Total posts: 1,449
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I want to live forever because I am evolutionarily programmed to enjoy living. A suicidal animal doesn’t pass on its genes and so doesn’t exist.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Cause Kamala won’t have any influence if she wins. Lots of Presidents didn’t make appointments. Independence.
Four president have not made any appointments, and three of them were removed from office early. Willian Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Johnson, and Jimmy Carter.
That by definition reduces independence if every President makes appointments.
No, it just averages it out. So far we have some president who have more separation from the court, and other presidents that are hyper connected to the court.
So why do you want it? If they’re going to retire in an average of 16 years, it’s already cyclical.
No it’s not, because that’s an average. There is a element of randomness that I’m just trying to flatten out.
No because now every President makes appointments so there will never be independence like there will be if Kamala becomes President.
I have a few problems with that.
For one, remember that there was only one president who completed a full term and didn’t appoint anybody, so your argument doesn’t work on that grounds. There will almost always be some appointments per prez.
The only thing this system enables is some presidents that are less connected to the court and some that are extremely connected to the court. All this amendment would do is smooth out the randomness. The court is already connected to the executive branch wether you like it or not, and this amendment won’t make that more so, it will make it more fair in its connectedness.
The choice is between a court that is sometimes less connected and sometimes way more connected, but always connected, and a court that is always equally a little connected.
Created:
-->
@Amber
FACT: Mother is Indian/HinduFACT: Dad is Irish/Hindu
First of all, I can’t find those videos that you cited, so I would love to take a look at those.
Second, it’s really not that simple. Family trees, especially ones involving raped slaves can get very complicated. It’s still not clear enough to cal anything a fact, but the evidence points to her father being black.
Her great-great grandmother was listed as a “laborer” on her death certificate, which at the time meant slave.
Here’s a quote from the article I cited “According to the family tree, Hamilton Brown Jr. had a son named Hamilton Brown, who, with a woman named Jessian Prince, had a daughter named Christiana Brown. Christiana Brown and Joseph Alexander Harris had a son named Oscar Joseph Harris. Oscar Joseph Harris and Beryl Finegan had Donald Harris. And, finally, Donald Harris married Shyamala Gopalan, and the couple had Kamala”
Now, I’ll admit that that is taken very out of context. There are some minor discrepancies and holes, but the chances are that it’s more probable she is descended from a slave owner who is listed as having many partners than from anyone else.
It’s complicated, but it’s more probable that she is black than not black.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Ya, and under your policy, no President would be separated.
Ya, and under the current policy, some presidents are more spectated, and others are less separated, but it balances out, so not munch really changes. Like I said, I get your point about the separation, but this could be fixed with just longer term limits. Say we double it and make it 36 years. Then every president has less impact, but the same impact.
I never said it was fair, nor should that be the ideal. It was designed this way on purpose. Seperation of powers and precedent is important to the success of this nation.
I absolutely agree with you, but I’m saying that it might be possible to have both separation, and fairness.
If you’re talking about the 12th Amendment, then that barely changed anything. And that’s the whole reason the amendment process was put in the first place.
What do you mean barely changed anything? The original system was so bad that Arron Burr accidentally became the VP! It created the whole system of running mates which is much better.
I’m saying 95% of the time, they were correct. Separation of powers is a key facet of the Constitution. You just want to get rid of that. So basically what you’re saying is that you’re against the Constitution.
I’m not against separation of power, I’m trying to keep the separation and make the system much more fair.
Also, how can you say we have good separation now when one president affected 1/3 of the court over the course of one term?
I’m just trying to even put the appointments, not make them more frequent.
Also, the average justice stays on the bench for only 16 years! This wouldn’t even stop that many people from going over the term limit.
Created:
-->
@Amber
No, I did not make it unclear. It's basic English and simple reading comprehension skills. It was crystal clear, you just glanced at the sentence and cherry picked the latter half to rebut with (strawman fallacy) without quoting the entire sentence within the context given. That context made it clear I was referring to her mother,
Well I’m so sorry that I’m human, and make a few mistakes. Seriously though, sorry that I took this so of track.
No his parents were not black. JFC! There's that lack of reading comprehension again. One parent was white (Irish) and the other Indian (Hindu). Neither were "black" (i.e., African).
Her history is complicated, but I haven’t found anything about an Indian on her dads side. Her dad is descended from and Irishman who raped his slaves as far as we know.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
But it’s not. You can use a trampoline too when you can. It’s not a one sided think. 100 years down the road, you may have the majority. That’s what makes elections fun.
But only one side has the trampolines at a time. You’ve basically admitted that it’s not fair at this point, so why can’t we balance the scales a little?
You’re reducing the independence between branches. If Kamala becomes Prez, no Justice will be appointed by her. It promotes independence of the the coequal branches. Separation of powers is out friend.
Well Kamala might be separated, it Trump sure wasn’t.
Which is why it’s a good system. They were geniuses. I’ve already said ur system reduces independence between the branches. And it throws the concept of stare decicis out the window. Precedents aren’t a thing anymore.
Many founders also supported slavery, and created many bad systems. Just look at the original electoral college. It was so horrible that it got ditched in just over a decade. They included the amendment system so we could correct their mistakes. That was their best idea, knowing that they weren’t perfect. Saying that something is perfect because the founders made it is a false appeal to authority.
Created:
-->
@Amber
Quoting out of context fallacy. What I said was: "Her mother is Indian/Hindu, but Kamala's birth certificate identifies her as Caucasian."I was clearly speaking to/of Kamala's birth certificate AND how her mother was identified on said birth certificate. Way to demonstrate that lack of reading comprehension, yet again.
Oh, I get what you were trying to say now. So sorry about that one, but you made that pretty unclear. Thanks for putting up with that.
Who gives a shit where he is from. Just because you are born in a black (African ancestry) dominated country does NOT make you "black"!!!Elon Musk was born in Africa, is he "black"? No. He is not. No more than Professor Harris is "black," and he does NOT identify as black.
Yeah, but his parents also were black and he identifies as black. This shouldn’t be taking this long.
You clearly didn't review the link I provided. Doesn't surprise me.People like you just can't handle the truth.
I did review the link, and I quoted it! You can’t handle that you forgot to read the source.
I did, thoroughly, but you did not.All you did here was cherry-pick. It's not evidence for your argument.Try again, child.
I didn’t cherry pick, I just didn’t want to quote the whole thing. The whole point of the article was that it’s a religious term that is sometimes misused as a regional one.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Is it against the rules to use a trampoline? No.
But it should be
Our system of checks and balances was based on three branches. So it is an apples to apples connection. Imagine a world where Marbury didn’t happen. Imagine a world where the President basically controlled the court during his term. It’s laughable.
How is my system enabling the court to be controlled by the prez? If anything, this system makes that much harder to do.
I haven’t heard any real reasons why this is t a good system yet, just some buzzwords about how the founders wanted it.
Created:
-->
@Amber
Also,
And you need to education on the subject of being Hindu, because it's not just about religion: Hindus - Wikipedia
A quote from your own source:
“Hindus (Hindustani: [ˈɦɪndu] ⓘ; /ˈhɪnduːz/; also known as Sanātanīs) are people who religiously adhere to Hinduism”
Read your own sources before you use them.
Created:
-->
@Amber
Reading comprehension problems? I never said anything about Kamala's racial background. What I said, wrote in context refers to her mother being identified as Caucasian.
Bruh, you said:
but Kamala's birth certificate identifies her as Caucasian.
"barely knows Kamala's father"... REALLY? How do you know? What part of the video of Brown's statements of first-hand knowledge did you fail to understand?How about you back of your assertion: "...the actual truth and testimony of Kamala's father himself!" Prove it.
