|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Justice Elena Kagan lie to Congress? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 596 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
Oh, I'm quite sure she revised and extended her remarks!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
Was that so hard? That is how we do things in this forum. Still no argument supporting the OP.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 596 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
quote That's an interesting interpretation! So it was like the legend of Galileo muttering "eppur si muove" . . . and Elena Kagan was quietly adding " . . . there is no federal constitutional right not right now, but there will be if I ever get on the Supreme Court"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
But I don't see calls to be impeached because of their opinions.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 596 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
Hard? Actually it was quite trivial. Because that information has been in the news for everyone to see for quite some time. But as Orwell said, "To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle."
Keep up the struggle!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 596 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
Oh yes, the impulses to do that sort of thing lurk on both sides of the aisle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 596 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
Once again, Orwell could explain that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The difference is that the Republicans have openly done it. Redressing the balance would be steering the country away from being a “banana republic”. But it seems that you don’t want that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 596 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
Oh, no, if President Biden could appoint, say, four new justices, which he can, given Democrat control of Congress, that would bring things back into balance, and we could go back to Roe (though, really, instead of a complex, messy, Roe decision, we really should have one that says a woman can make decisions about her medical care without interference from the state. Period), not to mention fixing the firearms decision and so forth.
But is that really the way to do it? I mean, it's so much simpler (since Democrats have control of Congress) to just pass a law codifying Roe (the Dobbs decision doesn't say Congress can't!)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote Sinema and Manchin are hardly guaranteed to go along with any such plan, and I’m not suggesting another reversal anyway - just forestalling more atrocious decisions. For all it’s bad effects reversing Roe is hardly the worst decision this Court has made, and if Thomas has his way, worse is still to come.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
The biggest protection of freedom and democracy is the separation of powers - the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.
It's hard to keep the executive and the legislature separate, but an independent judiciary is key to the prevention of totalitarianism. Making the legislature subject to political appointment destroys that protection.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
It is called supporting an assertion with actual facts and data. Something you seem to find quite difficult.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Not my job to support your assertions.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 596 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
If I made a comment about mass shootings in America without providing links to articles about mass shootings and someone answered my comment by wondering "what mass shootings?" and demanding references, how would you feel about that person?
And if I then gave them references and their answer was something condescending like, "Was that so hard? That is how we do things in this forum," how would you feel about that person? It calls to mind another line from a book by Orwell: "Ignorance is Strength"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 596 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
A "reversal" would scarcely be necessary. In Dobbs the Supreme Court didn't "ban" abortion, it merely returned us to the (very bad days) of pre-Roe abortion law.
All Congress has to do now is pass a law guaranteeing a right to an abortion. Such a law wouldn't be struck down by the Supreme Court (otherwise it would have already struck down laws in states like Oregon or Vermont). Democrats have used their pro-abortion stands mostly as fund-raising opportunities. Now it's time for them to actually find out if they stand for what they say they stand for.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024