Amy Coney-Barrett | Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Insulting another member
Eboue said:
Blah blah blah, the same old shit. You're not convincing anyone, which was the original point.

Imagine looking at 2016 where 100 million people didn't vote and thinking the best way to win in 2020 was to target the 1 million people who voted Jill Stein. And then once you've decided that Stein voters are the ones you need to win over, deciding that the best way to do it is not to adopt policies those voters want or give positions of power to people supported by those voters but instead to have The Screencap Dipshit make snidey comments about them. Truly that's the way to win over these voters.

The truth is that its not about increasing voter share or converting undecideds or harm mitigation or even about winning the election. Its simply about feeling smug and superior. You never reckon with the damage democrats have wrought. You never care about the lives Biden has destroyed. Its all about you feeling smug online.

Not voting 2020, eat my shorts
Click to expand...

That's incredibly fecking rich coming from a smug. self righteous cnut like you.
 
There is little point rising to it matherto. You weren't being smug, but there's no point getting a ban.
 
Eboue said:
Blah blah blah, the same old shit. You're not convincing anyone, which was the original point.

Imagine looking at 2016 where 100 million people didn't vote and thinking the best way to win in 2020 was to target the 1 million people who voted Jill Stein. And then once you've decided that Stein voters are the ones you need to win over, deciding that the best way to do it is not to adopt policies those voters want or give positions of power to people supported by those voters but instead to have The Screencap Dipshit make snidey comments about them. Truly that's the way to win over these voters.

The truth is that its not about increasing voter share or converting undecideds or harm mitigation or even about winning the election. Its simply about feeling smug and superior. You never reckon with the damage democrats have wrought. You never care about the lives Biden has destroyed. Its all about you feeling smug online.

Not voting 2020, eat my shorts
Click to expand...
You'll be voting down ballot though right? Or is it just establishmentarians on offer for you?
 
Biden going on healthcare

 
President and then the Senate chooses these things right? Perhaps there's theoretical things that the Democrats can do to stop it but we know they won't, so not very relevant.

It's a deeply silly institution. 'So, we're gonna make this thing where a tiny number of 'judges' can rule over everything, and we're gonna let the President pick the judges, and they can literally just choose their 5 year old son if they want'.
 
DOTA said:
President and then the Senate chooses these things right? Perhaps there's theoretical things that the Democrats can do to stop it but we know they won't, so not very relevant.

It's a deeply silly institution. 'So, we're gonna make this thing where a tiny number of 'judges' can rule over everything, and we're gonna let the President pick the judges, and they can literally just choose their 5 year old son if they want'.
Click to expand...
They literally can't choose their 5 year old son.
 
Rado_N said:
Translation; you have no reasonable counter argument.
Click to expand...

I was accused of being smug, I wasn't the one being smug. I was being realistic about the point of not voting for one of the two candidates that have any chance of being elected due to a sense of 'principle'. Principle doesn't help if one of the options is likely to be deciding laws for 40 years+ and they're horrible in all of their viewpoints yet you won't vote for the one that might not want to nominate that person for such an important position.

There is on 'not voting for the lesser of two evils just because' and not seeing the bigger picture.

It's the 'don't blame me, I voted for ______' so my nose is clean when it does jack shit other than self serve.

A comedian here makes a better fist of it than me talking about third party/not voting out of principle



And yes, I let it get to me but it is rich when the accuser is being smug themselves.

America has two choices, both horrible, just like 2016. Either you vote for the lesser of two evils or you shut the feck up whilst the country burns down around you.
 
matherto said:
America has two choices, both horrible, just like 2016.
Click to expand...

And, I'm sure Eboue would say, just like 2012, and 2008, and 2004, and 2000, and 1996, and so on. Maybe he would say it goes back as far as FDR, or maybe even further, I don't know. The point is that if someone's utterly convinced that "lesser of two evils" is the reason why voters get to pick between two evils, then you're not going to be able to convince them that this time it's actually important to vote for one of them.
 
DOTA said:
Starting to worry here!
Click to expand...
The Constitution doesn’t actually provide any age, citizenship, or legal knowledge specifications. It relies wholly on the Senate not confirming a poor appointment.

The Constitution predates formal political parties in the United States, so it has a blind spot towards people fecking over the country for the benefit of their chosen political club.
 
Carolina Red said:
The Constitution doesn’t actually provide any age, citizenship, or legal knowledge specifications. It relies wholly on the Senate not confirming a poor appointment.

