- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Again, when you add into my posts things that I did not actually write, you misunderstand me.
You responded to my remarks concerning a viable unborn Baby's right to life and our Constitution
No. I responded to only one sentence in your post, and I copied that one sentence into my post and bolded it. That was the signal that it was the sentence to which I was responding. Had I been responding to one of your other sentences, I would have copied that sentence, bolded it, and then responded to it. (The sentence of yours that I bolded and responded to was, "The constitution says that all people have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.")
You chose to shoot down the notion that our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution would have an impact on any court's future decision.
No, the US Constitution absolutely impacts every US court's decision (or at least it should) because the Constitution is a law. In fact it is the foundational law with which EVERY other law in the nation must agree.
By contrast, because US courts rule on the application of US laws, and the Declaration of Independence is not a law, that document has no legal standing in US courts. Thomas Payne's treatise Common Sense articulated the same principles as the Declaration of Independence, yet it also has no standing in a US court of law because it is a court of law, not a court of very good ideas.
You need to read what I wrote, without pretending I wrote more. I was making a very simple point with a VERY narrow scope.
For you to split hairs on these things, to excuse abortions, makes you sound like an activist Democrat denying any viable baby their rights.
I wasn't referring to abortion at all.
I was just pointing out that the Declaration of Independence has no LEGAL authority. As I told you that I believe the principles it articulates are extraordinarily beneficial to all. However, being beneficial does not magically make it into a law. It is not "splitting hairs" to draw a clear distinction between something that is a law, and something that is not.
Are you disputing that declaration and do you believe only certain people deserves those right's?
Neither. I was merely stating relevant facts.
The Declaration of Independence is a phenomenal piece of rhetoric that articulates in clear historical context the philosophy of citizen-government relations that is responsible for the improvement of more lives than any other thing except the invention of soap and the spread of free market capitalism.
That does not change the fact that there are innumerable laws that diminish our liberty, thus making it "alienable." There is no law that grants the right to "the pursuit of happiness." The Declaration of Independence is of no relevance in a court of law, and offers no legal protections of any kind.
Let's do term limits while we're at it.
Two terms (or partial terms) for The Senate.
Three terms (or partial terms) for the House of Representatives.
There are other things I think would be useful.
- No political fundraising or campaigning for any candidate or office while holding any Federal office or otherwise being employed by the Federal government. Under the current system, there is too much room for conflict of interest.
- You cannot run for one office while holding another. Your term is over the minute you announce candidacy (or sign up to be on the ballot) for any office (federal, state, or local) other than your current office. Again, conflict of interest.
- Institute strict limits on taxpayer-funded travel.
- - I think one round trip to your home district per year for Congressional office holder only (no wives or families) is sufficient.
- - AND no using Air Force One, Marine Corps One, etc. to do anything that is not critical to the business of the country: No using it to take family vacations in Africa. No using it to go to hold rallies or give speeches. That is what TV is for. The US taxpayers should not be funding a gold-plated taxi service. If the President wants to go to Camp David, etc. for vacation, he/she can feel free to pay the bill, including the cost of the the military jet escort.
The US taxpayers should not be funding a gold-plated taxi service.
What did Kavanaugh MEAN when he looked the left wing Senators in the eye, and told them that "what goes around, comes around"???
Immediately prior to that statement, Kavanaugh discussed how unjust and disastrous is the tactic of character assassination through vague and uncorroborated and unsubstantiated accusations.
In that context, "What goes around, comes around" means that the tactic those particular Democrats were employing is likely to be used against them as some later date.
I agree. It is not like either party cornered the market on unscrupulous behavior in support of political goals.
There is a very big problem with giving credence to accusations that are not supported by physical evidence, corroborating witnesses, or even relevant details. It makes it possible to torpedo ANY candidate or nominee for anything, REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL AFFILIATION, and ruin their future opportunities with nothing more than a vague story set far enough in the past that it is impossible to reliably investigate.
If allowed to be effective, such a tactic would ultimately mean the end of the ability for the republic to function.
For the record, sitting on Garland's nomination is another instance where "what goes around, come around" applies in the sense Kavanaugh said it. Sitting on the letter for six weeks, delaying the secondary hearings, pushing for unlimited FBI investigation, etc. were all about delaying the vote until after the midterms so the Democrats (assuming they won a Senate majority) could do to Kavanaugh what the Republican Senate did to Garland.
ALL Americans deserve better from both sides. (There is a valid reason Congress' approval rating is generally in single digits, and usually lower than that of herpes.)
ALL Americans benefit from high standards for justice and fair play.
ALL Americans deserve to be safe from the effects of unsubstantiated and uncorroborated accusations.
Kavanaugh is correct, if we let mere accusations be enough to destroy one guy's life, rest assured that what goes around will come around.
For ALL of us.
I think most of what you said is unfounded paranoia, BUT I very much agree with you on the essence of your most important point.
We ALL also have another "right"! The right to VOTE, WITHOUT it being gerrymandered...
I am with you in that I think gerrymandering is an abomination, and subverts representational government.
But you know damned well it is not just Republicans who gerrymander. I live in a district that was specifically gerrymandered to favor Democrats.
I am not sure that there is a sure-fire way to eliminate stacking the deck by the unscrupulous bastards that run both parties. However, I could make peace if the rule were that districts had to be rectangles
- Exactly 4 sides
- Exactly 4 ninety-degree corners
- - Except on state borders
- - - A single continuous and contiguous section of border would complete the district
- - - Without adding any extra sides or angles to connect to the border.
This would help representative government actually start to represent the citizens instead of the leadership of both parties.
Usually you do better than to parrot unsubstantiated or poorly supported talking points from politically biased folks on DNCNN or MSDNC.
Roe is toast.
In Kavanaugh's discussions of philosophy and method during the hearings, he explicitly stated he uses Constitutional text and precedent to guide his determination of constitutionality. That leaves Roe v Wade as settled law, and outside what he says is his purview of decision.
True, while campaigning, Trump said he would choose justices who would overturn, Roe v Wade, but he also said he would make the US government function efficiently. (Dream on!) Both the decisions of Constitutional conservatives and government waste are very far outside the ability of the executive to control, or even influence.
The advantage (particularly to whichever parties are out of power) of putting Constitutional conservatives on the bench is that they do not change things much. A politically conservative version of activist judges like Ginsberg or Soto-Mayor is what you should be worried about, but that is not Kavanaugh.
Gay marriage is finished.
Remember, the word conservative means something completely different when it follows the adverb Constitutionally than it does when following the words politically or socially. It is possible to be a political or social liberal, and still be a Constitutional conservative. In fact, any libertarian will tell you that Constitutional conservatism is the best way to protect social liberals. If the Constitution and precedent do not explicitly give government the right to intrude on citizens' private lives (sexual preference, drug use, etc.) then a Constitutionally conservative justice will uphold the freedom of the citizen.
Caring for patients with pre-existing conditions is OVER.
Not at all true. Preexisting conditions were already covered before Obamacare. That was one of the many things Obama and Congress (and poorly informed late night talk show hosts with sick kids) did not understand or lied about.
HIPAA already protected people from that on the group health insurance market (Company plans, association groups, etc..) Under HIPAA, so long as you have continuous coverage (no lapses in coverage of over 45 days) you could switch insurance companies (like when you change jobs, or lost a job and switched to COBRA), and preexisting conditions are covered. If your coverage lapses for over 45 days, you have to wait a single year before the condition is covered by the insurance company, but after that year, it is in fact covered.
All Congress had to do was extend HIPAA to the individual health insurance market, and if they wanted, extend dependent status to age 26.
Government-run "universal" health care is a foolish idea because GOVERNMENT IS BAD AT DOING EVERYTHING. We ALL do better if we limit what government does because that limits the number of things government will screw up. Conservatives are against universal health care because we do actually want people to have access to good health care. The minute government takes over, it will get even more expensive, and the quality will plummet for everybody.