Amy Coney Barrett is a celebrated professor of the law, and judge

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 32
Topic's author
#1
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Amy Coney Barrett is a celebrated professor of the law, and judge, a woman with children in school, and a stellar woman in the workforce. So why do Democrats hate her? Because it was Donald Trump, an alleged illegitimate President, and, therefore, not empowered with the constitutional endowment to nominate a Supreme Court Justice candidate within the full four years of his duly elected term. Somehow, suddenly proximity to a presidential election is a qualifier for this nomination power. That qualifier is not constitutional.

She is going to overturn, apparently all on her own, the ACA. That expectation is a faithless suspicion about the integrity of our Legislature. If the ACA is that well constructed as law, how does a single case accomplish that? Do the Democrats have that little faith in the law they, alone, passed? If aso, maybe it deserves replacement, but more Justices than one will do it.

She is going to overturn, apparently all on her own, Roe v. Wade. That expectation is a faithless suspicion about the integrity of our Judicial. If Roe v. Wade was that poorly decided,  but has withstood the test of time for 47 years, that a single case would unilaterally dissolve it by a single Justice's decision, then perhaps that 1973 decision was not as sound as we believe. If so, maybe it should be overturned, but more Justices than one will do it.

Are Democrats really that weak, naive, and faithless? Maybe they do not deserve the White House, yet.
#2
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Why do you want to overturn roe vs wade? Why does a woman want to be stripped of such rights?

Topic's author
#3
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Why do you want to overturn roe vs wade?
Basing Roe on interpreting the 4A and 14A, which both stipulate our right "...to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," is NOT a matter of privacy, as claimed by the majority opinion of Roe. Note that the word does not exist in either amendment, lety alone the rest of constitutional text. Privacy is not the equivalent of "secure in [our] persons." One can be secure in a crowd, while insecure in their own home, thus "perivacy" is not equivalent to "secure." Roe needed bettewr grounding than that. Further, I'll remind you that of the 7 majority of that decision included 4 Justices appointed by Repub presidents, thus upsetting the notion that the Court is an ideological morass, as claimed by Sen. Blumenthal, who was an idiot for making the claim. He ignores that of all SCOTUS decisions made over the last 150 years, since establishing the Court at 9 Justices, 459.7% of all decisions were unanimous. That looks like an ideological neutral Court to me, concerned more with the Law, as is, rather than ideology. That stat is according to Cornell Law, www.law.cornell.com

Why does a woman want to be stripped of such rights
Because a fetus is not, never was, and never will be part of her body. Not a shred of the placenta, amniotic sac & its fluid, umbilical, nor the fetus itself share identical DNA with any part of her body. There is a blood barrier between woman and fetus across which nothing passes but nutrients. I use this analogy: if a fetus was part of a woman's body, her tongue would fall out if she opened her mouth. Given that separation of entities, woman and fetus, although her body complete surrounds the fetus during gestation, that fetus, and all other tissue with which it does share DNA, will evacuate at term. Therefore, she does not have that assumed right of her body, because her body ends where the fetus begins. And, this is why when a pregnant woman is murdered, it is a dual murder charge if a perp is indicted [Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004] . The fetus is, was, and always will be a separate individual.
#4
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Why does a woman want to be stripped of such rights
Because a fetus is not, never was, and never will be part of her body. Not a shred of the placenta, amniotic sac & its fluid, umbilical, nor the fetus itself share identical DNA with any part of her body. There is a blood barrier between woman and fetus across which nothing passes but nutrients. I use this analogy: if a fetus was part of a woman's body, her tongue would fall out if she opened her mouth. Given that separation of entities, woman and fetus, although her body complete surrounds the fetus during gestation, that fetus, and all other tissue with which it does share DNA, will evacuate at term. Therefore, she does not have that assumed right of her body, because her body ends where the fetus begins. And, this is why when a pregnant woman is murdered, it is a dual murder charge if a perp is indicted [Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004] . The fetus is, was, and always will be a separate individual.
Well you can call me a "hypocrite" because I am a man fighting for women's rights. Well We divide here. Until the fetus was born right out, it is a part of the women. Just because I am separate from an entity of a company doesn't mean I am not in the company, in fact, anything but that. A fetus is women's property, until it is granted personhood. Surely you would feel happy about granting two cells a Legal ID card, shall you? If the Fetus is independent from the woman then why does the fetus always get nutrients from the woman? Why does the fetus depend on the woman? The woman have every right to literally own the little guy(or girl) she created, and can do everything she can to it. Unless the baby is so important to society, I support abortion rights. Aborting an unborn child reduces not a lot of value to this world, and if the child is completely nothing but a burden aborting it would be literally adding value to the world via the mother. This is on top of that most abortions are before 6 months, meaning that stopping a baby from exerting a clump of cells is what is happening most of time, and why shouldn't the woman have the right to have the clump of cells who can't even survive independently on its own?

