• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which type of judges would support human cloning?

Which type of judges would support human cloning?


  • Total voters
    20
Evidence?? Who is paying them?

I resent much of the coziness between a few of the Justices and the Big Corporations myself, but I'm not so unpatriotic as to accuse any of them of taking a bribe without some evidence.

Still, had they been my local circuit court judges, some of them would be in violation of Ohio's Code of Judicial Ethics, and (to my knowledge) nothing of the sort could be said about any previous Justices.
 
Evidence?? Who is paying them?

You dont need to pay puppets

You have to understand how the Corpocracy is set up and maintained

Look at ALL the US presidents that were allowed to run for the presidency especially since the end of WW2?

Havent you noticed how impotent your vote is every 4 years?
 
Here's a notion.

How about to NOT have conservative judges or liberal judges. Just have judges who obey and respect the law! Period.
 
When you have filed briefs with the USSC or argued cases in front of any federal court then get back to me about how much you know about the Justices. Your pronouncements are idiotic and have no basis in fact

Now that my puerile temper has had time to cool, I can say that that is actually pretty damn impressive. Was it an amicus brief? What sort of case?
 
Here's a notion.

How about to NOT have conservative judges or liberal judges. Just have judges who obey and respect the law! Period.

I don't give a good goddamn what the law is, that is always open to debate, I care about cloning.
 
Which sort of judges or Supreme Court justices would be more sympathetic to human cloning, stem cell research, or other sorts of bioethics issues? Liberal judges or conservative judges?

What do you all think?
Although neither would be likely in this country, it would probably be the liberals. Generally speaking, conservatives in this country tend to use their religion to guide their politics. It's the same reason we have problems with stem cell research, because "We shouldn't play god".
 
Although neither would be likely in this country, it would probably be the liberals. Generally speaking, conservatives in this country tend to use their religion to guide their politics. It's the same reason we have problems with stem cell research, because "We shouldn't play god".

I like to keep my religion and my politics separate. You know, like the founding fathers would have wanted.

Why do you think liberals would oppose cloning?
 
I like to keep my religion and my politics separate. You know, like the founding fathers would have wanted.

Why do you think liberals would oppose cloning?
Honestly I don't know, I guess just by looking at similar cases such as stem cell research. I figure if our politicians won't support something like that, something that could fundamentally change the world and end most diseases, then they probably won't support cloning.
 
Honestly I don't know, I guess just by looking at similar cases such as stem cell research. I figure if our politicians won't support something like that, something that could fundamentally change the world and end most diseases, then they probably won't support cloning.

Liberals, as far as I understand it, tend to support stem cell research.

On that subject, I cannot think of anything more ridiculous than right wing opposition to fetal stem cell research. I mean, I they don go to research they literally get thrown away. So it's cool with them to toss fetal stem cells in the garbage, but not use them for life saving research??
 
I don't give a good goddamn what the law is, that is always open to debate, I care about cloning.

Scientists should say that... and the law should change according to what the scientific community says. And then the judges uphold that law.
 
Scientists should say that... and the law should change according to what the scientific community says. And then the judges uphold that law.

While we're at it, how about throw world peace in with that list of unrealistic aspirations?
 
While we're at it, how about throw world peace in with that list of unrealistic aspirations?

I'm pretty sure this is isn't miss america. But to have laws change in accordance to the science of things... is not just reasonable to expect, but also logical.
 
I'm pretty sure this is isn't miss america. But to have laws change in accordance to the science of things... is not just reasonable to expect, but also logical.

That is a nice thought but unrealistic, in my correct opinion.
Look, we all know what the political climate is like, with the "culture wars" and all that. It is clear that once scientists are gettin close to growing replacement human organs and other therapeutic cloning procedures, the right wing WILL ban it. We have a Cour that is tipping conservative now, and would no doubt uphold such a ban (although Roberts has shown himself to be a good jurist, I am not comfortable withy the balance of the Court these days). And Scalia and Thomas are older than dirt, same with Ginsberg. Hopefully Obama in his next term will get a chance to replace all three (I wish only for heir voluntary retirement, of course).

I shudder to think what havoc a SCOTUS packed wih young right wingers will wreak on medical science over the next generation, as incalculably importan scienctific advancements like cloning butt up against dark age American religious sensibilities.
 
Liberals, as far as I understand it, tend to support stem cell research.

On that subject, I cannot think of anything more ridiculous than right wing opposition to fetal stem cell research. I mean, I they don go to research they literally get thrown away. So it's cool with them to toss fetal stem cells in the garbage, but not use them for life saving research??

Precisely. My friend got paralyzed in a motorcycle accident. I had a conversation with him about this very same topic. Stem cell research has shown huge promise in being able to reverse paralyzation, but out of moral grounds we've banned it. I'd like to see us ease human suffering, but maybe that's just me.
 
Precisely. My friend got paralyzed in a motorcycle accident. I had a conversation with him about this very same topic. Stem cell research has shown huge promise in being able to reverse paralyzation, but out of moral grounds we've banned it. I'd like to see us ease human suffering, but maybe that's just me.

Well, to be precise, what is banned with regard to fetal stem cells is federal funding, but the impact is the same (Singapore is outpacing us in this field, consequently). As a librarian I don't support federal funding of research, but my view on this is similar to gay marriage. Govt has no business recognizing marriages either, but as long as thy are they should no let superstition/religion influence the way they go about it. It's a sad situation that govt funding has distorted to free market for research, but that's just the way it is; research depends on federal funding.
 
That is a nice thought but unrealistic, in my correct opinion.
Look, we all know what the political climate is like, with the "culture wars" and all that. It is clear that once scientists are gettin close to growing replacement human organs and other therapeutic cloning procedures, the right wing WILL ban it. We have a Cour that is tipping conservative now, and would no doubt uphold such a ban (although Roberts has shown himself to be a good jurist, I am not comfortable withy the balance of the Court these days). And Scalia and Thomas are older than dirt, same with Ginsberg. Hopefully Obama in his next term will get a chance to replace all three (I wish only for heir voluntary retirement, of course).

I shudder to think what havoc a SCOTUS packed wih young right wingers will wreak on medical science over the next generation, as incalculably importan scienctific advancements like cloning butt up against dark age American religious sensibilities.

My positions is that the supreme courts, including constitutional courts, should be appointed through popular vote by the people with a temporal tenure (so not for life... 1-4 years, you pick). The way it currently is, there is no doubt that you will have people appointed to the supreme court because of their political affiliations (Elena Kagan comes to mind).
 
Why would the USA require judges?

There is no justice to defend in the corporatised US tyranny

Can anyone help me? I cant seem to tell the difference
supreme08.jpgclowns-072709.jpg
 
Last edited:
Since most of the judges on the Supreme Court are less likely to rule based upon any consistent legal principles than upon their personal political views, I would suggest that liberal judges would be more likely to strike it down. This is for the simple reason that I think people who are ideologically liberal are more likely to regard technology as inherently good for its own sake, whereas people who are ideologically conservative are more likely to be worried about the bioethics of new technology.

Yeah, pretty much this. It's probably my main contention with liberals, of whom I tend to be considered one.

Don't get me wrong, I love technology. But ethics conversations are important to have, and too often, you see stuff like a straight line of Congresspeople with (D) next to their name voting for stuff like SOPA. It's intended to address a problem technologically, so it must be good! It's like they skip the part of evaluating whether it will actually work, or whether it's ethical to do it.
 
The Impotency of the US citizen's delusional right to cast a vote

OccupyPuppetOnLeftOnRightVoteViaFBOccupyWallStWallPhotos1-225x300.jpg
 
Now that my puerile temper has had time to cool, I can say that that is actually pretty damn impressive. Was it an amicus brief? What sort of case?

Opposition to a writ of Cert. We won, hence no argument or main briefing
 
You dont need to pay puppets

You have to understand how the Corpocracy is set up and maintained

Look at ALL the US presidents that were allowed to run for the presidency especially since the end of WW2?

Havent you noticed how impotent your vote is every 4 years?

Hummm....this is conspiracy nonsense. Will you start telling us about the New World Order next, Klown?
 
I say liberal judges, conservatives are traditionally against stem cell research
 
I say liberal judges, conservatives are traditionally against stem cell research

This is only because the Roman Catholic Church has made the preposterous argument that most stem cells are harvested from the products of abortion and therefore, women are getting abortions they otherwise would not in the interests of science. Not every "conservative" Justice buys this silliness, and I think it's unfair to suggest that conservatives, generally, are anti-science.
 
Back
Top Bottom