The Constitution predates formal political parties in the United States, so it has a blind spot towards people fecking over the country for the benefit of their chosen political club.
Click to expand...
That was my suspicion. As I say, I think it's a deeply silly system. I don't really think there is an issue around 5 year olds being appointed mainly as it's not realistic that they would worsen things. I was just trying to highlight how ill-designed it is.
 
Carolina Red said:
The Constitution doesn’t actually provide any age, citizenship, or legal knowledge specifications. It relies wholly on the Senate not confirming a poor appointment.

The Constitution predates formal political parties in the United States, so it has a blind spot towards people fecking over the country for the benefit of their chosen political club.
Click to expand...

I'll never understand the American worship of the Constitution. We have our own Constitution in Norway which is nearly as old as yours, and we're quite fond of it (our "4th of July" is May 17th, the day the Constitution was signed). But we couldn't care less about what the authors of it thought about it, or what the original intent was, or anything like that.

We also have our own Supreme Court, but I'd be extremely surprised to find them considering what the Founding Fathers said about this or that issue. It just isn't relevant. Those guys lived in the 18th and 19th centuries, what the hell did they know about modern Norway?
 
nimic said:
I'll never understand the American worship of the Constitution. We have our own Constitution in Norway which is nearly as old as yours, and we're quite fond of it (our "4th of July" is May 17th, the day the Constitution was signed). But we couldn't care less about what the authors of it thought about it, or what the original intent was, or anything like that.
Click to expand...

Ya it's odd how the Constitution is seen as this religious document by some people, wouldn't be surprised if the founders in the US would also feel the same way considering many of them disliked religion.
 
DOTA said:
That was my suspicion. As I say, I think it's a deeply silly system. I don't really think there is an issue around 5 year olds being appointed mainly as it's not realistic that they would worsen things. I was just trying to highlight how ill-designed it is.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don’t think we have to worry about a literal 5 year old either and all, but I understand your point.

In a time of hyper-polarized politics, there’s not much to stop an absolutely unqualified person from being appointed and confirmed.
nimic said:
I'll never understand the American worship of the Constitution. We have our own Constitution in Norway which is nearly as old as yours, and we're quite fond of it (our "4th of July" is May 17th, the day the Constitution was signed). But we couldn't care less about what the authors of it thought about it, or what the original intent was, or anything like that.

We also have our own Supreme Court, but I'd be extremely surprised to find them considering what the Founding Fathers said about this or that issue. It just isn't relevant. Those guys lived in the 18th and 19th centuries, what the hell did they know about modern Norway?
Click to expand...
I think it has become so ingrained in our system because it is the origin of our first two political parties.

Hamilton’s Federalists and Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans drew battle lines over the loose constructional vs. strict constructional view of the establishment of the national bank. So from the very foundation of American party politics, it has been an argument over the Constitution being a living or rigid document.
 
Carolina Red said:
I think it has become so ingrained in our system because it is the origin of our first two political parties.

Hamilton’s Federalists and Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans drew battle lines over the loose constructional vs. strict constructional view of the establishment of the national bank. So from the very foundation of American party politics, it has been an argument over the Constitution being a living or rigid document.
Click to expand...

I guess it was sort of inevitable that the Constitution and the interpretation of it would be such a major issue, considering the federal nature of the US. Particularly in the early years. We were more or less a unitary state from the beginning*, so we didn't have different states trying to assert their rights in that manner.

I wonder if it's ever going to change, this Constitution/Founding Fathers worship. You'd think it would decline the further the US got away from it in time, but it's over two hundreds years now and you've still got massive issues being decided on the basis of what those men may or may not have meant.

Edit:* as a side note, the legislative is by far the most powerful of the institutions in Norway, in part since it was the direct method used to gain independence from Sweden. We obviously still have an independent judiciary (with a Supreme Court), but precedence is much less of a thing here than in the US. The courts don't make law.
 
Last edited:
nimic said:
And, I'm sure Eboue would say, just like 2012, and 2008, and 2004, and 2000, and 1996, and so on. Maybe he would say it goes back as far as FDR, or maybe even further, I don't know. The point is that if someone's utterly convinced that "lesser of two evils" is the reason why voters get to pick between two evils, then you're not going to be able to convince them that this time it's actually important to vote for one of them.
Click to expand...

It's always important to vote for the lesser of two evils because that's all you ever get to do.

Politicians only come in two flavours. Evil and slightly less evil. We only get to pick one of them. Or you can be a smug arse who's serving your own self importance by conscienciously objecting to playing the game and thinking it makes any difference whatsoever and that you have 'principles'.