If you are calling Lamborghini an independent company free of any ownership just because it has its own cars then it is as false as it could be. Said company is literally being supported by Audi and VolksWagen. Why is a fetus an independent being free of its mother if the fetus depends on the survival basis, its mother?
#5
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
You can now add "Associate Justice of the Supreme Court" to her list of accomplishments.
Topic's author
#6
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Some good questions. I'll try to reply.
I argue that fetal independence as a person [granted, "personhood" is a confusing legal matter at present] does not mean that it is independent of need of the mother for gestational survival. That would be an absurd argument. And, that is why "fetal vitality" is such a difficult legal condition. Vitality meaning that eventual birth of the fetus depends on its ability [again and still not independent of need] to survive beyond birth, "regardless of stage of development." The latter quoted phrase is direct from Title 1, USC 8, the U.S. federal statute defining the legal definition of a "person." The problem that is present to pro-choice proponents is that the "stage of development," with vitality is occurring in lesser and lesser time in gestation. The record is currently 16 weeks from conception, [1] but is continually reducing with increasing technology of premature birth. It is a dilemma that flies in the face of late-term abortion proponents, even those who subscribe to the definition of personhood in 1 USC 8.

How can a fetus be described as part of a woman when, clearly, by recognized genetics, her tongue, for example shares her identical DNA, but the fetus and associated tissues do not. It is literally like a ping pong ball held in a fist. The ball is clearly not part of the person holding it, demonstrated by opening the fist. If the palm is down, the ball will not remain in-hand, will it? It is not part of the hand, and by extension, not part of the rest of the body. Just so, at term, the fetus is, in effect, dropped from the body.

Your barrier of "six months" equates to 24 weeks, which is already well beyond the 19-week gestation of successful vitality post birth. At 24 weeks, it is also beyond the time when the fetus is shown to react to stimulus of touch, [2] and has the same physical reaction to pain as do post-natal children. This and the last paragraph erefute your claim of "just a clump of cells."


Topic's author
#7
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SirAnonymous
Associate Justice Barrett. yeah!
#8
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Biased Democrats will obviously dislike biased Republicans and vice versa..... As exemplified by your good self.
Topic's author
#9
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Where have I expressed bias? I give you law and science, such as both are currently construed. And, recall that in both cases, Roe and ACA, I've offered the only bias that is in my argument; that it is likely no single case before the Supreme Court, regardless of its alleged ideology [which, as I've explained, does not exist when nearly 60% of all cases are unanimous decisions], will overturn either extant law. Both are too complicated for a single case's relevant points. Oh, I've also offered bias, but well founded, that in both cases, Democrats appear to fear that their holy grails are perfect law, when it is apparent by the left's actions and words they are both weakly constructed, or you would not be fearful of their being struck down. Why are y'all lacking confidence in them?

I know your argument is without malice because you are a Brit, so at least I can trust your motives. Not so much my own countrymen.
#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,898
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Why should anyone be stripped of a right to own a person or a fetus?
Topic's author
#11
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Why? At least in the United States: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - The 14A of the Constitution, section 1.

Though it declares a person's right to property, the preceding liberty cannot be denied to any other person that could, otherwise, be property of another.
#12
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, for me, the mother and only the mother owns the fetus.
#13
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
I will debate you on this topic gladly. 
Topic's author
#14
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Even when half that fetus is contributed by another claimant to ownership? That it happens to located in the mother's body has already been demonstrated as no cause for claiming exclusive ownership, if you eve want to go there. Read my post #11 re: the 14A, the law relative to possession of a human. Tell me the fetus will be any other species but human, and that its humanness is not determined even before conception.
#15
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
Just to be clear, nobody thinks Amy Coney Barrett is going to single-handedly overturn Roe v. Wade. That's not how it works. 

I'm personally apathetic to ACB, but I understand why some people are concerned. Most people here are probably too young to remember that  in 2003 —just 17 years ago — homosexuality was still outlawed in 13 states. A Texas case called Lawrence vs. Texas went to the Supreme Court when two men were dragged from their home in handcuffs for being gay. As horrific as that sounds, three members of the Supreme Court voted that they saw nothing wrong with putting people in prison because they’re gay. One of those Justices is still on the court and swore in Amy Coney Barrett a few nights ago. The person Barrett described as her mentor and extremely close to her ideologically also argued vehemently in Lawrence v. Texas that people should remain felons for being gay. So for some, this confirmation sounds warning bells (ACB's use of the term sexual preference was not heartening) or perhaps more realistically just a very deep sense of sadness. It harkens back to an era when we were terrified to share our families with the world. We were afraid to let anyone know about the most important people in our lives. Hopefully it won't be an issue, but if not I wonder why conservatives are so grateful for her. There must be something they think she's going to do, correct? What exactly is that? 


#16
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Fuck Donald Trump and anyone he appoints to any position at all.

Corrupt and evil, the lot of them (corruption and evil are not always the same thing, you can be benevolent and corrupt in an antihero manner, he is pure villain).
Topic's author
#17
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Danielle
something they think she's going to do
Yes. Follow the law. There are questions posed by the Court in the Lawrence v. Texas SCOTUS decision [6-3]: Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples, violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Should Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), be overruled?" The decision rendered answered those questions as "No, yes, and yes." However, despite of that decision, there are still 11 states whose statutes ban sodomy: Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma and South Carolina. Texas, from Lawrence, changed their State law. Your argument is not with the Court, but with those 11 States. Complain to them.

So, the answer to your question is: it depends on which State originates a Supreme Court case similar to Lawrence v. Texas. I expect Barrett will follow the law of that State, not personal opinion, whatever either happen to be. In other words, the expectation that a Court make-up by apparent ideology is the exact wrong way to look at the Court, because, over history, the Court has determined the most cases, 49.7% of them, unanimously. That would suggest the Court is typically not bias to an ideology, but rather to the law, or unanimity would not occur so often, would it?
Topic's author
#18
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Is your avatar the evidence that Joe Biden will beat Joe Biden, because he is not Joe Biden? Will By Don beat Joe Biden? if so, I guess Trump wins. Might want to change the avatar.
#19
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@fauxlaw
Bye Don...

What is your IQ?
Topic's author
#20
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Enough. But IQ is a poor qualifier since it does not exhibit a competent use of knowledge; just that one has it. Having is not the measure of use. Oh, being able to calculate is surely a demonstration of use of knowledge, but an old story says "why should I need to study calculus? I'll never use that skill in my life." That attitude is a guarantee that it will be needed, but non-use has a way of rendering no sustained knowledge. IQ cannot resolve that lack. Fore example, keyboard mistrokes occur, even though I use one professionally. 
#21
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes. Follow the law.
So Merrick Garland would not have followed the law? Joe Biden's potential appointment would not follow the law? Why are Republicans so obsessed with blocking an appointment from a Democrat and rushing along ACB's confirmation if the Court is not political? Trump literally said he would not nominate someone that was not opposed to Roe v. Wade; he didn't even pretend that he lacked bias or motive. And it's interesting that you consider less than a 50% unanimous verdict to be indication of no bias. The Judges could flip a coin without hearing the case and have a greater chance of unanimous agreement by sheer probability but okay. 

 I expect Barrett will follow the law of that State, not personal opinion, whatever either happen to be.
I don't advocate legislating from the bench, but sometimes state laws are wrong. By your logic Virginia v. Loving was wrongly decided. By your logic Brown v. the Board of Ed was wrongly decided. By your logic a state could forbid women from voting, and then because they lacked the right to vote could never vote for a politician with a different view. By your logic some states could have legal slavery. 


Topic's author
#22
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Danielle
if the Court is not political
Are you forgetting that it is a political process that nominates and consents to SCOTUS appointments, but that doesn't mean the Court is destined to be political? The President is a political office, so he does not need to pretend to be unbiased. The Senate is comprised political officers. But not the Court, usually. Case in point: Roe v. Wade. Who do you think decided Roe? Liberal Justices? Four of the seven who decided forRoe were Republican nominees. Get it?

sometimes state laws are wrong
I don't disagree. But as for Virginia and Brown [neither of which I've mentioned], I don't disagree with either finding, and your assumption that my logic goes against them is flat wrong. If you want to be in my shoes, buy them. You do not get to usurp them by assumption. And, no, no State can implement slavery. The 14A precludes it as constitutionally prohibited.
#23
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@fauxlaw
You did not answer my questions: So Merrick Garland would not have followed the law? Joe Biden's potential appointment would not follow the law? Why are Republicans so obsessed with blocking an appointment from a Democrat and rushing along ACB's confirmation if the Court is not political?

I don't disagree that the Court is supposed to be apolitical. But when I asked you what conservatives expect from ACB, you said "follow the law" which is a non-answer. Everyone expects every Judge to follow the law. Clearly conservatives are hoping ACB does certain things/rules a certain way on key issues. What are those issues, specifically?


But as for Virginia and Brown [neither of which I've mentioned], I don't disagree with either finding, and your assumption that my logic goes against them is flat wrong. If you want to be in my shoes, buy them. You do not get to usurp them by assumption.

Lol @ your condescending tone.  I'm not assuming anything - I'm using your own words. 

You said, "So, the answer to your question is: it depends on which State originates a Supreme Court case similar to Lawrence v. Texas. I expect Barrett will follow the law of that State, not personal opinion, whatever either happen to be. . . Your argument is not with the Court, but with those 11 States. Complain to them."

You  don't have to reference the cases of Loving or Brown explicitly. You straight up said that you believe ACB and the Court should defer to STATE LAW as in you think state law (like the anti-sodomy laws) are to be upheld. If you don't think that then your whole point about Lawrence v. Texas is garbage. You can't have it both ways. Either you think the Court should follow STATE LAW and my "argument is not with the Court, but with those 11 states" --or -- you recognize that the role of the Supreme Court is specifically to recognize that laws like the ones  Lawrence v. Texas fought (or Loving v. Virginia, or Brown v. Board of Ed) are unconstitutional.

Don't sit there and tell me to "complain to those 11 states" and then give me an attitude when I say that your logic allows for slavery lol. It's true. You're the one who made the trash argument that the Court should defer to state law. Ergo by that logic we could still have legal segregation. We could have legal ownership of women if some state voted for it.  This was your argument. If you want to take back what you said, by all means, now's your chance.
Topic's author
#24
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Danielle
Condescending? Who's condescending? Your mirror fails you.

Who knows if Merrick Garland would follow the law, or not? He was not deposed by advice and consent, was he? And that action to deny A-C was the choice of the Senate at the time. The Senate is not compelled to A-C, or it would have been included in Article 1 [Powers of Congress] and a specific, required duty. It is not there; it is in Article II, specifying the powers of the President, including having the power to nominate a replacement to the Court when a vacancy occurs any time during the President's 4-year term, and not limited by the possible proximity to a presidential election. That's an invented qualification that is not supported constitutionally. Article II also indicates that in order to confirm a nomination to the Supreme Court, the Senate will engage A-C, but that action is not an absolute requirement, as noted above. Yes, politics enters the fray, and the Senate may decide it will not engage A-C if the political leadership decides it will not do it. Complain all you like, but that is the system in play, and it has been since ratification of the Constitution in 1788. If you don't like it, go to your State legislature, as I advised in the first place. They can initiate a State Convention to raise an amendment.

Yes, the Supreme Court may confirm a State Law constitutional, or it will not. State Law does have precedence to be determined by the S.C.  when it is State law that is challenged. If it is a federal law challenged, that that law is the matter before the Court.
#25
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@fauxlaw
Most of your response is not coherent. I'll start with my unanswered question. 

Me:  There must be something they think [ACB's] going to do, correct? What exactly is that? 
You: Yes. Follow the law.
Me: Everyone expects every Judge to follow the law. Clearly [Republicans are going out of their way to rush ACB's confirmation and deny Obama's appointment], so conservatives are hoping ACB does certain things/rules a certain way on key issues [that a Democrat appointment would not]. What are those issues, specifically?

We know for a fact one of them is Roe v. Wade because Trump explicitly said it. What else are conservatives hoping she does? I posit one of them is ruling in favor of religious foster and adoption agencies that want to prevent gays from adopting or fostering needy children. That case will come before the Court soon and uhh, we have a pretty good idea how ACB will rule (I personally wouldn't mind the discrimination if those agencies did not get any government money). 

Now onto the argument. You said earlier that Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided. In post #17 you said that my issue is with "the states" but then later conceded in post #24 that the SCOTUS may deem a law unconstitutional. Ergo are you taking back what you said earlier in that "my issue is with the states" or do you actually think gay people deserve to be thrown in prison? That's what your argument was earlier: that states should be allowed to throw gay people (or anyone that engages in anal sex) in cages. 

Topic's author
#26
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Danielle
Clearly [Republicans are going out of their way to rush ACB's confirmation
ACB's confirmation was not close to being rushed. Her nomination to confirmation was in 30 days. In history, since 1789, when Justices were first seated, 84 seats have been filled in under 30 days, and 24 seated in over 30 days. Clearly, more Justices have been seated in less time than ACB, by nearly 3x. In addition, relative to Merrick, he and 37 other nominations in histopry have not been confirmed, so he is no anomoly, either, even during a presidential election year [8 of the 237 were in an election year.

Of course Trump said he wants Re overturned. Doesn't mean it will happen. Remember, he 's in a political roe and he does not run the Judciary. Don't expect Trump to not act like a politician.

Your issue is with the States. It is the States which ultimately decide their handling of abortion particulars. There is no federal law in that regard.
#27
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@fauxlaw
ACB's confirmation was not close to being rushed

It's nice that you want to talk about the process starting from 231 years ago, but in the modern era from the Reagan administration to present, the process has taken much longer. The average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote since 1975 is 67 days (2.2 months), while the median is 71 days (or 2.3 months). That is more than twice as long as ACB's confirmation.

Aside from the Merrick Garland nomination, only twice has a sitting President been unable to nominate and confirm a Supreme Court Justice during an election year and one of the times it was because Congress had already adjourned for the year in December - they later confirmed the nominated Justice a few weeks later in January. That obviously did not happen with Garland. 

Furthermore by "rushed" I was clearly referring to them rushing to confirm ACB before Trump would presumably lose the presidency, which he did. They essentially performed Court Packing. They prevented a nomination and pushed through conservative judges legally, just as some have encouraged Dems to do the same by expanding the Court if they win Congressional majority. They would legally be able to change the Court's make-up to appoint more liberal judges, so why not do it so long as it's "allowed" right? 


Of course Trump said he wants Re overturned. Doesn't mean it will happen. 
I never said it "will happen" - I said the intent is to implement biased judges whereas you pretended there is no bias and said the only expectation of judges is to "follow the law" lol. By that logic conservatives wouldn't expect Roe v. Wade to ever be overturned. 


Your issue is with the States.

You have dropped my point entirely. I specifically asked you if you believe people should be thrown in prison for being gay. You didn't answer and instead brought up this irrelevant point about abortion. Answer my question about Lawrence v. Texas. 
Topic's author
#28
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Danielle
But who says we must start reckoning from the Reagan admin? I suppose it depends on personal age and perspective, and since I was born during Truman's admin, that is often my perspective. Sorry, that's just the way it is. You are probably much younger, though I note that your entire profile is "unknown?" Afraid of putting yourself out there?Nevertheless, if you look at the entire history, the mean waxes and wanes, so when you arbitrarily target a random range, it has built-in bias. That is why I don't even start with Truman in this regard, but the entire history of the Court. We couold aregue the point of what's a good range, but why bother? Since the net result is that ACB has been confirmed, isn't it a dead horse?
#29
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
So.... essentially: We have fundamentally different paradigms and therefore will not agree on most politically debatable topics? As for Danielle's willingness or lack thereof to "go out there" is just a privacy concern. Perfectly reasonable.
Topic's author
#30
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Privacy is such an overused mantra. It's a silly argument when one can be perfectly safe in a crowd away from home, and at risk in one's own home from others in the home who may have nefarious intent. I do not believe the term, privacy, to be the equivalent of "secure in their persons" by any stretch because of the above conditions. It's a wish balloon. Had Madison wanted the intent of privacy, he's have said it, just like if the 1A intended to say, "separation of church and state," he'd have said that, too. He was, after all, a good friend of Tommy Jefferson.