rejection rate has gone down, not up in recent years: In the 19th century, the rejection rate was closer to 1 in 3.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/03/the_top_five_supreme_court_nomination_myths.html

 

[Berzerker]

I get the impression the people most opposed to sharia law are Christians who dont want the competition

 

[JollyRoger]

• Personal fidelity to their spouse

• Respect for the marital bonds of others

• Fidelity to the US constitution

• Support for “faithful constitutionalists” as judges

• Opposition to any redefinition of marriage that falls outside of heterosexual monogamous relationships

• “Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy”

• Reform of anti marriage portions of welfare policy

• Extended “cooling off” periods for those seeking a divorce

• Legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act

• Support for a federal marriage amendment to the US constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman

• Opposition to human trafficking, sexual slavery, prostitution,

• Prevention of seduction into promiscuity

• Opposition to pornography. Although Plaats later clarified that the pledge just intended to prevent women from being coerced into pornography.[5]

• Opposition to abortion and infanticide

• Supporting safeguards to prevent sexual abuse in the military

• Opposition to women serving in active combat roles in the military

• Rejection of Sharia Islam

• Rejection of all forms of anti-women totalitarian control

• Recognition that childbearing is beneficial to “U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.”

• Commitment to downsizing the government

• Defense of religious liberty and freedom of speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marriage_Vow

 

[Cutlass]

The irony, of course, being that the Roberts Court conservatives have already made Sharia law legally binding in the US.

 

[onejayhawk]

Since 1987, only Bork and Thomas have really been roughed up. Everything else has been theater. Not that far off from our first century or so.

Alito was not pretty. Still, I agree for the most part.

So your contention is that no SCOTUS nominees prior to Robert Bork ever got dirt on their uniforms? Or that they did much less frequently than they have since? Because either claim would be completely false.

As I said, I despair of teaching. You know it all, even when you have no clue, such as with election polling.

I get the impression the people most opposed to sharia law are Christians who dont want the competition

Sharia would repeal the first amendment. So, if you mean value-religious-freedom, that is somewhat close.

J

 

[JollyRoger]

Sharia as it is being introduced n the U.S. is basically a choice of law agreement between parties, nothing imposed by the government. Opposition to it is anti-Religious freedom and anti-freedom to contract.

 

[onejayhawk]

Sharia as it is being introduced n the U.S. is basically a choice of law agreement between parties, nothing imposed by the government. Opposition to it is anti-Religious freedom and anti-freedom to contract.

This is a definitions issue. The first tenet of Islam is that there is only one God, Allah. The law based on Islam is not consistent with Constitution for that reason. What you are calling sharia is not sharia and should be clearly identified as something else.

J

 

[JollyRoger]

The Constitution honors contracts - see the Contract Clause. Sharia in the U.S. is an agreement between parties via contract to use Sharia as the law governing a dispute between them - you can't get more Constitutional than that.

Generally when you see stories of conservatives being alarmed by Sharia in Western companies, you find out they are talking about such contractual agreements. Don't blame me for their mis-labeling.

 

[schlaufuchs]

This is a definitions issue. The first tenet of Islam is that there is only one God, Allah. The law based on Islam is not consistent with Constitution for that reason. What you are calling sharia is not sharia and should be clearly identified as something else.

J

And God spoke all these words:

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

You shall have no other gods before me.

You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worshep them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

??? We seem perfectly capable of making it work within Jewish and Christian communities, who likewise hold the existence and prominence of their God as absolute. I don't see why Islam would be any different.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

??? We seem perfectly capable of making it work within Jewish and Christian communities, who likewise hold the existence and prominence of their God as absolute. I don't see why Islam would be any different.

Because it is unfamiliar. Which makes it different. Which makes it evil and dangerous. Everyone knows that.

 

[metalhead]

As I said, I despair of teaching. You know it all, even when you have no clue, such as with election polling.

J

Perhaps the reason you can't teach is because you don't possess the faculties to analyze things. I know far, far more than you do about most things, so you are right in that sense. I'm quite sure you have nothing to teach me.

If you didn't descend into obfuscation every time you were challenged, perhaps people would take you seriously.