What makes Obama, Kerry, McCain, GWB (I mean, come the feck on), etc not evil so that you could argue you weren't doing exactly that in 2012, 2008, 2004, 1996, etc?
 
nimic said:
I guess it was sort of inevitable that the Constitution and the interpretation of it would be such a major issue, considering the federal nature of the US. Particularly in the early years. We were more or less a unitary state from the beginning, so we didn't have different states trying to assert their rights in that manner.

I wonder if it's ever going to change, this Constitution/Founding Fathers worship. You'd think it would decline the further the US got away from it in time, but it's over two hundreds years now and you've still got massive issues being decided on the basis of what those men may or may not have meant.
Click to expand...
Well, part of the issue is the nigh on deification that some of them underwent after their deaths, along with the deeply ingrained religiosity of the American population. For folks who have no issues at all with taking a literal interpretation of texts multiple thousands of years old that were ghost written by a deity, they don’t see much of an issue with taking the 230ish year old words of near-deities as near-gospel.

And to speak to a specific Framer of the Constitution that really screwed up the interpretation of the document... James Madison... Madison was one of the most prominent Framers, he pushed hard for the ratification of the document via the Federalist Papers with Hamilton and John Jay, had a major role in the Bill of Rights, and was known to view the Constitution in a more loose constructionalist way. Well, when conflict broke out between Jefferson and Hamilton over the bank, due to his personal dislike of Hamilton, he changed his whole public view of the Constitution and threw his hat in with Jefferson’s strict constructionists.
 
matherto said:
It's always important to vote for the lesser of two evils because that's all you ever get to do.

Politicians only come in two flavours. Evil and slightly less evil. We only get to pick one of them. Or you can be a smug arse who's serving your own self importance by conscienciously objecting to playing the game and thinking it makes any difference whatsoever and that you have 'principles'.
Click to expand...

You're clearly broken by the system, if that's how you feel. If anything, you're more cynical than Eboue, and yet you're the one berating people for not voting for your option.

What makes Obama, Kerry, McCain, GWB (I mean, come the feck on), etc not evil so that you could argue you weren't doing exactly that in 2012, 2008, 2004, 1996, etc?
Click to expand...

That was quite literally the point.
 
"The earth belongs to the living and not to the dead" is a sentiment I believe in.
 
Carolina Red said:
“Blessed be the fruit“

Click to expand...
Apart from the two they adopted, all the girls look exactly like their mum and the two boys like their dad.

They are clearly cloning rather than breeding.
 
Eboue said:
Blah blah blah, the same old shit. You're not convincing anyone, which was the original point.

Imagine looking at 2016 where 100 million people didn't vote and thinking the best way to win in 2020 was to target the 1 million people who voted Jill Stein. And then once you've decided that Stein voters are the ones you need to win over, deciding that the best way to do it is not to adopt policies those voters want or give positions of power to people supported by those voters but instead to have The Screencap Dipshit make snidey comments about them. Truly that's the way to win over these voters.

The truth is that its not about increasing voter share or converting undecideds or harm mitigation or even about winning the election. Its simply about feeling smug and superior. You never reckon with the damage democrats have wrought. You never care about the lives Biden has destroyed. Its all about you feeling smug online.

Not voting 2020, eat my shorts
Click to expand...
That is actually a pretty logical reason. Would you have voted if Bernie won the nomination?
 
Soooo, what's wrong with giving these judged term limits? Apart from it not being written on that 232 year old rag written by a bunch of rich white dudes?
 
KirkDuyt said:
Soooo, what's wrong with giving these judged term limits? Apart from it not being written on that 232 year old rag written by a bunch of rich white dudes?
Click to expand...

Bit of an odd question. Why can't we just do what we want..

Also the 'rag' is a living document that has had many many amendments to it so if there was enough support it could be amended
 
Drainy said:
Bit of an odd question. Why can't we just do what we want..

Also the 'rag' is a living document that has had many many amendments to it so if there was enough support it could be amended
Click to expand...
Yes, my sarcastic comment was meant to pose the question, why are there no termlimits. What is the upside of no term limits? Conversely, what would be the downside of term limits.

Also, I don't think part of American society is aware amendments can actually be amended as they seem to view the constitution as some sort of holy text. There's nothing special about it, not anymore.
 
KirkDuyt said:
Yes, my sarcastic comment was meant to pose the question, why are there no termlimits. What is the upside of no term limits? Conversely, what would be the downside of term limits.
Click to expand...

Presumably its to promote independence from the other arms of government. If you need renominating every few years there is leverage to influence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.