Total posts: 1,449
Go straight for those good reasons, it saves time.
Well in that hypothetical, it would be beneficial to find out for yourself, but when it comes to complex issues like evolution, you can't just walk into the room and see what color the cube is.
To really be an expert you have to dedicate your whole life to biology, and I doubt me or you are going to to that. That's why we go out and find studies that other scientists did, because it's their job to do those studies.
and yet if you applied that premise to religion suddenly "it's different". A rule with exceptions is no rule.
Once again, religion isn't science. Religion is mostly blind faith, while science is all about looking for answers. Million believe in christianity, but that doesn't make them experts on Evolution. You have to go to the actual experts, the Biologists.
If you think there are double blind controls in paleontology you don't know what you're talking about.This isn't an experiment, it's all analysis (logic).
Fine, I misused the word experiment, but if all the analysis comes back and says that evolution is proven, then the fact doesn't change.
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count:
Casey (5/5) - Pie, Whiteflame, Austin, WyIted, Barney
Casey_Risk was LYNCHED. He was... INNOCENT!
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No, when people say evolution (and you dig into it) they mean simultaneously refinement of existing function through natural selection and the generation of novel functional structures through a coincidental scaffolding, which is then preserved and refined by natural selection.The former contains only the assumption of a continuous gradient of changes towards a local maximum of fitness.
Well then by that definition I don’t believe in the theory of evolution. Natural selection preferred animals that survive and reproduce, not thrive. There is a threshold that and animal must cross, and if it does, there is no need for more improvement until environments change.
Evolution doesn’t tend towards perfection, it tends towards a bear minimum.
There is no substitute, so appealing to authority is a waste of time in a debate.
I never tried to explicitly “prove” anything with my appeals to authority. I used other primary sources and science to “prove” my point, I just made it so that my point was better backed up by my citing of authority. Sure, that doesn’t prove anything, but it makes it so there is about a 99.99% my argument is correct. If every single person working to find if something is true come back and say it is true, then there is a very good chance it is true.
It’s possible that they have some sort of secret science cabal, but most of these studies are independent of each other, and there are literally millions of biologists. I think they know what they’re talking about.
This is an excellent rebuttal.
I don’t think it is. Biology and Islam are two very different things. Islam is blind faith while Biology is people actively working together to see if something is true. The people behind 9/11 weren’t actively trying to prove Allah was real, they just did it.
Biologists are successfully proving the theory of evolution, not just blindly accepting it.
The real is not defined as that which you can convince yourself of, but that which reason forces you to believe whether you want to believe it or not.
Again, I’m not saying that an appeal to authority argument definitely proves anything, I’m just saying to makes it very probable that if they all agree to the same thing, that thing is the truth.
If that is the analogy then what happens when evolution is saying the block was blue? That is closer to the situation when Darwin published and even now if you actually polled the entire planet most would profess to believe that evolution doesn't work without god (or that the fossil record was a trick god made or something).
Well that’s why I said that the block was “probably” red. I don’t deny that there is a slight chance those million people all created a pact to lie about the block and every single one kept it, but the chance are slim to nill.
It makes so much more sense to trust the million people who said it was red than to just go against all of them for no good reason.
Obviously, some research of your own would be good too, but if you don’t have that time, or you take into account the research you did plus what the other people say, it’s okay to trust the one million people who said it was red.
Created:
Posted in:
CatholicApologetics has not been mod killed.
There are about 26 hours left in the DP
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amber
Well it’s too late now anyways, but I think it might be fun if you played the next game. Just a thought.
Created:
The difference is that evolution is not observable and natural selection is. To use it interchangeably is disingenuous.
I still don’t get it. If I’ve been using “evolution” to describe natural selection, then what really is evolution?
Only read the preview. Did they state that they saw the final generation to be more like a fly than a bacteria? That is what evolution is proposing. You cannot call genetic makeup passed down to their children as evolution. It is not the same.
No, the viruses didn’t turn into flys, but there were noticeable changes in their RNA. If subtle changes can happen in such short a time, then if you give a single cell organism 3.7 billion years, it can have its children be humans.
I don’t understand why you can accept evolution on a small scale and the say that that can’t possibly transfer to a bigger one?
Islamic people have dedicated their lives to Allah, but that doesn't mean what they conjure is good. (See 9/11 for reference) Just because a group agrees, it doesn't mean its a sure thing.
