JUstice?

On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 9:22:59 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 8:03:14 AM UTC-7, Mark Cleary wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 9:30:12 AM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 12:05:01 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 2:48:32 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:

I mentioned several egregious (and never reversed) examples

What the Donkey Party fears about Professor Barrett, soon Associate Justice Barrett, is that she will not respect precedents in wrongly decided cases, particularly the enabling judge-made legislation, Roe v Wade (1), of a monstrous campaign of infanticide in the USA, 61 million unborn babies killed since Roe v Wade was decided in 1973, an average of 1.3m licensed murders a year, mostly of black children in a hangover from the eugenics which was the favoured social policy of the Left in the USA until Hitler's shenanigans discredited it, after which it went underground as Planned Parenthood.

(1) Hell, let's not call Roe v Wade "judge-made legislation", which a dingbat like Jay will soon tell us in his prissy way is impossible in the USA under the Constitution (to which I agree -- that's why the many instances of the "impossible" should be reversed before Mr Trump hands over the White House to Mr Pence in January 2025), let's name it for what it really is, the cornerstone of a loudly faithful cult of devil worshippers organised as the Democrat Party, with the million-plus murdered foetuses every year as their offering to their horned master. It's only one of a parade of evil deeds that make the members of the Donkey Party the true racists in America.
I will tell you in my prissy way that you're a dope and should confine yourself to judging warm beer at your local pub -- or based on your latest post, judging psilocybin mushrooms from your local woods. You clearly don't understand the role of US judges or justices in interpreting the 14th Amendment, which is not surprising coming from a country with no written constitution -- and where abortion is both legal and free.

-- Jay Beattie.

Going to jump in on this one. Judge Barrett has all the credentials and has managed more than I believed most of those questioning her at the hearing. She is a Roman Catholic so I have deep knowledge of what that means to those who actually profess the faith. Regardless of who a person is and how much they want to remove themselves from bias it exist. You cannot take the Catholic Faith out of me regardless. It comes before all else. There is not argument or situation that can allow the taking of a innocent human life. That life may have been the result of a bad decision, and intrusion of a rapist, or even horrible incest. That does not make that life worthless. I also oppose capital punishment I am consistent. Judge Barrett will be a great supreme court judge and I believe she probably will get in. Hopefully because the prospects of the election itself don't look great, but then again we can see in the end how much the media is wrong if Trump wins. It will show polls are a farce.


The analogy of who she is in the cycling mechanical world is this..........She is the master mechanic. She can build a bike from nothing but the raw materials. She can mold or weld the frame, build the wheels, piece together the components and in the end you have a serious riding bike.
Deacon mark
We're appointing a justice and not a cardinal or a pope. The Constitution is not the Bible, and Roe v. Wade is not about saving or killing babies (whatever your conception of "baby" or a Constitutional "person"). It is about the proper role of state government in individual decision making -- and at what point the state government can impose its will over that of an individual. You would think conservatives would be lining up in favor of Roe since it is basically a libertarian opinion.

In fact, it is pro religion since it allows individuals to pursue their own, faith-based views on when life begins, up to a point, which the Roe court Solomonically determined was 12 weeks. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...on/1808776001/ Are the Jews wrong? Are the Buddhists wrong?

The court should not be the arbiter or religious disputes. If judge Barrett is deciding cases based on her faith, we're screwed. This is not a theocracy.

Your religious beliefs met with considerable hostility in this country -- all the way back to its founding. https://tinyurl.com/y2jorkqz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathol...rteen_Colonies Look out if government starts dictating religious beliefs. They may not be yours.

I'm sure judge Barrett has appropriate qualifications, but going back to your mechanic analogy, I'm not going to the mechanic who puts a Brooks saddle on every bike because its the "best" or thinks eBikes are an abomination because they are not mechanically pure or that technology stopped in 1788.

Jay, the definition of LIFE is not up to you or a court to decide. Life begins at inception since it will end in a living person. Don't give me any of that crap that religion has anything to do with it. It is PURE logic that life must begin at inception solely from the fact that it results in a living breathing individual like you.

