IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Never mind -- not worth it today.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
🏛️ Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
Henry Ford
Footballguy
You're a pretty well-read guy and you obviously know that didn't make this possible.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Yeah, but they knew that the Democrats would have done the same thing if given the opportunity, so that's why it's OK.
If you think I suggested that judicial decisions aren't rendered in the context of particular cases, you misunderstood what I wrote. I'm not sure whether I can explain it better, but I'll try a different angle.
I have a fictional friend named Lenny. A crime organization once tried to hire Lenny as a hit man, but he declined the position because he's morally opposed to murdering people.
Lenny subsequently accepted a position in the United States Air Force and flied some bombing missions in Iraq in accordance with his orders.
The guy who previously tried to hire him as a hit man was stunned. "You said you were opposed to murdering people!"
"I am. I don't see bombing missions as murder, but as collateral damage. I'm not trying to kill anyone in particular; I'm clumsily trying to uphold world order. I know that I'll end up killing people, and that's unfortunate, but that's part of the overall system of how countries prosecute important disputes, and it's an overall system I don't have a better alternative to. When it comes to assassinating someone as a hit man, though, there's an obviously better alternative: don't do it."
"Maybe in academia it makes sense to talk of collateral damage. But in the real world, every bombing mission in populated areas involves actual deaths. You can't separate the bombing from the deaths."
"I'm not saying that deaths won't occur, or that bombings are merely abstract occurrences divorced from real-world consequences. I'm saying that there's a big moral difference, to me anyway, between, on the one hand, participating dutifully in the overall system of prosecuting international conflicts (with unfortunate deaths as a side effect), and, on the other hand, murdering someone whose death is the intended effect. The overall system of prosecuting international conflicts -- and specifically prosecuting the current conflict in my own nation's favor -- is more important than avoiding however many deaths will occur in the process."
"I take issue with the suggestion that a soldier can do an abstract bombing unrelated to the deaths he causes."
"Let me offer an analogy. Suppose I were a judge and I had to make a ruling about whether there's a constitutional right to abortion."
"I have no idea where this is going."
"I'm pro-life, right? So I definitely don't want any fetuses to be aborted. If I were a doctor and someone tried to hire me to abort her fetus, I would decline. But I'm not a doctor in this analogy; I'm a judge. As a judge, my job isn't to abort anyone and I'm certainly not trying to cause the abortion of thousands of fetuses in my jurisdiction. If I find that the constitution forbids states from prohibiting abortion, and thousands of fetuses die as a consequence of my ruling, it's an unfortunate side effect. But what I'm really trying to do is to uphold the overall system of law in our constitutional democracy. That's more important than avoiding however many abortions might occur as a result."
"I'm not convinced that makes sense."
"Think of it this way. Just as a soldier follows orders from his commander as part of the overall process of protecting national security, a judge follows orders from the constitution as part of the overall process of protecting the rule of law. In both cases, collateral damage might result, but national security and the rule of law are more important in the grand scheme of things. I could intentionally misunderstand my commander's orders if I don't want bombing-related deaths to occur, and I could intentionally misread the constitution if I don't want abortions to occur, but both of those practices would be shortsighted. My personal morality does not require me to be shortsighted."
"Then I don't understand why you'd decline to perform an abortion as a doctor. Isn't that part of upholding the overall system of medicine? For that matter, isn't assassinating people part of the overall system of resolving interpersonal conflicts?"
"No, I think those things are different. I approve of the legal system as a whole, and I believe that the constitution should be followed even when I don't like a specific result. I can't opt out of just one part of following the constitution -- the whole point of the rule of law is that we don't get to pick and choose which constitutional provisions we give effect to based on our personal preferences. It's all or nothing, because if judges start ignoring constitutional provisions they don't like, the whole legal system falls apart. As a doctor, though, I can opt out of just performing abortions without making the whole system fall apart. If every doctor opted out of performing abortions, I would approve of the result. If every conflict-resolution-specialist opted out of doing assassinations, I would also approve of that result."
"You can't imagine any situation in which a judge should refuse to enforce an evil law?"
"I can, but that's not our current predicament in my analogy. We're not talking about an evil constitution that should be rebelled against. We're talking about a good constitution that may not be perfect, but throwing it out would be worse -- and lawlessly chipping away at it amounts to throwing it out. Similarly, I can imagine receiving military orders that should be disobeyed. But the bombing missions I was ordered to run were not in that category."
"So your personal morality would prevent you from assassinating someone but not from bombing innocent civilians?"
"If the civilians aren't the targets, yes, just like my morality would prevent me from personally performing or ordering an abortion on its own merits, but would not prevent me from acknowledging that abortions are legal. When I strike down restrictions on abortion, I understand that it will result in the deaths of specific fetuses -- but those fetuses are not targets."
"They're mere abstractions then?"
"They're not abstractions. They are individual human lives. I could never decide that their deaths are good in and of themselves. I could never decide that their deaths are deserved. If that were the question before me as a judge, I would have to recuse myself because I am unable to give a fair hearing to the pro-death position. But on the question of whether their deaths are legal, I can give an objective answer that is not unduly colored by my personal views. I can follow the normal test for deciding whether a law passes constitutional muster; whether I think a particular fetus's death is good or is deserved is not a prong of that test."
"And if you were judging a capital murder case? Affirming that a defendant deserves the death penalty is like being a hit man while affirming that the death penalty is constitutionally permissible is like being a soldier?"
"Something like that."
"Sounds dumb."
"Sorry."
Last edited by a moderator:
Jayrod
Footballguy
This is not dissimilar to when JFK was running and they were questioning him on whether or not the Pope would have influence over his decisions because he was Catholic.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
So the compassionate solution to children who MIGHT lack food, education or housing is to terminate the life?
I am both pro-choice and anti-abortion. I just believe that a women's choice occurs PRIOR TO conception. Once there is another lifeform growing inside of her, whatever you want to call that lifeform, it has an unalienable right to life.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
Funny that you single out Republicans. THEY'RE ALL HYPOCRITS. Whatever positions best suits their side is the position that they take on the given subject.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
For the millionth time, getting rid of the filibuster is good. It was good when Reid got rid of it for lower-level judicial appointments. It was good when McConnell got rid of it for SCOTUS appointments. It will be good when the next senate gets rid of the legislative filibuster.
Most of the norm-breaking that has taken place during confirmation fights has been bad. Dialing back the filibuster has been the main exception. (Getting rid of "blue slips" was also a good step).
Shula-holic
Footballguy
Yeah Harry Reid just did it for all other executive branch nominees so let’s blame McConnell. At least be intellectually honest here.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
gianmarco
Footballguy
Then you aren't pro-choice. Since that isn't a reality.
And again, the compassionate solution if you are pro-life is to REALLY be pro-life and help those in need that are actually alive and present. When you aren't willing to commit tax dollars there, then you aren't pro-life. Turning that around to describe your "compassionate solution" is obfuscating from the idea that those claiming to be pro-life don't back that up by their treatment of those in need.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
This argument has all the same intellectual force as "You're not really pro-choice because you're not giving the unborn child a choice in whether they're aborted or not." It makes two fundamental mistakes:
1) You're taking a little political label that people use for convenient shorthand (pro-life/pro-choice) and trying to read into it a bunch of stuff that the speaker himself doesn't intend. That's obviously an invalid move.
2) You're conflating two different issues that nearly everyone sees as being distinct (whether a fetus has rights that merit protection / whether income can justly be redistributed). There's no particular reason why a person couldn't reason their way to all four different combinations on those without making any obvious logical errors.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Actually now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure I've seen people make the argument that you aren't really "pro-choice" if you support compulsory public K-12 education. That would be a really nice example of an argument equally as bad as the one I quoted.
gianmarco
Footballguy
I don't view them as fundamental mistakes. I respect your opinion on that but disagree.
I find the political position to support candidates that are "pro-life" that also do not support services to help disadvantaged children inconsistent and hypocritical. You can separate the issues if you'd like. I do not. Reread the quote I posted as I agree completely with it.
You can find that argument "bad". I don't.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
How does society effectively get involved into protecting the life of a fetus without redistributing income to that cause?
rcam
Footballguy
I mean, if we are being intellectually honest here then you need to lay the blame at McConnell's feet who filibustered everything, then once in the majority, prevented anything from going through. Now, he is planning to seat a justice in an election year. Let's not lay this at the Dem's feet.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
How does society prevent your neighbor from shooting you without redistributing income your way?
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Sounds like McConnell is the hero in this story. By your telling, he forced the Democrats into abandoning the filibuster when they were in charge, he whittled it down even further when he had the chance to do so, and he's set the stage for it to be abolished altogether in the near future. Good for him.
"Pro-life" means opposing legal access to abortion.
"Pro-choice" means supporting legal access to abortion.
Neither term implies any position regarding tax policy, gun control, term limits, farm subsidies, border security, campaign finance reform, fracking, prison overcrowding, military spending, or infrastructure.
"Pro-choice" means supporting legal access to abortion.
Neither term implies any position regarding tax policy, gun control, term limits, farm subsidies, border security, campaign finance reform, fracking, prison overcrowding, military spending, or infrastructure.
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus
Footballguy
spodog
Footballguy
Matter of perspective as to what some of the worst means.
I have a business colleague I've known for many years that spent the first 2/3 of his life in Pakistan. Sunni killing of Shiite is very real thing. Shiite killings of Sunni is a very real thing. These things have impacted his family in dramatic ways.
I'm trying to recall the last time there was a significant religion inspired slaying of Presbyterians by Baptists. Or bombing of the homes of Methodists by overly devout Catholics.
George Soros, IMO.Gr00vus said:
gianmarco
Footballguy
That's what it has come to mean in a political sense.Maurile Tremblay said:
But the actual words "pro-life" just aren't appropriate, IMO, when the policies the same group typically are in favor of do not support the well-being of those lives. Whether that's through lack of funding for basic needs like food and housing or by policies that tear apart those lives from their families, the term "Pro-birth" seems more applicable.
Especially when viewed in the context of being a Christian position when these other policies from the same politicians aren't very Christian. That's the hypocrisy for me.
And while I understand they are separate issues, they typically go together from a political standpoint.
I just wish those that so vehemently protest at abortion clinics the "right to life" would similarly vehemently oppose children going hungry in this country, for example.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
I think by abolishing the filibuster, we step even further toward a minority party holding legislature hostage. The GOP could conceivably hold the Senate with 35% of the population voting for their POTUS and House candidates. I don't think that's a good situation as the will of the people would very much be thwarted by this minority. At least with the filibuster, they were forced to work across the aisle (sometimes) in the Senate.IvanKaramazov said:
Look, just s-can the whole thing, make it a unicameral parliament with multi-rep districts and a prime minister and be done with it.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
So just to be clear, if the Democrats win the senate, you will be opposed to any further filibuster reform?
I'm genuinely surprised that you and I disagree on this one.
No political labels are etymologically impeccable, but we still need them as shorthand. Are "pro-choice" people in favor of letting corporations choose how much pollution to dump in the pond? I guess they're not really pro-choice then. Except of course that's not what "pro-choice" means. It's short-hand for a position on abortion, that's all.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I don't link to Vox very often, but I think this article does a pretty good job of breaking down most arguments in favor of the filibuster. I'm not a majoritarian. I support the bill of rights, bicameralism, the presidential veto, and judicial review. But I also think the new filibuster -- where everything just automatically takes 60 votes to get through the senate -- is taking counter-majoritarianism too far.
It would probably take a violent revolution, which may be more trouble than it's worth and may not end up the way we want anyway. But if we had a magic wand, switching to a parliament seems like a good idea.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are upset with something called Cause Branding. They made a smart choice (pun) and it stuck. There are plenty of example of this from both sides to get upset about.
djmich
Footballguy
This seems pretty un-nuanced.
I wish pro-choicers would stop the charade and characterize themselves as pro-death and agree we should eliminate lives that might cause us burden.
Shula-holic
Footballguy
You can't have it both ways. You are pro filibuster or against it. You absolve Reid of getting rid of it for his purposes prior to McConnell I take it. If so, what's the problem now with McConnell going with simple majority for the Supreme Court? Neither party is in the clear in these things so if you can't see that I don't really know what else to tell you.rcam said:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Yeah, he did that despite there being any other mechanism to get nominees confirmed while McConnell et al refused to confirm anyone for anything. One of his ambassadors literally died waiting to be confirmed. At least be intellectually honest there, too.Shula-holic said:
We can take it back as many steps as you want. But the actual mechanism that made it possible wasn’t any of them. It was 2017.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Cool story. I’m glad you didn’t take the actual point she actually made in her actual law review article and turn it into something ridiculous instead of just saying “I understand you were making a different point than I was addressing and I see how this would conflict with her previous positions.” That would have been just nutty.Maurile Tremblay said:
The Z Machine
Footballguy
We should definitely postpone this confirmation hearing since the president is sick, right? We as a country need to support our president.
I mean, that's what Mitch McConnell would do if the shoe was on the other foot.
I mean, that's what Mitch McConnell would do if the shoe was on the other foot.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Prohibition of abortion is not similar to prohibition of murder when you consider I said "effective". And I didn't say redistribute to me directly.IvanKaramazov said:
This, statistically speaking will make the termination more, not less likely. Though this is of course an oversimplification. The real cause is that nations with prohibition tend to be conservative (i.e. dishonest) in attitudes towards sex, have little social safety nets, etc.Maurile Tremblay said:
Of course that is the whole problem with the pro life movement. Some argue that abortion is their number one issue and then they actively support an entire menu of other positions that have shown to increase the abortion rate. This is because there is no logic to these positions. It is all faith based and in contradiction to reality. A reality that "passing a law" will at best have little to no effect on saving fetus from abortions (at least in aggregate) while stronger social safety net for those that are alive will reduce such demand.
But that wasn't even where I was going yesterday. Passing such a law is still meaningless without some enforcement mechanism, unless of course the law is prohibiting something that isn't happening anyway. When we prohibit murder we redistribute income to law enforcement, to prison complex, etc. Even if the prison itself is not "private" we still redistribute to construction firms, to those that make monitoring equipment, whatever. Now you might argue that this is different than say housing vouchers which redistribute income to land lords, or food stamps which redirect income to big agriculture, or healthcare which redirect income health care providers, because maybe it passes through the recipients hands and maybe some portion is cash but its all taking income from those that earn it and distributing to someone else. (And replacing income tax with other forms of taxation doesn't change this by making it a step or two more indirect.)
So while sure it is logical recognize that someone might hold such positions - because we know they exists. Those positions can't be held by one that is both logical and informed at the same time.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Those goalposts got moved into a whole different area code. My goodness.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Children going hungry is one of the main reasons that there are those walking into abortion clinics.
I'm pro killing two birds with one stone. Close enough?
rcam
Footballguy
Not really. I have no issues with the power of Presidential pardons - but I do have a problem with that power being abused and, let's say, the President pardoning himself and/or his friends. Same thing with the filibuster. Prior to Obama, the filibuster was a tool that was used to gain a greater bipartisan consensus in the Senate regarding major issues (broad strokes here). With McConnell in charge of the reds it became a tool for obstruction - of everything.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I can see where a person might think that if he or she were born in 2008. Those of us who lived through the W administration remember things a wee bit differently.
More generally, the problem with the filibuster dates back to the 1970s, when the senate started allowing people to "filibuster" legislation without actually standing up in front of the podium and speaking. That had the completely predictable effect of making filibusters way more common than they used to be and it resulted in today's de fact 60-vote requirement for anything substantive to pass (except through reconciliation). At a bare minimum, this practice needs to be dialed way back. I'd prefer to see it abolished altogether.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I have to admit though that I literally laughed out loud at the suggestion that the days before Obama were a halcyon era of bipartisan comity. That's so cute.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
True, but it does seem like in general discourse was more civil and norms were more respected vs. now. Even if that means they were simply better at disguising it back then.
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
Automatically taking 60 votes isn't really filibuster though. If we changed the rules to make it inconvenient to filibuster again and it was used sparingly it would be a good and moderating tool.
I am not sure that is true.
Time has a tendency to smooth over all the rough edges - so that the memory is more pleasant.
rcam
Footballguy
Again, broad strokes, IMO, the true fall of our political discourse started during the Clinton administration and there are several reasons I think that is the case. And I agree with you, you should still have to stand up there and talk if you want to filibuster. As far as the W administration - there was some significant filibustering by the dems *but* the two sides came to an agreement to stop filibustering unless in the most extreme of cases - which is how it should be. Once McConnell became the shot caller that agreement was torn up practically *everything* was filibustered. The frequency in which Obama appointees were filibustered was historic and it wasn't like McConnell was coy about the obstruction.
BREAKING: Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins, who was at the WH SCOTUS announcement on Saturday and was criticized for not wearing a mask and shaking hands, has tested positive for COVID-19. This was just sent out to the campus.
Unclear if he had it during the WH event.
Unclear if he had it during the WH event.
A Senate GOP aide, on background, tells the Post that some Rs are now discussing asking Leader McConnell to "take the Senate out of session next week" before the ACB hearings start in mid-October. "If some in the Republican caucus get sick, we are screwed," the aide says.
This, may be the only thing that could derail this nomination.
Senate business requires a quorum - 51 senators to be present on the Senate floor. The Dems could call for a quorum call, and then leave the floor - requiring all GOP senators to be present on the floor to conduct business.
This, may be the only thing that could derail this nomination.
Senate business requires a quorum - 51 senators to be present on the Senate floor. The Dems could call for a quorum call, and then leave the floor - requiring all GOP senators to be present on the floor to conduct business.