Well Islam isn’t science. You can dedicate your life to Allah without every trying to see if he’s real, but science is all about try to see if things are real.
If every single person trying to see if evolution is real comes to the conclusion that it is, well then it probably is.
This is like if I showed 1,000 people a colored block, they all came back honestly saying that block was red, and then you said, no, it’s blue.
Okay, it’s a little different, but I couldn’t think of a better analogy. The point remains the same.
That would be a great point assuming the layers were created over millions of years. These are sediment layers and they were laid in a short time.See attached link of trees in sediment layers.
If sunken trees were found in the same location as some bones were dug up, then that might be grounds to question whether or not those bones had the right dating, but almost all of these sites don’t have the sunken trees.
Your source said that they were caused by sudden landslides and other things, but those haven’t happened to every piece of dirt on every dig site.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Natural selection is a process within the evolution theory, but not evolution as a whole.
What’s the difference, I’ve always heard them used interchangeably?
All these say is that the fossils form the bottom don't look like the fossils from the top. That is not proving anything except there were a lot of different animals that died and was fossilized.
But that’s the point. Fossils buried deeper are older because they have had more time to sink down into the earth.
The fossils from longer ago are different from the more recent ones, so this shows is that some species went extinct longer ago than other, and some began to exist at other times.
The older fossils are less complex than the new ones, so it follows that they have been evolving into the new ones.
Bible creationism says that God created all the animals in one day, but this clearly disputes that.
I am referring to the "missing link" in the fossil record. There is no hybrid "kind", like a dog/cat or a horse/alligator transitioning in the fossil record.
Well first of all, dogs didn’t evolve from cats. They had a common ancestor long ago that branches off, but I’m assuming that was a joke.
Same thing goes for horses and alligators.
Second, the missing link problem isn’t really a problem. People used to say there was a missing link between dinosaurs and birds, but recently we have found that dinosaurs which came much later had feathers and began getting smaller.
We have found animals between fish and tetrapods, reptiles and mammals, and whales and land mammals.
If there are still “missing links”, that doesn’t disprove anything, it just means we haven’t found everything yet, or some things aren’t present in the fossil record.
We do actually. We can observe viruses in labs evolving.Please send link.
Sure! Virus evolution is the whole reason we need to take a new flu shot every year, or why there are so many variants of COVID. Viruses reproduce so fast that we can actually measure the evolution is the RNA.
This is a cool study where they took a population of E-Coli and checked in on the RNA in the virus to see if it had change. The crazy things is there was noticeable differences by only about generation 500-1000.
You have to create a free account to access it BTW.
You believe the fossil change because you believe in evolution. You believe the virus "evolved" because you believe evolution.
I believe in this science because 1. It’s widely observable and probable through empirical evidence, and 2. I trust the experts. Let’s be honest. Neither me nor you are experts in this field, and unless we dedicate our lives to researching it, we never will be. That’s why if you don’t want to waste your life, you turn to people who did waste it :P.
These people have dedicated their lives to science, so if they all 100% agree on something, it’s probably true.
We don't debate that a tree grows from a seed because it can be observed. Trees growing from seeds is proven, not theories.
My point was using a hypothetical where we couldn’t observe trees growing. We would still know that they grew from seeds even though we couldn’t actually observe it.
Also, the theory of evolution isn’t a theory. It was once, but now it’s fact and the name has stuck. The theory of relativity is also called a theory, but no one disputes that.
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count:
Casey (1/5) - Pie,
There are about 48 hours left in the DP
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
I would agree with this analogy if this were the only tenant of evolution, but what you have described is merely "natural selection". This is the ability for a species to survive through the certain slight changes of a creatures already existing DNA.
I think you’re confused. Natural selection is the theory of evolution. They’re just the same thing with different words.
BUT we have never developed the oh so needed third arm to get my keys out when I'm walking to my car with a Circle K hotdog and a Thirst Buster™.
Well the reason for this is that evolution isn’t a machine that makes every species perfect.
Evolution takes a huge amount of time, and Circle K hasn’t been around that long, but I get that that’s a joke. Any of the traits that would help us survive in the modern world haven’t evolved yet because our human technology just moves way too fast for evolution to catch up. To even have the slightest change, it take a few generations of humans. Now look back a few generations by technology, let’s say 100 years. Look how far we have come from 1924! Evolution can’t change as rapidly as technology because it is slow.
But besides that even, it only makes changes that are necessary. Just because you can’t open your car door because your hands are full doesn’t mean you will die, and it doesn’t mean you will have a less chance of survival. Evolution only changes things when they help the species survive and reproduce, not when they need to open a car door.
The fossil record doesn't show it (The missing link)
Actually 🤓, there is overwhelming evidence in the fossil record for evolution. Darwin even showed that the fossil record supports his theory. Here’s some more recent studies:
The first two aren’t scientific studies, they summarize the information I’m trying to convey, but they both have studies link and cited, and are very reputable.
The last one is a study, but like most of them, it’s behind a pay-wall. I just put it there so you could see that there are studies proving
evolution.
and we have nothing showing this is the case in real life.
We do actually. We can observe viruses in labs evolving.
So again, just because one portion of Science can show how animals live and adapt to certain climates and situations, it doesn't mean that evolution is "proven".
That entire sentence is an oxymoron. You basically just said that even though science proves evolution, science doesn’t prove evolution.
Animals adapting to climate by natural selection is evolution.
You cannot prove that a life form has "evolved" into a higher form of life just through random chance.
Well that depends what you mean by “prove”. Can go back in time and watch every minute of history to see animals evolving, no. But all something needs to be proven a scientific fact is to have overwhelming evidence in favor of it, and evolution has that.
If you were to walk up to a tree and say, God made that tree exactly how it is, it didn’t grow. I might believe you if it was cave man time.
But now we have science that shows how seeds can grow into trees. Even if we decided never to witness a tree growing, we would still know that they grow from seeds because of our knowledge of how seeds work and of how trees work.
Something doesn’t have to be completely and directly observed to be “proven”, it just has to be far and away the best explanation, and that’s what evolution is.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I thought that went without saying. Rich elites or the middle class won’t really be shaken by a 9% inflation spike, but it will affect poor people so republicans can use it to win over working class voters.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The whole concept of inflation isn’t “over”. If you’re referring to the spike in inflation we had due to covid, well that’s been over ever since the fed got that soft landing a few months back. Also, I think the argument coming from republicans is not that it’s still a thing, but that it was a thing under Biden.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
Well sure, that might be the case, but we have no way of knowing, so by our current knowledge its logical to believe that things we observe are as they are.
Evolution is observed, so it’s logical to assume that it is how things actually work.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
By proven fact I mean that it is a phenomenon that can be observed and measured. It has been observed and measured in labs with viruses, but there is other stuff too.
There is overwhelming evidence from the fossil record that shows evolution, and most simple of all, we know that all the components necessary for it to happen are happening, so we know that it happens.
Here’s what I mean. The theory of evolution states that different species are caused by genetic mutations. For instance, say a group of brown bears moves up north. One of the brown bears has a genetic mutation, and has white fur, not brown fur. Because of this, it has camouflage so it can hunt better. Because it can hunt better, it has a better chance of surviving long enough to pass on its genes, so then more brown bears develop white fur, and more traits that help them survive in colder climates. The brown bears in the group die off and the Polar bears survive.
We know that genetic mutation happens, every single person is born with it. If not, we would be exact copies of our parent. Some people have more than others, but everybody does.
Because we know these things, the natural confusion is that the theory of evolution is correct. We know that we have genetic mutation, so either mutations exist, and they just affect nothing, but that’s completely stupid. The species with better mutations will go on to survive, which is the theory of evolution.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Yes, are you really going to try and fight me on this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
@ILikePie5
@AustinL0926
@Casey_Risk
DP is up
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@WyIted
@JoeBob
@Owen_T
@CatholicApologetics
DP is up
Created:
Posted in:
1. Owen_T
2. IlikePie5
3. Casey_Risk
4. Joebob
5. Austin
6. Whiteflame
7. WyIted
8. Barney
9. CatholicApologetics
Basic Mafia rules apply. If you have any specific questions, you can always PM me. DPs are 72 hours and NPs are 24. This DP ends at 12:00 August 15.
Tag me if you need a vote count or a time check.
Also remember, Scum knows all the characters in the game, but not the roles or who has them.
With 9 players it takes 5 votes to Lynch. Have fun!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@WyIted
Alright, I think you guys are going to have to play
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
If you ever have any questions, you can always, PM me, and I’ll answer them to the best of my ability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I’d recommend reading this.