He is from Jamaica and identifies as black, what more do you need? He even wrote an essay about it!
Also, in the video, the “source” you had even talked about just meeting Harris’s father a few times. This is ridiculous.
They're categorized as Asian since they are in the Asian hemisphere.
Then why didn’t you just say Asian! I think your confusing Indian and Hindu.
Hindu = religion
Indian = race
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I don’t think it’s a bad thing though. I think it’s perfect, and it explains why we have been a successful country for so long and are at the top.
There are so many other good reasons why America is a world super power, but how we elect our justices is absolutely not one of them. Something so trivial as our court system can’t have contributed much. It’s a false correlation.
Apples are red, and apples are a popular fruit. Therefore, apples are popular because they are red.
False correlation.
He won the election. The method of winning is irrelevant to the fact that he won and a whole different argument. Even if you don’t think Trump winning was representative.
I wasn’t complaining about the fact electoral college, I was just showing the difference between his support and the influence he had. This can all be prevented with term limits.
50+1 senators approved each nominee. Now you’re going to say the Senate is unrepresentative lol.
The senate only has the power to not approve a justice based on grounds of being corrupt or unfit for the job. They can’t block someone just because they don’t agree with their views.
You just have a problem with losing.
I don’t have a problem losing a basketball game, I have a problem losing a basketball game when the other team used trampolines.
The Constitution was never designed to be fair. It was designed to create a nation and ensure that it remains into the future. The EC and Senate are the primary reasons why small states agreed to join btw
Well why can’t there be both? Small states aren’t going to be leaving the union just because we remove the EC anymore. The time of the fragile, barely a nation has past, so we can remove the archaic laws from that time.
Slavery was left out of the constitution to appease the southern states, but we eventually got rid of it, because it wasn’t needed anymore.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Dude, you need to stop stereotyping people who disagree with you just to fit your preconceived world view.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
The Constitution wasn’t designed to be fair.
Well then it’s a bad constitutional. Since you’re basically admitting that this system isn’t fair, why can’t we make it fair?
Trump was elected by the people and he nominated the justices.
Trump was elected by 46% of the people and the proceeded to change 1/3 of one of the most powerful bodies in our country. That’s not representative.
Created:
-->
@Amber
But she isn't black. Judge Brown exposes the truth, after all he met/knows her father, professor Harris. Hear it for yourself at 8:35 here: https://youtu.be/GgKLPzQe6uI?si=sNWhTZTbA0mN2-0Q It's a video by Anthony Brian Logan (ABL), a popular black speaker online and in person during certain venues.
Hey nice job, you have the antecdotal testimony of someone who barely knows Kamala’s father against the actual truth and testimony of Kamala’s father himself!
In short, Brown discloses Prof. Harris identifies as Caucasian since his ancestry is Irish/Hindu. Her mother is Indian/Hindu, but Kamala's birth certificate identifies her as Caucasian.
First of all, you realize that Hindu is a religion, not a race, right?
Second, Kamala’s birth certificate didn’t even specify her race. Check your facts.
No, she is Indian/Irish/Hindu.
Once again, Hindu is a religion, not a race. This is ridiculous.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
How is it being tampered with if 2/3 of the 9 justices were not because of Trump.
Yeah, but 1/3 of them are appointed by Trump, and it’s still not fair that he gets more than some other president.
The whole point of a republic is that our leaders should represent our interest. When some sides can gain more artificial influence than others, then the Public is misrepresented.
The system is fine. You’re just mad that you don’t like it. Republicans hated it when the Dems controlled the court. But just admit it.
I would love to gracefully accept the outcome of roe v Wade, but I can’t if the system that overturned it isn’t fair.
If you lived in communist Russia under Stalin, would you just accept the government’s decisions? Obviously I’m not comparing Trump to Stalin, that would be ridiculous, but you get the point. I can only gracefully accept something If I think it was down fairly, and I don’t think that.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Read Post 114.