The Constitution may not be the Bible but it is as close as man has come.

You claim to be successful and yet you would support people who looked the other way at the rioting, looting and burning in Portland and the "autonomous zone" in Seattle. What has surprised me about you continuously is how you can address reality quite sanely more than half of the time and the rest of the time be so far off of the tracks that you don't seem the same person at all.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:14:11 +0700, John B.
wrote:

I read to day in the news that " Trump’s pick for a US Supreme Court
vacancy said she will rule based on the law, not her personal views,"

That's called "non-originalism", where the court does not try to
reverse engineer the intentions of the law makers (intentionalism),
but rather judges based on the printed law. It's been a point of
debate in legal circles since written laws were contrived and will
probably continue until we find a better way to administer justice.
Both points of view have their merits and proponents:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
It can get really ugly when the court delivers a decision based on
what it thought were the original intentions of the law makers, even
when those involved in writing and sponsoring the law think otherwise.

Frankly I find this shocking that a nominee for the supreme Court
would make such a statement...

You'll have to ask Frank for a summary judgment on the shock value of
the statement.

although the remark might be taken out
of context, does this imply that some U.S. judges are inclined to rule
based on their emotions rather than the law?

Yes. If the ruling is not based on consistency with the US
constitution, or is based on the courts potentially creative reverse
engineering of the intent of the law makers, or is not an exact
interpretation of the written word, the only criteria left is
"feeling", also known as emotions. This is not necessarily a bad
thing if you believe in a "living constitution" where everything is
subject to constantly changing re-interpretation.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:29:42 +0200, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 12.10.2020 um 16:57 schrieb Tom Kunich:
What would you think if your wife had decided that your son was inconvenient?

In those countries where such a decision is possible, it is typical that
if the two persons involved in producing offspring together are on
talking terms, they talk about grave matters like this, and it would not
be "his wife deciding it was inconvenient".

The only reasons for abortion inside a married relationship that occurs
in any significant quantities are
Grave danger for the mother's life and
Severe diability of the fetus

Having lived in several countries where abortion is accepted and I
think, at least from cases I know the details of, abortions seem most
prevalent among young unmarried women. Perhaps it is because in Asia,
where I have lived for the majority of my adult life large families
are not despaired of. Another point is that as abortions are not
condemned they seem to be first two or three months of pregnancy when,
I understand, they are less threatening to the woman's health.

Another point, in the families with which we are related or friendly
enough so that my wife is likely to know the intimate details of the
family - women do talk to each other, about all sorts of things - it
seems that modern day families tend to have two kids, without the help
of abortions so apparently birth control aids are commonly available
and commonly used.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:03:11 -0700, Mark Cleary wrote:


-- Jay Beattie.
Going to jump in on this one. Judge Barrett has all the credentials

but sadly, very little experience,

On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 3:30:12 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 12:05:01 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 2:48:32 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:

I mentioned several egregious (and never reversed) examples

What the Donkey Party fears about Professor Barrett, soon Associate Justice Barrett, is that she will not respect precedents in wrongly decided cases, particularly the enabling judge-made legislation, Roe v Wade (1), of a monstrous campaign of infanticide in the USA, 61 million unborn babies killed since Roe v Wade was decided in 1973, an average of 1.3m licensed murders a year, mostly of black children in a hangover from the eugenics which was the favoured social policy of the Left in the USA until Hitler's shenanigans discredited it, after which it went underground as Planned Parenthood.

(1) Hell, let's not call Roe v Wade "judge-made legislation", which a dingbat like Jay will soon tell us in his prissy way is impossible in the USA under the Constitution (to which I agree -- that's why the many instances of the "impossible" should be reversed before Mr Trump hands over the White House to Mr Pence in January 2025), let's name it for what it really is, the cornerstone of a loudly faithful cult of devil worshippers organised as the Democrat Party, with the million-plus murdered foetuses every year as their offering to their horned master. It's only one of a parade of evil deeds that make the members of the Donkey Party the true racists in America.

I will tell you in my prissy way that you're a dope

Why, thank you, Jay. I always wanted to be a stand-up comic but it turned out I didn't have the common touch, in your terms, I wasn't dopey enough. Nice to know you're still capable of sympathy.

and should confine yourself to judging warm beer at your local pub

Maybe not in my local pub, but in my days as an advertising agency troubleshooter I was leant to a distinguished brewery group one of our clients had just bought a share of, and there I took one mouthful of their beer, spat it out on the floor and ordered a hundred thousand gallons of it run into the sewers, before designing for them what is still the world's largest-premium beer, probably in your fridge too, though not in mine as I don't drink beer.

-- or based on your latest post, judging psilocybin mushrooms from your local woods.

Nope, when I go mushroom gathering I take a leading expert who lives down the road with me to identify and approve of each mushroom before I pick it. I don't even know what psilocybin mushrooms are and can't be bothered to look it up as I'm apparently less interested in drugs than you are.

You clearly don't understand the role of US judges or justices in interpreting the 14th Amendment,

That a junior high school (and not a very good school either) argument to tell me I don't understand something, thereby to imply that you do, and then not to offer to explain. It make you look stupid for not knowing that I would catch on and expose your cheap trick.

which is not surprising coming from a country with no written constitution

Everyone who grasps how the senior anglophone democracies, and latterly the EU, works, knows we have a constitution and that it is indeed written down in Strasbourg or Brussels or somewhere. I haven't asked where because there are no shysters quibbling about it.

-- and where abortion is both legal

Yup. We have our own pinko-commie-fellow-traveller dimbos and hoes, and they all have a vote, just like people. The good people foolishly let that one slip by staying home on the since disproven assumption that no one would vote for abortion. (Me too. I should have bestirred myself and my neighbours to go vote.)

and free.

Try collecting on that promise if you aren't actually indigent! Man, you should keep your nose out of what you clearly don't understand. Your view of socialised medicine in Ireland is one huge cliche of outright errors, leading you by erroneous assumption into stupid remarks like that one. The Health Service in Ireland has only superficial points of resemblance to the one in the UK; as a consequence is it noticeably more efficient.

-- Jay Beattie.

Always glad to hear from you, Jay. Tell us, are you so sour and prissy because you fear that Mr Trump will be reelected, or because you know that if Mr Biden is elected, the next day we will ask you, "What the have you done to your country?" -- and you will have no answer?

Andre Jute
I always vote my conscience, not my party

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:01:48 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 3:30:12 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

which is not surprising coming from a country with no written
constitution

Everyone who grasps how the senior anglophone democracies, and latterly
the EU, works, knows we have a constitution and that it is indeed
written down in Strasbourg or Brussels or somewhere.
Andre Jute I always vote my conscience, not my party

Congratulations Jay.
You got him to shoot his own foot.

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:54:40 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:

- it
seems that modern day families tend to have two kids, without the help
of abortions so apparently birth control aids are commonly available
and commonly used.

An economic factor is in play. It cuts two ways. First, people get better off by having fewer children to, which breaks the cycle of poverty, then, because they are better off they have fewer children. There's a third stage, where they get to be so rich and comfortable that they want one, or no, children, at which point they aren't replacing themselves, and their nations shrink. The end-stage of this third part is where they pass the point of no return, common thought to be 1.4 children for every couple, at which the nation cannot recover and must depend on immigration. At this point, demographers (a branch of economics which deals with the population at large rather than normatively rational individual behaviour summed; my specialty in economics is demography) commonly exclaim some version of, "Oh ****, another nation the feminists and abortionists have murdered." If you think all of this is just theoretical bull****, check the birthrates in France or Germany or Italy, and then check who are actually breeding in those nations (immigrants, not natives). China, which made some stupid ZPG decisions resulting in the murder of umpteen million baby girls, is heading the same way. World overpopulation is no longer a concern; soon the lefty-environtal-nutcase coalition will be forced to catch up to this truth only about fifty years too late,and at that point Thomas Malthus, who even when his theory was dairy-fresh had only very doubtful little toe to stand on, will be dead and buried beside Karl Marx and David Ricardo, the other two Godfathers of Pessimism..

As Mark Steyn says, "Demographics is destiny."

Andre Jute
I love demographics. It's a science in which only a handful of topclass statisticians can prove me wrong, and they were all my proud teachers...

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 1:24:15 AM UTC+1, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:01:48 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 3:30:12 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

which is not surprising coming from a country with no written
constitution

Everyone who grasps how the senior anglophone democracies, and latterly
the EU, works, knows we have a constitution and that it is indeed
written down in Strasbourg or Brussels or somewhere.
Andre Jute I always vote my conscience, not my party

I tell the monkeys up front what I will make them do next:
That's a junior high school (and not a very good school either) argument to tell me I don't understand something, thereby to imply that you do, and then not to offer to explain. It make you look stupid for not knowing that I would catch on and expose your cheap trick.

The thief Peter Howard, now known as "news18" because he shat all over his own name, immediately commits the same stupidity again:
Congratulations Jay.
You got him to shoot his own foot.

Oh dear. No need to write a new put-down. I already did in my forecast of what these clowns would say next:
That's a junior high school (and not a very good school either) trick to tell me I don't understand something, thereby to imply that you do, and then not to offer to explain. It makes you look stupid for not knowing that I would catch on and expose your cheap trick.

If the monkeys had any brains, they'd back away silently -- but the monkeys keep grinding on because grinding on is all they know. They can't help themselves.

Andre Jute
Nothing infuriates the dimmer pinko-commie-fellow-travellers more than the truth

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 18:01:24 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 1:24:15 AM UTC+1, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:01:48 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 3:30:12 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

which is not surprising coming from a country with no written
constitution

Everyone who grasps how the senior anglophone democracies, and
latterly the EU, works, knows we have a constitution and that it is
indeed written down in Strasbourg or Brussels or somewhere.
Andre Jute I always vote my conscience, not my party

Congratulations Jay.
You got him to shoot his own foot.

And isn't he hopping mad about it.

On 12/10/2020 16:30, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 12:05:01 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 2:48:32 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:

I mentioned several egregious (and never reversed) examples

What the Donkey Party fears about Professor Barrett, soon Associate
Justice Barrett, is that she will not respect precedents in wrongly
decided cases, particularly the enabling judge-made legislation,
Roe v Wade (1), of a monstrous campaign of infanticide in the USA,
61 million unborn babies killed since Roe v Wade was decided in
1973, an average of 1.3m licensed murders a year, mostly of black
children in a hangover from the eugenics which was the favoured
social policy of the Left in the USA until Hitler's shenanigans
discredited it, after which it went underground as Planned
Parenthood.

(1) Hell, let's not call Roe v Wade "judge-made legislation", which
a dingbat like Jay will soon tell us in his prissy way is
impossible in the USA under the Constitution (to which I agree --
that's why the many instances of the "impossible" should be
reversed before Mr Trump hands over the White House to Mr Pence in
January 2025), let's name it for what it really is, the cornerstone
of a loudly faithful cult of devil worshippers organised as the
Democrat Party, with the million-plus murdered foetuses every year
as their offering to their horned master. It's only one of a parade
of evil deeds that make the members of the Donkey Party the true
racists in America.

I will tell you in my prissy way that you're a dope and should
confine yourself to judging warm beer at your local pub -- or based
on your latest post, judging psilocybin mushrooms from your local
woods. You clearly don't understand the role of US judges or justices
in interpreting the 14th Amendment, which is not surprising coming
from a country with no written constitution -- and where abortion is
both legal and free.

Didn't see Donald complaining when he jacked up on aborted fetus juice.
Anyway, how many ****ing amendments do you need!?