I’ll help you through the game as best as I can, so don’t feel to overwhelmed.
It will take a bit more activity than normal, so if you have something else going right now, you may not want to participate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Alright, I’ll try to find some other people, but chances are you’re going to be in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amber
@CatholicApologetics
Would either of you be interested in mafia?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
@Lunatic
@Barney
Are you guys playing this round?
Created:
Posted in:
1. Owen_T
2. IlikePie5
3. Casey_Risk
4. Joebob
5. Austin
6. Whiteflame
7.
8.
9.
Backups: WyIted
Created:
Posted in:
1. Owen_T
2. IlikePie5
3. Casey_Risk
4. Joebob
5. Austin
6.
7.
8.
9.
Backups: WyIted
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
@Lunatic
@whiteflame
@AustinL0926
@Savant
Sign-ups!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@ILikePie5
@WyIted
@JoeBob
@Casey_Risk
Sign-ups!
Created:
Posted in:
Sign ups!
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
I won’t be giving much more information on the topic just because that might give away the theme split early on. You’ll figure it out pretty quickly though.
Basic Mafia rules apply, if it seems like cheating, it probably is, but check with me first.
One new thing I’m trying, Scum will know what characters are in the game, but will not know their corresponding roles or who got each one.
Created:
Confusing? I write in crystal clear proper English. Are you not a first English speaker/writer, or are you from some other country so English is you second, third, fourth or whatever language capacity??????????While India is categorically in the Southeast area of the "Asian" region, Indian from India are NOT "Asian."If you didn't know this, it's just another point to make that you just don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
No, I never said that. I never said that Indians were Asians. I am so confused about where you though.I said that.
Wrong. Every race on the planet has been a slave at one point or another throughout human history. That means, since humans can travel, humans from other countries beyond Africa can be taken to other places where even Africans are slaves and be slaves too. That includes Indians from India. DUH!!!
Okay, just to make sure we are 100% on the same page, here’s what I meant.
You said that her great great grandmother was an emanated slave in the Caribbean.
Almost all of the slaves in the Caribbean at the time were black.
You are correct that every different race has been a slave at some time, but in specifically the Caribbean at that time period, overwhelmingly all of the slaves were black.
My reference to Asians was sarcasm about how many Asian slaves they had in the Caribbean at the time, which was next to zero, if any.
Does that make sense? I am Sorry for being so unclear though.
Can you prove that? Can you prove Judge Brown never met Kamala's father? Didn't have an interpersonal dialogue about one another's background, life and present circumstances?
Where did you get it that I said he never met Kamala’s father? I never said that.
What I said was in the video you sent “Judge brown said that he never know Kamala’s father was black, because Kamala’s father never said he was black. I never tried to “prove” anything.
Also, you took my quote a little out of context.
Nonsensical word salad.
Look, I’m open to a debate about this, it if you’re just going to keep insulting me like this, and not even listening to my points, then I can’t keep doing this with you.
You hold nothing in this debate/discussion. That much is conclusively proven.
What did I ever do to you that warrants this kind of stuff? Please tell me, because if I unwittingly started this, then I do want to know. From my POV I’m just trying to have a debate about something and then you start saying this.
A box of rocks is more intelligent than you are.JFC, you clearly know not what you're even trying to argue here.
Seriously, I want to continue this debate, but only if we talk about the actual topic. This is just an ad hominem fallacy.
Wasn't clear on that? It doesn't get any clearer than "I met the man" you tard!!!You lack the academic and professional experience to comprehend that the term "hearsay" even means, let alone utilize correctly.You're losing this debate, and you know it.But hey, Like History Buff, keep trying out of sheer desperation and psychological projection. It's rather humorous, really.
What I meant was he wasn’t clear in if he just met the guy once or if he was good friends with him.
You said that they were good friends, and I said that they had just met a few times, and when I reviewed the video, I found he only said “I’ve met the guy” so I don’t think it was very clear.
Anyways, I want to hear what you have to say about this debate, and I hope we can both stick to the topic at hand.
Created:
-->
@Amber
I did not admit "her relative was a slave," damn your lack of reading comprehension knows no bounds.Indians from India have been slaves too. Indians from India were taken to other continents under British control ya know!Yes, India is in the Asian geographical area, but Indians are NOT "Asians" (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans), so stop with the obfuscation.