Sorry, must have missed that.
Anyways, the gist as I understand it from those quotes was that if the justices are life time appointees, then the court will be free of tampering from the other branches.
The problem is that the opposite is actually happening. Clearly it is being tamper with because of life term limits.
Like I said, I’m open to longer term limits, you have a great point about that, the problem is the randomness of presidential appointments.
Created:
-->
@Shila
How is a proven fact an extreme view? Also, humans aren’t descended from apes, we share a common ancestor.Do apes digest fruit’s differently? The consequences were less severe on them.
I don’t see your point.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Did you read the quotes from the Federalist Papers? Your answer is there.
I would love to if you told me exactly where it was. There’s 85 of them, and you know how long Hamilton likes to write.
But it’s not a bad system. It was intentionally designed like that so that precedent stays precedent except for a massive change because the Justice stays there. If we change the system, precedent means nothing. Stare decicis would mean nothing.
Well the “precedent” of Roe v Wade just got completely abolished. Besides, justices will end up changing anyways. I’m open to much longer term limits, that would solve the problem, but it just needs to be something uniform.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Why would you do that? WOuld it be because you thought that the all powerful being was also perfectly right? OR would it be because you were afraid of being punished?
Both really.
Hate is such an ugly word. I must say that I never really know what it means. I certainly find some things disgust me. But does that mean I hate them? There are some things that I know are evil. Even then I think the word hate doesn't quite fit. But perhaps it does.
No, you’re right. I’m usually pretty bad when it comes to the specifics of words.
I think what you are saying is that you respect "consistency". I can concur with that position.
Yeah, that’s basically what I meant.
Created:
-->
@thett3
The current system where massive swings in power depends on when an elderly person happens to die is insane.
Thank you! Finally someone who can see through party lines and recognize the stupidness of this system!
but I don’t see how you could possibly do it in a fair way at this point.
What do you mean by that?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Obama had two. He could’ve had three if RBG retired as well. The system was designed in a way where some Presidents have more appointees than others. Roosevelt had 9. Truman had 4. Ike had 5. People weren’t complaining then. The only reason they are complaining now is because of “orange man bad.”
First of all, why is the system even designed so some presidents get multiple? Why cant we make it better?
Second, the reason I wasn’t complaining when Truman or Ike got a bunch was because I wasn’t alive. It sometimes takes an instance of the system working badly to make you realize that it’s a bad system, but that doesn’t change that fact that it’s a bad system. It’s a logical fallacy to say my argument is invalid because I didn’t make this argument before.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Okay, it’s not an abuse of power, I overreacted, but it’s still not a good thing that some president end up with more appointees than others.
Created:
Posted in:
A lot of the things being argued over in this site are very serious and meaningful, but that’s boring.
I’m tired of debating things that actually matter, so for this one, is the ocean a soup?
This has been a long standing debate I’ve had with my friends.
They say it is a soup, because it fits the basic dictionary definition of a soup. It has meat, vegetables, and liquid. It has all of the components, and so it is.
If find this very short-sighted. Sure, it fits the basic definition, but there are many qualities a soup has that the ocean does not. They aren’t included in the normal definition because they go without saying.
Obviously, a soup is a man made object that is made for the express purpose of being eaten. Its entire job is to be eaten, and the ocean cannot be eaten. If you did, you would die.
Secondly, words don’t derive their meaning from arbitrary dictionary definitions, they get meaning from how we colloquially use them. Dictionaries do their best to summarize that, but they are not perfect.
If I was at a restaurant and ordered a soup, and was presented with the ocean, I would be pretty pissed. No one ever uses the word soup to describe the ocean, and so the ocean is not a soup.
What do you think though?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just because they called her Indian doesn’t mean she can’t also have been black. She mixed, so they spotlighted the Indian part because she was the first, and didn’t mention the black part, but it’s still relevant.
She’s half and half, that doesn’t mean she was switching.
Created:
-->
@Shila
The choice between being descendants of apes to losing immortality for eating a fruit are both extreme views.
How is a proven fact an extreme view? Also, humans aren’t descended from apes, we share a common ancestor.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It doesn't mention abortion as a right, it does mention life as a right which can only be surrendered by committing a crime.
But the question is, does a Zygote count as a person? Doctors still disagree about this. Sure, it’s alive, but it’s not really conscious the way that you and me are. It’s more of a jumble of cells. If it was counted as a person, then it’s right to life would absolutely trump the mothers right of choice, but it’s still not clear if that’s true.
If you can (and we can't) stack the court with people who can objectively interpret the law that would be what we ought to be doing.This supreme court is doing better than previous ones, but far from perfect.
But no person can perfectly interpret the law. That’s why there are 9 justices, not 1. You need a wide array of different perspectives, and this amendment will help to achieve that. Currently, we don’t have that.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
what is your proposal ?
I thought that was obvious. Term limits. Maybe not 18 years, that’s pretty short, but it’s still better than rolling the dice for when the justices will die or resign.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Exactly, so the judges should reflect the law, not the people’s opinions.That’s not what you said earlier.
Well that’s what’s supposed to happen in a pretty black and white situation, but abortion is anything but. Judges will have different opinions on how to interpret the constitution on that issue, and so you should load the court with justices that will interpret it one way, when 62% of people interpret it the other way.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Um, no. No he’s not a good speaker. He’s good at fear mongering and scapegoating minorities
That’s what I mean basically. He’s a good Sophist and demagogue, so he appeals to dumb voters.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
What if the general public wanted to deny blacks from voting? Or bald people. Should the judges reflect that?
If the constitution says that black people or bald people can’t vote, then the judges should reflect that.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
MAGA MORONS don’t read. That’s why they’re morons
You need to stop being so polarizing. Many Trump supporters are MAGA morons. Trump is a good speaker and so he appeals to dumb voters, that’s why he’s so good. But not all conservatives are dumb. This is why we are so divided as a nation. Not everyone on the other side is the enemy.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
But there wasn't any political maneuvering.
That might have not been the best term to use, but there is definitely stuff going on that shouldn’t. If 62% of American didn’t want Roe v Wade overturned and the court voted 5-4 to do it, then clearly something isn’t right.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
expecting anyone in government to be "free of politics"is like expecting a fish to be "free of water"
Well duh, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
i'm pretty sure it's random, based on if someone dies or retires
Exactly, it shouldn’t be random. It should reflect the attitude of the public.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If the court is merely a running average of the political agenda of that last three presidential terms there is no point in having it, may as well just ask have congress do it.
Yeah, that’s the point. The court should reflect the attitude of the general public, that’s the whole point of a republic.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well... what 3rd party are you going to support then if neither side wants to be forced out?
I don’t have to support any if we pass this amendment. Then they have to be forced out.
And that's not exactly what happened with Ginsberg. She refused to step down and get replaced with a younger version when her party was in power. If you want to blame the way the scotus looks today, Ginsberg had all the opportunity to prevent it. I guess in a way, grats to Ginsberg for not caring about the party politics as the founding fathers intended?
See, it’s this kind of game that can be prevented with this proposal. There won’t be any political maneuvering like this if we just use term limits.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
please explain
Well it was unofficial precedent that every president gets one appointed per term, but recently both parties, (but e specially Trump) have been trying to manipulate it in their favor so they get more. Trump got three appointments for one term. With these regulation, every president gets 2 appointments. That way, the court better represents the feelings of the America people. The only way a super majority happens is if one party has the presidency for a long time, which means the court more accurately represents the American people.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
that's really a problem with Democrat Supreme justices being power hungry and not stepping down before Trump got elected.You roll the dice, don't complain if you crap out.
well yeah, this is just proving my point. The court should be free of politics, so if justices from either side aren’t stepping down when the other party is in power, then we clearly need to regulate this.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
The thing is, there's nothing in the Constitution limiting how many Supreme Court justices a single president may confirm
We’ll see, that’s the problem, there should be. It was precedent that every president appoints about one, but Trump abused the system and got three. This was eye opening, and it shows that we need to make it so every president only gets two. It was expect that every president should only get two terms until FDR got four, and then we amended the constitution to make it a law. It’s the same thing here.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
We must have accountability, which per our definition means axing Thomas, Alito, and Roberts (those three specifically and none of the left-leaning justices) and replacing them with people who, just coincidentally, will favor our ideology and rule more akin to how we want them to rule!
I don’t think the conservative justices are any more corrupt than the liberal ones. My problem is Trump getting more appointments than he should.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
From 1973 to 2022, Democrats and left media respected the Supreme Court. After they ruled, Dems were quick to tell us that that ruling was "the law of the land" and that the decision had to be taken as authoritative and correct. There were no accusations flying of the SCOTUS being a body rife with corruption.This period, "coincidentally", was one where the Supreme Court was handing Democrats everything they wanted on a silver platter. It gave them Roe v. Wade.
I suppose that’s fair. I’m not mad about the rulings tho, I mad about Trump abusing his power and appointing 3 justices. I didn’t think this was really possible until he did it, so I saw no reason to safeguard against it. Now that we know it is a problem though, we should do something about it.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Didn't the Supreme Court Justices that overturned Roe vs Wade do so because their religion said it was the thing to do?
That’s definitely a part of it. Maybe Im too optimistic, but I like to think that they also interpreted the law in such a way that made fetuses people.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I would in general say my comments are probably true because one of the indicators of intelligence is the ability to formulate thoughtful questions and religion is full of glaring contradictions and inconsistencies and a defiant attitude towards reconciling those questions.
Well yeah, I’m an atheist and I believe that I am probably correct, but my point was that there are still smart theists, and theists who can be good Supreme Court judges.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Who has a higher IQ, Pastor Jim Bakker or Albert Einstein?
This is a logical fallacy. You need to stop using anecdotal evidence to back up claims as opposed to actual statistics.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So you are saying that in IQ tests, margin of error consistently applies only to religious?
No, I’m saying that the sample size they took might have been off from the actually statistically reality of IQ distribution over theists vs. atheists.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Ask Wylted if we should have a democracy.
Well WyIted isn’t all right-wingers
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
If religious people had higher IQ, they would brag about it all over the place.But God for some reason made atheists smarter.Lol
Dude, it’s by 6 points in one study. That’s a margin of error. Don’t take it too seriously.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
You do know that liberals are a hive mind and always vote together but conservatives are not and disagree on positions.
See, I would say the same about conservatives. You have to get out of your black and white mindset, that’s the reason congress can get shit done right now, they always view the other side as evil.
Preventing a super majority g does exclusively hurt conservatives and given that this is the final election conservatives are eligible to win, the liberals will have a majority in perpetuity should this pass
Oh no, we took away your basketball trampolines. This is so unfair!
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Right wingers don't want things to be fair. Unfairness and hierarchy are the foundations of their entire ideology. It's not incidental, the ideology is built on that from the ground up.
I don’t know about all right wingers, it you just described Trump in a nutshell. The only reason he got elected is because he’s better at convincing stupid voter who make up most of the electorate.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Researcher Helmuth Nyborg and Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, compared belief in God and IQs. Using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors found that the average IQ of atheists was 6 points higher than the average IQ of non-atheists.
That may be true, but first of all, IQ doesn’t directly correlate with ability to be a good judge. It probably has a decent effect, but there are much better metrics to use seeing as IQ is such a broad measure. Also, six points is a margin of error, and this whole idea is a generalization. It doesn’t include the fact that someone could be a theist and be a very good judge. You shouldn’t be measured on these things, only on your ability to judge.
Created: