For an action to be sexist or racist, it must be unjust. Given the historical context, Biden's SCOTUS nomination process clearly was not unjust.daytripper wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 12:45You also don't combat it with more sexism and racism. Two wrongs still don't make a right.Coydog wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 12:41It doesn’t ignore the historical context, it shines a spotlight on it. The reason it took until 2022 for our country to confirm its first black woman for SCOTUS is plain and simple – institutional and systemic racism and sexism. You don't combat that by sticking with the status quo.Mister Moose wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 10:41
First point, yes. Using an all white men scoreboard starting from the beginning of the country during an all white men in government era is to ignore the historical context. We are evolving to what the founders envisioned but did not yet have, and should continue on that journey, not regress to another but somehow "better" form of racism/sexism.
Supreme Court
Re: Supreme Court
-
- Wanted Poster
- Posts: 3489
- Joined: Nov 6th, '04, 20:27
- Location: Long Island
Re: Supreme Court
I agree it was not unjust, but it certainly was racist and sexist.Coydog wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 13:38For an action to be sexist or racist, it must be unjust. Given the historical context, Biden's SCOTUS nomination process clearly was not unjust.daytripper wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 12:45You also don't combat it with more sexism and racism. Two wrongs still don't make a right.Coydog wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 12:41It doesn’t ignore the historical context, it shines a spotlight on it. The reason it took until 2022 for our country to confirm its first black woman for SCOTUS is plain and simple – institutional and systemic racism and sexism. You don't combat that by sticking with the status quo.Mister Moose wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 10:41
First point, yes. Using an all white men scoreboard starting from the beginning of the country during an all white men in government era is to ignore the historical context. We are evolving to what the founders envisioned but did not yet have, and should continue on that journey, not regress to another but somehow "better" form of racism/sexism.
Re: Supreme Court
I find that particular application of both terms extremely naive and overly simplistic. Kinda like claiming by some sort of blunt definition, the National Brotherhood of Skiers is racist and the Daughters of the American Revolution is sexist.daytripper wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 14:46I agree it was not unjust, but it certainly was racist and sexist.Coydog wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 13:38For an action to be sexist or racist, it must be unjust. Given the historical context, Biden's SCOTUS nomination process clearly was not unjust.daytripper wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 12:45You also don't combat it with more sexism and racism. Two wrongs still don't make a right.Coydog wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 12:41It doesn’t ignore the historical context, it shines a spotlight on it. The reason it took until 2022 for our country to confirm its first black woman for SCOTUS is plain and simple – institutional and systemic racism and sexism. You don't combat that by sticking with the status quo.Mister Moose wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 10:41
First point, yes. Using an all white men scoreboard starting from the beginning of the country during an all white men in government era is to ignore the historical context. We are evolving to what the founders envisioned but did not yet have, and should continue on that journey, not regress to another but somehow "better" form of racism/sexism.
Re: Supreme Court
Clearance Thomas should absolutely resign. What a criminal.
https://news.yahoo.com/ginni-thomas-urg ... 46379.html
https://news.yahoo.com/ginni-thomas-urg ... 46379.html
Don't Killington Pico
-
- Signature Poster
- Posts: 19650
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
- Location: New York
Re: Supreme Court
He won’t and no one will do anything about it.boston_e wrote: ↑May 20th, '22, 22:00 Clearance Thomas should absolutely resign. What a criminal.
https://news.yahoo.com/ginni-thomas-urg ... 46379.html
Re: Supreme Court
Of course not - but he is absolutely, without question, 100% corrupt.XtremeJibber2001 wrote: ↑May 21st, '22, 06:00He won’t and no one will do anything about it.boston_e wrote: ↑May 20th, '22, 22:00 Clearance Thomas should absolutely resign. What a criminal.
https://news.yahoo.com/ginni-thomas-urg ... 46379.html
Don't Killington Pico
Re: Supreme Court
Said without providing evidence, just conjecture. You are probably just another racist.boston_e wrote: ↑May 21st, '22, 08:24Of course not - but he is absolutely, without question, 100% corrupt.XtremeJibber2001 wrote: ↑May 21st, '22, 06:00He won’t and no one will do anything about it.boston_e wrote: ↑May 20th, '22, 22:00 Clearance Thomas should absolutely resign. What a criminal.
https://news.yahoo.com/ginni-thomas-urg ... 46379.html
I get all the news I need from the weather report
- Simon and Garfunkel
- Simon and Garfunkel
-
- Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
- Posts: 3848
- Joined: Nov 10th, '19, 15:56
Re: Supreme Court
In other news, SCOTUS has decided to chip away at other Constitutional rights: today, it's your right to counsel.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/wh ... 4d1ac377fd
I said it before and I'll say it again, a conservative Court means fewer rights for all of us.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/wh ... 4d1ac377fd
I said it before and I'll say it again, a conservative Court means fewer rights for all of us.
Re: Supreme Court
Good job Schumer, Pelosi, and other violent lefties.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem ... n-arrested
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem ... n-arrested
I get all the news I need from the weather report
- Simon and Garfunkel
- Simon and Garfunkel
-
- Signature Poster
- Posts: 19650
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
- Location: New York
Re: Supreme Court
Harden his home. One door in/out. Post an armed retired vet at the door.throbster wrote: ↑Jun 8th, '22, 11:11 Good job Schumer, Pelosi, and other violent lefties.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem ... n-arrested
Re: Supreme Court
Or Sleepy show some leadership, and condemn harassment of judgesXtremeJibber2001 wrote: ↑Jun 8th, '22, 12:30Harden his home. One door in/out. Post an armed retired vet at the door.throbster wrote: ↑Jun 8th, '22, 11:11 Good job Schumer, Pelosi, and other violent lefties.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem ... n-arrested
I get all the news I need from the weather report
- Simon and Garfunkel
- Simon and Garfunkel
-
- Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
- Posts: 3972
- Joined: Apr 25th, '10, 17:03
Re: Supreme Court
Laughable you actually care now. Certainly wasn't an issue for you when Trump wound up the Gravy Seals on January 6th.
-
- Signature Poster
- Posts: 19650
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
- Location: New York
Re: Supreme Court
SCOTUS be like:
Abortion should be left to the States to decide
Concealed carry of firearms cannot be left to the States to decide
Abortion should be left to the States to decide
Concealed carry of firearms cannot be left to the States to decide
- Mister Moose
- Level 10K poster
- Posts: 11642
- Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
- Location: Waiting for the next one
Re: Supreme Court
There's a reason for this.... if I could just put my finger on it....XtremeJibber2001 wrote: ↑Jun 23rd, '22, 11:39 SCOTUS be like:
Abortion should be left to the States to decide
Concealed carry of firearms cannot be left to the States to decide
One of the 2 majority opinions stated, “Properly interpreted, the Second Amendment allows a ‘variety’ of gun regulations,” wrote Roberts and Kavanaugh, who also noted that states can still make applicants for a firearm license “undergo fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements.” and ..."does not preclude state and local restrictions on gun ownership by felons and the mentally ill — or laws banning the carrying of firearms in “sensitive locations” like schools and government buildings."
This addresses some previous discussion on how any amendment is not absolute, and what the Court may consider in the future to be reasonable requirements. I think they left out fees for licenses, they aren't cheap, and create an economic barrier that shouldn't be there.
-
- Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
- Posts: 3848
- Joined: Nov 10th, '19, 15:56
Re: Supreme Court
Moose correctly summarizes their view. They regard gun rights as protected by the 2nd amendment explicitly, whereas abortion rights are not actually mentioned in the Constitution.
The issue I take with that view we discussed earlier - I don't think the 2nd amendment should be applied to the states, and I don't think it was meant to guarantee a personal right as it was written. I actually think abortion rights are a lot closer to the kinds of rights that were intended to be applied to the states through the 14th amendment, as it is in line with protecting your person from unreasonable searches and seizures and that sort of thing. It seems to me that there is a substantive due process right to do what you want with your body as far as medical procedures (to choose to undergo or refuse to undergo any procedure). To me that seems like a more sacred and important right than owning a firearm.
As far as the federalism argument, that always seems like a pretext to me. The only time a person seems to care about "state's rights" is when it gets them the outcome they want. But somehow that principle gets discarded whenever it doesn't favor the desired outcome.
The issue I take with that view we discussed earlier - I don't think the 2nd amendment should be applied to the states, and I don't think it was meant to guarantee a personal right as it was written. I actually think abortion rights are a lot closer to the kinds of rights that were intended to be applied to the states through the 14th amendment, as it is in line with protecting your person from unreasonable searches and seizures and that sort of thing. It seems to me that there is a substantive due process right to do what you want with your body as far as medical procedures (to choose to undergo or refuse to undergo any procedure). To me that seems like a more sacred and important right than owning a firearm.
As far as the federalism argument, that always seems like a pretext to me. The only time a person seems to care about "state's rights" is when it gets them the outcome they want. But somehow that principle gets discarded whenever it doesn't favor the desired outcome.