• 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

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,846
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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?
 
who is paying for the stuff?
 
who is paying for the stuff?

Let's imagine this scenario: Congress takes the advice of President Bush's bioethics advisor Leon Kass and enacts a total ban on all human cloning. Which type of judge would be more likely to strike it down?
 
Let's imagine this scenario: Congress takes the advice of President Bush's bioethics advisor Leon Kass and enacts a total ban on all human cloning. Which type of judge would be more likely to strike it down?

probably one who understands that congress doesn't have that power. that could be Justice Thomas who actually respects the 10th amendment. It could be Justice Ginsburg who has had major health issues
 
probably one who understands that congress doesn't have that power. that could be Justice Thomas who actually respects the 10th amendment. It could be Justice Ginsburg who has had major health issues

What you said about Thomas does not ring true. I am sure he could. One up with a clever bit of sophistry to justify a cloning ban, considering what an activist he is. Frankly your naïveté surprises me. Is it an act or sincere?
 
What you said about Thomas does not ring true. I am sure he could. One up with a clever bit of sophistry to justify a cloning ban, considering what an activist he is. Frankly your naïveté surprises me. Is it an act or sincere?

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
 
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
It's none of your business what courts I may or may not have files briefs in, and until you've argued cases in the supreme court you are in no position of superior knowledge. You're not even admitted to the Supreme Court are you?
 
Last edited:
It's none of your business what courts I may or may not have files briefs in, and until you've argued cases in the supreme court you are in no position of superior knowledge. You're not even admitted to the Supreme Court are you?

you aren't a lawyer and you have admitted that before. there are people on this board who know I am an attorney and I have had numerous federal appellate cases.
 
you aren't a lawyer and you have admitted that before. there are people on this board who know I am an attorney and I have had numerous federal appellate cases.

I don't really care what you think about me, TD, but you should try to keep your own story straight. You know precious little about the SCOTUS. Have you ever even been to DC on business?

You're a funny guy TD.
 
Let's imagine this scenario: Congress takes the advice of President Bush's bioethics advisor Leon Kass and enacts a total ban on all human cloning. Which type of judge would be more likely to strike it down?

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.
 
I don't really care what you think about me, TD, but you should try to keep your own story straight. You know precious little about the SCOTUS. Have you ever even been to DC on business?

You're a funny guy TD.

so tell me Guy-what sort of law degree do you have? I need a great laugh before retiring for the evening

I have been to DC a few times including three weeks for a trial
 
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.
Precisely correct. If you support advancements in human clonig research, the only way to ensure it is by appointing liberal judges and justices, wouldn't you agree?

Incidentally, what is your opinion on the issue?
 
so tell me Guy-what sort of law degree do you have? I need a great laugh before retiring for the evening

I have been to DC a few times including three weeks for a trial

I got my degree from the school of hard knocks, and did my graduate work at the university of moping the floor with you in every debate we've ever had. But TD, my credentials, or lack thereof, are not relevant.

You'd do well to stay focused on your arguments.
 
Last edited:
Precisely correct. If you support advancements in human clonig research, the only way to ensure it is by appointing liberal judges and justices, wouldn't you agree?

Since we're a long way from the point where important cloning issues are definitively ruled upon by the courts, I'd suggest that a better way to advance that cause is to elect liberal legislators and executives.

Incidentally, what is your opinion on the issue?

I'm generally supportive of more research and development on human cloning...specifically the possibility of cloning organs and tissues for medical procedures. I'm much more hesitant about the idea of cloning an entire human being due to the genetic errors that have been quite common in other cloned animals.
 
Since we're a long way from the point where important cloning issues are definitively ruled upon by the courts, I'd suggest that a better way to advance that cause is to elect liberal legislators and executives.



I'm generally supportive of more research and development on human cloning...specifically the possibility of cloning organs and tissues for medical procedures. I'm much more hesitant about the idea of cloning an entire human being due to the genetic errors that have been quite common in other cloned animals.

You can't ensure that liberals will be elected every time, these things are cyclical. Federal judges and supreme court justices have lifetime appointments. If we pack the courts wih liberals we can be assured that if a republican legislature manages to sneak by with a cloning ban it will be assured to be struck down. Cloning is too important to leave to the whims of the voting public.
 
Supreme court judges are corporately OWNED and controlled

If Human cloning can produce higher profits in any industry or sector, then it will be legalised

The Corpocracy has no sustancial morals to contend with other than its fascist ideology and power concentration

This is exactly why the US supreme court in 2010, bestowed upon the Corporation the classification of personhood

Now a Corporation, can not only shaft the citizens of the USA, it is also protected by the US constitution

(ironically the US constitution is currently impotent due to the Patriot Acts and the NDAA signing - the fascist Corpocratic tyranny in the USA has been securely embedded in the legal, political, social and financial systems. The people of the USA can either continue enduring the pain of slavery, or they can rebel and dismantle this inhumane totalitarian fascist Corpocracy - and that will happen one day)
 
I'd like to believe they all would, albeit for completely different reasons.

I'm going to need a clone very soon. My current body needs to be embalmed and given a fresh chance.

Oh, and Thomas will vote for whatever Scalia tells him to.

((Opinion alert))

What you said about Thomas does not ring true. I am sure he could. One up with a clever bit of sophistry to justify a cloning ban, considering what an activist he is. Frankly your naïveté surprises me. Is it an act or sincere?
 
You can't ensure that liberals will be elected every time, these things are cyclical.

That's fine...if the people don't want to elect politicians who support cloning I see no reason to force it upon them.

Federal judges and supreme court justices have lifetime appointments. If we pack the courts wih liberals we can be assured that if a republican legislature manages to sneak by with a cloning ban it will be assured to be struck down.

You'd still have to have liberal legislators and executives anyway, to get them onto the court in the first place. The bottom line is that if the public is completely opposed to it (and cares enough to vote based on the issue), then it's not going to be legal.

Cloning is too important to leave to the whims of the voting public.

Meh. Why? It's about 421st on my list of priorities for the judicial branch, and even lower for the legislative branch. Even for technology issues, it doesn't crack my top 20. Maybe that will change as the technology improves, but I doubt it. As far as I know, only the most hardline conservatives are calling for a total ban on it, including therapeutic organ/tissue cloning...most of those who have taken an anti-cloning stance only want to ban the cloning of full human beings.
 
Guy Incognito I have to ask why your immediate reaction upon hearing an answer to a question you yourself posed is to insult the person and to condescend. Surely you realize questioning someones "naivete" is not the best way of going about things?
 
Let's imagine this scenario: Congress takes the advice of President Bush's bioethics advisor Leon Kass and enacts a total ban on all human cloning. Which type of judge would be more likely to strike it down?

The Godless, commie liberal ones.
 
Supreme court judges are corporately OWNED and controlled

If Human cloning can produce higher profits in any industry or sector, then it will be legalised

The Corpocracy has no sustancial morals to contend with other than its fascist ideology and power concentration

This is exactly why the US supreme court in 2010, bestowed upon the Corporation the classification of personhood

Now a Corporation, can not only shaft the citizens of the USA, it is also protected by the US constitution

(ironically the US constitution is currently impotent due to the Patriot Acts and the NDAA signing - the fascist Corpocratic tyranny in the USA has been securely embedded in the legal, political, social and financial systems. The people of the USA can either continue enduring the pain of slavery, or they can rebel and dismantle this inhumane totalitarian fascist Corpocracy - and that will happen one day)

How would judges be owned by corporations? They're appointed for life. They wouldn't care if companies were pleased with them.
 
Liberals are against giving human rights to unborn collections of cells, but typically want to expand full human rights to minorities.

Conservatives are against expanding human rights to minorities and have already taken up a stance against stem cell research.
 
How would judges be owned by corporations? They're appointed for life. They wouldn't care if companies were pleased with them.

You have a lot to learn about your own Tyrannical fascist Corpocracy that enslaves you

Do you believe a corporation is a person and should be afforded the rights that you believe are available to you?

The US Supreme Court bench is a Corporate entity

it does not care about the rights of ordinary Americans
 
The Op is a silly question. Medical ethics questions arising from emerging scientific and medical breakthroughs are going to dazzle everyone, and not always in a good way.

In my lifetime, an artificial heart, a pig heart and the heart of another human has been used to extend the life of a person with heart disease. At each advancement, the public thought the implications were sinister and you can still watch recently-made horror movies where a person is killed so their organs can be harvested. Probably 75% of the non-medical public is afraid to consent to donate their organs out of fear they'll be killed by doctors so someone else can live.

When we know what may be possible and have a chance to observe the unintended consequences, then we can discuss human cloning. Daisy the sheep seemed to live a healthy life, but how would we know whether a sheep was mentally ill?

Whatever we do, I imagine we can count on the Roman Catholic Church to condemn it and possibly, that will carry weight with a Justice or two (Scalia and Thomas, if they're still on the bench) but this will never, just as it has never, serve as more than a nuisance.

Progress will progress.
 
You have a lot to learn about your own Tyrannical fascist Corpocracy that enslaves you

Do you believe a corporation is a person and should be afforded the rights that you believe are available to you?

The US Supreme Court bench is a Corporate entity

it does not care about the rights of ordinary Americans

Evidence?? Who is paying them?
 
Back
Top Bottom