Sorry, that was confusing on my part. The Asian thing was a joke. My point was that if you were a slave in the Caribbean, then you are about 99.999999999% of the time, black. Her great grandmother or something was listed as a slave, so that means she was probably black.
No, direct personal evidence is better than "anecdotal evidence." Judge Brown met, talked to, and heard it straight from the horses mouth.
See, the problem with that is that he didn’t actually hear anything, and that’s the point.
In the video he said that he never knew that her father was black, not that her father said he wasn’t black.
And again, that’s not good grounds for evidence. I can say that any person I ever met was any race I wanted, but that wouldn’t make them that race. It’s not evidence, it’s hearsay.
Not that it doesn’t hold some weight, it just doesn’t hold a lot.
Where did Judge Brown say he met the guy "on a few occasions"?It's firsthand knowledge. It's not "casual" knowledge. It's direct knowledge. Therefore, it is NOT 'anecdotal.'
It’s not direct, because it’s through somebody else.
He also said in the video “I’ve met the guy”. That’s pretty vague, but I took that to mean that he has just “met the guy” and doesn’t really know him.
No, I would not. He knows him personally. Within the definition of hearsay (note, correct spelling here), it is clear that "Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness," and yet Judge Brown has 'personal knowledge of" what Professor Harris told him directly.
Well that’s the thing, he wasn’t super clear on that, but I took it to mean that they had just met each other.
Still when it comes down to it, it’s hearsay from somebody who didn’t hear contradictory to him being black, he just never heard him actually say that he was black.
I’ll take the semi-spotty family history.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Interesting
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If Kamala wins, then why is your timeline so bad?
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Who are you and what have you done with the real DD?
Oh wait.
In that case, how does Kamala end up winning Pennsylvania? In our timeline, and how does she lose Pennsylvania in your timeline?
Created:
No, what I’m saying is that your premise of just multiplying by 2 is false because of life tenure playing a factor in the number of seats available to fill.It’s a misleading fact is my point because you’re just multiplying by 2, without considering the nuance of doing so. It’s not a linear relationship.
Well, you can't really find the average for the number of justices appointed in a eight year term, because there are some four year terms, but the margin of error is so low that by just multiplying by two, you can get close enough that the average is still above four.
One other thing you can do is to only count the four year terms and not the two year terms, but that is going to be so skewed because there have only been 16 presidents that served two terms. Why do we have to think about it in terms of 8 years and not 4 though?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Ya but that’s still more than the current average of 2-3 lol, so you’re reducing independence.
I think you're a little confused. The average for one four year term is 2.14, and for two four year terms, it's 4.28, not 2-3 as you keep saying. The proposed amendment would make it a solid 4, so it's going from 4.28 to 4, so less appointments.
That’s not how math works when the terms of justices are unlimited. No President has got 4 since Reagan I think. So the average is 2-3 in two terms, not 4 lol.
That's still just a number you came up with in your head. The actual calculated average is 4.28 per 8 years. That is a fact you cannot dispute.
Again, it’s not abuse to follow the rules that have been in place for more than 2 centuries. And you have zero credibility bringing this policy up because your part is not in power in terms of the SCOTUS. We can talk again when your party is in control.
Still a logical fallacy, but yeah, let's do it.
Created:
-->
@Amber
Judge Joe Brown met her father and explains it clearly
Again with this anecdotal evidence. I go looking through the actual record, or lack thereof, and you find one guy who met her father on a few occasions.
Wrong. That's a term meant 'apprentice' and was given to emancipated slaves and were paid for their labor.
You just used the word “emancipated”. You admitted that her relative was a slave, which basically means she was black, unless I’m forgetting about all the Asian slaves they had in the Caribbean.
Pure speculation that is equally full of holes and discrepancies. You're just repeating the nonsense annotated in that source.
Yes, the records are spotty, but they’re much better than anecdotal evidence, and they do point in the direction of her being black, so even though we can’t know for sure, we can make an educated guess.
Not according to Judge Brown who knew the man personally and got the info about him straight from the proverbial horse's mouth.
If we were in court right now, you would be called out for heresay so fast right now. I have enough evidence to make an educated guess, and you have anecdotal heresay.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
But it reduces independence for those who go past the average, especially with lifespans increasing
Yes, but that’s the whole point of an average. Most justices won’t be limited by the time frame.
If you want to appoint more justices, win more elections and it will naturally happen.
Or just wait around and it will happen artificially.
Not my fault Hillary lost. Presidential victory and Senate confirmation occur indirectly via the people, so it’s false to say it’s not representative.
Sure, it’s not completely random, but that doesn’t mean that it’s unrepresentative. There is still that element of randomness that we can get rid of.
But you want to increase it to 4 nominees every term lol.
No, I want to decrease it to 2. 18 years and 9 justices. 18 / 9 = 2 so justices get replaced every two years. 4 / 2 = 2, so each term there are 2 appointments, and two terms get 4. It’s simple math. Lol.
But you want to increase it to 4 nominees every term lol. 2 in first term and 2 in second lol. When the average President gets 2-3 in two terms. So you’re actually wrong.
No, the average president gets 2.14 per four year term, so they get 4.28 per 8 year term. You are making up a statistic about each president getting 2-3, when it reality it’s four.
Let’s face it, this request wouldn’t have come up if Hillary had won and appointed Scalia’s and RBG’s seat.
You’re right, it probably wouldn’t have, but it’s still a logical fallacy. We had no reason to repair a system that we didn’t think was broken. We didn’t think the system would be abused like this, so there wasn’t a need to fix it.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
No. A 2 term president gets 4 (minimum).
Sorry, I meant terms, but you still get the point. On average, in four term, 8/9 of the court will be appointed. This system just smooths the wrinkles.
Justices are going to stay till they die or can retire under a President who shares a similar ideology to them.
But that's the thing, I just proved that that isn't the case. Justitices stay on average for about 16 years, so a 18 year term limit doesn't even do much to stop people from serving.
Representative of what? I already said how the justices are already representative of the people via the President and Senate.
I don't think you get the point. Sure, the president is elected representative, but they then go on and appoint a random number of justices, so some presidents with lots of support end up less appointments and some presidents with little support appoint a lot. It's not representative.
A court isn’t going to be separate if every President makes 4 nominees.
Again, you are just ignoring my statistics. The Average appointments per term is already 2.14, so this law actually decreases the number of appointments!
Republicans weren’t calling for term limits or an end to the Senate when the Dems controlled everything for literally decades
That's a logical fallacy, It has nothing to do with the actual substance of the argument at hand.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Mostly true, but again it just proves my point. By large the Constitution was designed to not be fair. We are a nation because it wasn’t designed to be fair.
My point about that was that they got removed. Are you saying our nation worked because we disenfranchised most of the population?
How? You’re joking right? A 2 term POTUS would make 4 appointees. That’s almost half the court. “Independence.” Now let’s say the VP gets 2 terms. 8/9. “Independence.”
Well at least that way the court is representative, and I’ll remind you that my system doesn’t actually change this. The average justice only stays on the bench for 16 years, so just because they have the option to stay on for longer doesn’t mean that they will.
In short, it already evens out so that on average, four president get to appoint 8/9 of the court. This is no new info.
Also, you still haven’t addressed the stability of the law argument, so I assume you concede that. And just based on that, your argument becomes invalid.
You know, the president ends up appointing on average 2.14 justices per term. You made this whole point about how the current system is more separate because the president doesn’t appoint justices as much, but clearly this is just not true. If you count stability as having less appointments, then this is much more stable. This proposed amendment has everything you want, less appointments, fairness, and a more separate court, and you still oppose it. Why? I really hope it’s not just partisan politics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I’m an agnostic atheist. It’s more probable that no god exists, but it’s possible.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Who cares. The Constitution was designed to not be fair.
The constitution was also designed to not enfranchise anyone but rich, white, male, landowners.
Oh, so every President is already making appointments. You just want more for your party is what I’m hearing.
No, I want the same amount for everyone. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Yes, but there’s still independence. If every President appoints 3, there won’t be independence.
How? Also it’s 2 appointments.
Sure, so the system is fair. Every President gets to appoint someone. Some more than other, but that’s just cause people die. You can’t control when they die.
yeah, but we can can control when they have to resign. Now your starting to get it.
The first is always better because separation of powers is greater under the first.
The whole point of that is that separation of power is the same either way. My way just makes it fair and as separate as possible.
How can you possibly claim the court is separate when Trump can influence 1/3 of the court during his term?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don’t think so. What’s your point?
Created: