• 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!

Report: Justice Kennedy retiring Monday!?

calamity said:
Of course not. But, another solidly conservative pick like Gorsuch would make all the pain Trump is putting the GOP through right now worth their while.
Click to expand...

I absolutely cannot stand Trump as a person, have disliked many of his policy moves, hated most of his actual political moves, and find him to be a ****ing idiot politically...

But the SCOTUS picks were the singular reason why, had a 3rd party candidate not been an option, I would've gone Trump over Clinton, and why I've stated to this day I'd still have preferred him than her. It's far bigger than 4 years.
 
Phys251 said:
Technology exists nowadays to let a computer call balls and strikes at baseball games. By your analogy, SCOTUS decisions should be made by a computer.
Click to expand...

actually it is still the umpire that calls balls and strikes the computer grid is to just show where the pitch was. it is nothing more than a graphic.
same goes for the yellow line in football for the first down.
 
Zyphlin said:
I absolutely cannot stand Trump as a person, have disliked many of his policy moves, hated most of his actual political moves, and find him to be a ****ing idiot politically...

But the SCOTUS picks were the singular reason why, had a 3rd party candidate not been an option, I would've gone Trump over Clinton, and why I've stated to this day I'd still have preferred him than her. It's far bigger than 4 years.
Click to expand...

Yep. SCOTUS picks can change the entire direction of the country. And, had Hillary won, Hannity would have been right: America would never again be the same. Now, the only debate is. Would that have been a bad thing?
 
WCH said:
I see a million murdering moms march in the future.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's usually the women that march for abortion are the kind that leaves you scratching your head on why they care. I mean, an obese way past reproductive years woman marching for abortion rights next to a manly woman that has about as much sex appeal to a straight guy as an ape man makes no sense.
 
ludin said:
honestly a judge shouldn't matter liberal or conservative but their adherence to the constitution.
a judge's job is to uphold the constitution. they do not have the ability to re-write or change it.

any judge that thinks they do is not fit to serve on the court.

the court and their adherence to the constitution is the only thing that keeps our freedoms in place.
Click to expand...

Honestly I hate even using liberal or conservative when talking judges and the only reason I used it is because I'm on my tablet so it's harder to type, and it's regularly recognized short hand.

Conservative justices on a SCOTUS level is less about "conservatism" and more about a legal philosophy in line with strict constructionism and original intent. Liberal justices on a SCOTUS level is less about "liberalism" and more about a legal philosophy on line with the ideas of a "living document" view of the constitution and a broader worldly view of rights
 
Bucky said:
If you believe judges have the right to create new laws, great, that's not the job description of a judge though.
Click to expand...

And now you're shifting the goalposts. Perhaps you understand that, no, the SCOTUS justices' being refs or umps is a terrible analogy?
 
ludin said:
actually it is still the umpire that calls balls and strikes the computer grid is to just show where the pitch was. it is nothing more than a graphic.
same goes for the yellow line in football for the first down.
Click to expand...

Notice that I said technology exists for computers to make calls, not that computers are actually making the calls. Please try to address what I actually said.
 
calamity said:
Yep. SCOTUS picks can change the entire direction of the country. And, had Hillary won, Hannity would have been right: America would never again be the same. Now, the only debate is. Would that have been a bad thing?
Click to expand...

For most of those with a more progressive world view, no. For those with a more conservative world view, yes.

That was the HORRIBLE thing about THIS election being the one with such abysmal candidates. The court was at a very even split with potentially 3 or more seats likely to be filled...meaning either side was going to have a chance to make a court that was likely 6 to 7 justices in their favor on average. It is monumental or catastrophic, depending on your view, for the next one to three decades. Which is why it was just flabbergasting that it ended up being Hillary ****ing Clinton vs Donald ****ing Trump
 
Phys251 said:
And now you're shifting the goalposts. Perhaps you understand that, no, the SCOTUS justices' being refs or umps is a terrible analogy?
Click to expand...

It is actually an excellent analogy. You are just not intelligent enough to understand it.

If you believe umpires and referees have the right to call plays how they see things, great!
 
Bucky said:
It is actually an excellent analogy. You are just not intelligent enough to understand it.

If you believe umpires and referees have the right to call plays how they see things, great!
Click to expand...

:roll:

By your logic, SCOTUS justices should make rulings immediately once oral arguments are done. Like right that second.

Why do they not do this, Bucky?
 
Strangely enough umpires in baseball are a great analogy for judges...both those who are apt to make very broad rulings that seemingly transform or create law out of nothing to those that are so strictly by the book it's almost frustrating.

Also, there's been plenty of folks calling for the damn old foogies in baseball to accept that a computer should be calling balls and strikes already anyways ;) but that's probably getting odd topic...

I ****ing hate when refs **** up games. Like injecting idiotic rules that are never called into a massive game that changes the course of history. They should just let players play, and fumbles should just be fumbles, unless you're an authoritarian............
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
:roll:

By your logic, SCOTUS justices should make rulings immediately once oral arguments are done. Like right that second.

Why do they not do this, Bucky?
Click to expand...

Actually referees and umpires have the right to instant reply and consult with their colleagues.

You basically want referees and umpires to have more influence in a game and give less power/inlufence to the players on the field.

That philopshy is undemocratic and borderline authoritarian. Thanks for showing your true colors.
 
I am personally pro-life and have no problem with Roe being overturned, and abortion going back to the states. I have no problem with gay marriage going to the states. I also find it difficult to respect the American POV that the supreme court is all about social issues. The worst thing about the court is that it protects the establishment, the donor class, elites, and empowers them with decisions like Citizens United. Those are issues impacting almost every American now, and it's more important to me than social issues. Not to mention Trump's campaign rhetoric and statements about a certain judge of Mexican decent should disqualify from appointing judges, period. I don't understand how any American felt comfortable giving this guy power unless you actually agreed with him about the judge's heritage, want registries, immigrant and travel bans, mass deportation, etc. I don't want our court system headed in such a direction or filled with Bannon style idealists.
 
Phys251 said:
Notice that I said technology exists for computers to make calls, not that computers are actually making the calls. Please try to address what I actually said.
Click to expand...

I never said you made that argument I simply stated a clarification for anyone reading.
the computer is there as a guide nothing more.
 
Zyphlin said:
Strangely enough umpires in baseball are a great analogy for judges...both those who are apt to make very broad rulings that seemingly transform or create law out of nothing to those that are so strictly by the book it's almost frustrating.

Also, there's been plenty of folks calling for the damn old foogies in baseball to accept that a computer should be calling balls and strikes already anyways ;) but that's probably getting odd topic...
Click to expand...

yep saw a highlight where the ball was thrown it was obvious that it was a ball you didn't even need a graphic. the ump called a strike and the guy was out.
he said something not sure what it was but it was bad enough that the ref launched him from the game.
 
Zyphlin said:
Strangely enough umpires in baseball are a great analogy for judges...both those who are apt to make very broad rulings that seemingly transform or create law out of nothing to those that are so strictly by the book it's almost frustrating.

Also, there's been plenty of folks calling for the damn old foogies in baseball to accept that a computer should be calling balls and strikes already anyways ;) but that's probably getting odd topic...

I ****ing hate when refs **** up games. Like injecting idiotic rules that are never called into a massive game that changes the course of history. They should just let players play, and fumbles should just be fumbles, unless you're an authoritarian............
Click to expand...

The difference between me and Phys251 is that I believe umpires should actually follow the rules of baseball. Phys251 believe umpires have the right to create their own rules and interrupt those made up rules how they like.

In Phys251 world, an umpire has the right to give teams 4 outs or end the game in the 5th inning.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
The conservative old farts will be gone soon. Two decades from now, do you really think codifying modern conservatism into law will lead to good outcomes?
Click to expand...

Then the world regresses back to mob rule. Or very soon after that.
 
calamity said:
Of course not. But, another solidly conservative pick like Gorsuch would make all the pain Trump is putting the GOP through right now worth their while.
Click to expand...

I think Trump is worried about the future more than he is the Republicans in the Congress. They will vote for a conservative.
 
YorkshirePete said:
Hopefully they will legalize lynching again.
Hilarious, a constitution written by slave owners and rapists.
What's not to like?
Click to expand...

And what monarch wrote your Constitution? You people are subjects, we are citizens.
 
Bucky said:
Actually referees and umpires have the right to instant reply and consult with their colleagues.

You basically want referees and umpires to have more influence in a game and give less power/inlufence to the players on the field.

That philopshy is undemocratic and borderline authoritarian. Thanks for showing your true colors.
Click to expand...

Yet again you are addressing something I did not say. So let me break it down for you.

Between the time that oral arguments are done and the ruling is announced, there is a LOT of legal research that goes on. What other cases have been made that would coincide with this one, what does the Constitution have to say about the matter, etc. There is a reason that, even during eras when partisanship wasn't so strong, it took a lot to be considered a SCOTUS justice.

So I'm not sure why you insist on the justices being compared to sports officials, but the analogy is remarkably poor.
 
Bucky said:
The difference between me and Phys251 is that I believe umpires should actually follow the rules of baseball. Phys251 believe umpires have the right to create their own rules and interrupt those made up rules how they like.

In Phys251 world, an umpire has the right to give teams 4 outs or end the game in the 5th inning.
Click to expand...

Stop lying. I already made my position clear. You are deliberately distorting it.
 
Phys251 said:
Stop lying. I already made my position clear. You are deliberately distorting it.
Click to expand...

You are the one that is lying the all the other posters on this forum and most importanly, yourself.

Just admit you prefer judges to legislate from the bench.
 
Bucky said:
You are the one that is lying the all the other posters on this forum and most importanly, yourself.

Just admit you prefer judges to legislate from the bench.
Click to expand...

:roll:

If you want to continue to distort what I said, that's on you. I can't help you from doing that; that's on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom