Who wants to audition for Supreme Court? Kavanaugh vs. YOU (compare your answers to his)

[Pogo]

Wow, my hair done went dark again. Been a long time.

Thanks for the entry but I'm still keeping the present avatar.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yeah, right...if Trump nominated Rachel Mitchell at 9 AM...you on the left would be burning her in effigy by 9:05!

Why? I just endorsed her, and not for the first time.

Do you even know me either?

You don't care about Kavanaugh's record. The left was massed in protest against him with signs already printed out that they had to insert his name into! If you'd asked the majority of those protesters to give you a brief synopsis of Brett Kavanaugh's judicial record they would have looked at you like you just asked them in ancient Greek!

I don't know anything about all that. But you have a vivid imagination, probably lubricated by chemicals.

Oh, I know you too well, Pogo! You've been part of the "RESISTANCE" since Trump took office! If you were honest you'd admit it but we both know that won't be happening any time soon!

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to quote some posts of mine reflecting that dump you just took.

Whatever you find I'll stand behind. Three, two, one.... GO.

Let's make it even easier than that, Pogo...show me a post where you DON'T oppose Trump!

So you can't do it. Well that didn't take long did it.

Once again, for review:

You don't care about Kavanaugh's record. The left was massed in protest against him with signs already printed out that they had to insert his name into! If you'd asked the majority of those protesters to give you a brief synopsis of Brett Kavanaugh's judicial record they would have looked at you like you just asked them in ancient Greek!

There's nothing about any "Trump" in there. Are you pulling a reverse Pogo's Law? You're actually so inept at a topic that you want to change the subject TO Rump instead of away from?

You'll STILL owe me a nickel.

You can't even admit that you are part of the Trump "Resistance", Pogo...can you? It's obvious that you are...and humorous that you think you can pass yourself off as someone who's not!

Pogo's law? Pat yourself on the back much? Do the words "pompous blowhard" mean anything to you?

 

[Pogo]

Why? I just endorsed her, and not for the first time.

Do you even know me either?



I don't know anything about all that. But you have a vivid imagination, probably lubricated by chemicals.

Oh, I know you too well, Pogo! You've been part of the "RESISTANCE" since Trump took office! If you were honest you'd admit it but we both know that won't be happening any time soon!

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to quote some posts of mine reflecting that dump you just took.

Whatever you find I'll stand behind. Three, two, one.... GO.

Let's make it even easier than that, Pogo...show me a post where you DON'T oppose Trump!

So you can't do it. Well that didn't take long did it.

Once again, for review:

You don't care about Kavanaugh's record. The left was massed in protest against him with signs already printed out that they had to insert his name into! If you'd asked the majority of those protesters to give you a brief synopsis of Brett Kavanaugh's judicial record they would have looked at you like you just asked them in ancient Greek!

There's nothing about any "Trump" in there. Are you pulling a reverse Pogo's Law? You're actually so inept at a topic that you want to change the subject TO Rump instead of away from?

You'll STILL owe me a nickel.

You can't even admit that you are part of the Trump "Resistance", Pogo...can you? It's obvious that you are...and humorous that you think you can pass yourself off as someone who's not!

Pogo's law? Pat yourself on the back much? Do the words "pompous blowhard" mean anything to you?

Do the words "you have no answer" mean anything to you?

Obviously not ya empty ballsack. I knew you couldn't do it.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh, I know you too well, Pogo! You've been part of the "RESISTANCE" since Trump took office! If you were honest you'd admit it but we both know that won't be happening any time soon!

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to quote some posts of mine reflecting that dump you just took.

Whatever you find I'll stand behind. Three, two, one.... GO.

Let's make it even easier than that, Pogo...show me a post where you DON'T oppose Trump!

So you can't do it. Well that didn't take long did it.

Once again, for review:

You don't care about Kavanaugh's record. The left was massed in protest against him with signs already printed out that they had to insert his name into! If you'd asked the majority of those protesters to give you a brief synopsis of Brett Kavanaugh's judicial record they would have looked at you like you just asked them in ancient Greek!

There's nothing about any "Trump" in there. Are you pulling a reverse Pogo's Law? You're actually so inept at a topic that you want to change the subject TO Rump instead of away from?

You'll STILL owe me a nickel.

You can't even admit that you are part of the Trump "Resistance", Pogo...can you? It's obvious that you are...and humorous that you think you can pass yourself off as someone who's not!

Pogo's law? Pat yourself on the back much? Do the words "pompous blowhard" mean anything to you?

Do the words "you have no answer" mean anything to you?

Obviously not ya empty ballsack. I knew you couldn't do it.

I can't prove you're part of the Trump "Resistance"? Dude, I hate to point out the obvious but every time you post and have that silly little screen shot of Putin mussing Trump's hair you've proven my point and when you resort to name calling like "empty ballsack" you're proving your ego is easily bruised!

 

[Pogo]

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to quote some posts of mine reflecting that dump you just took.

Whatever you find I'll stand behind. Three, two, one.... GO.

Let's make it even easier than that, Pogo...show me a post where you DON'T oppose Trump!

So you can't do it. Well that didn't take long did it.

Once again, for review:

You don't care about Kavanaugh's record. The left was massed in protest against him with signs already printed out that they had to insert his name into! If you'd asked the majority of those protesters to give you a brief synopsis of Brett Kavanaugh's judicial record they would have looked at you like you just asked them in ancient Greek!

There's nothing about any "Trump" in there. Are you pulling a reverse Pogo's Law? You're actually so inept at a topic that you want to change the subject TO Rump instead of away from?

You'll STILL owe me a nickel.

You can't even admit that you are part of the Trump "Resistance", Pogo...can you? It's obvious that you are...and humorous that you think you can pass yourself off as someone who's not!

Pogo's law? Pat yourself on the back much? Do the words "pompous blowhard" mean anything to you?

Do the words "you have no answer" mean anything to you?

Obviously not ya empty ballsack. I knew you couldn't do it.

I can't prove you're part of the Trump "Resistance"? Dude, I hate to point out the obvious but every time you post and have that silly little screen shot of Putin mussing Trump's hair you've proven my point and when you resort to name calling like "empty ballsack" you're proving your ego is easily bruised!

So let's recap.

Not only do you have literally nothing to answer my challenge, but you've come back four times now to remind us all that you still have nothing.

Special Bus should be here any minute.

 

[Oldstyle]

Let's make it even easier than that, Pogo...show me a post where you DON'T oppose Trump!

So you can't do it. Well that didn't take long did it.

Once again, for review:

You don't care about Kavanaugh's record. The left was massed in protest against him with signs already printed out that they had to insert his name into! If you'd asked the majority of those protesters to give you a brief synopsis of Brett Kavanaugh's judicial record they would have looked at you like you just asked them in ancient Greek!

There's nothing about any "Trump" in there. Are you pulling a reverse Pogo's Law? You're actually so inept at a topic that you want to change the subject TO Rump instead of away from?

You'll STILL owe me a nickel.

You can't even admit that you are part of the Trump "Resistance", Pogo...can you? It's obvious that you are...and humorous that you think you can pass yourself off as someone who's not!

Pogo's law? Pat yourself on the back much? Do the words "pompous blowhard" mean anything to you?

Do the words "you have no answer" mean anything to you?

Obviously not ya empty ballsack. I knew you couldn't do it.

I can't prove you're part of the Trump "Resistance"? Dude, I hate to point out the obvious but every time you post and have that silly little screen shot of Putin mussing Trump's hair you've proven my point and when you resort to name calling like "empty ballsack" you're proving your ego is easily bruised!

So let's recap.

Not only do you have literally nothing to answer my challenge, but you've come back four times now to remind us all that you still have nothing.

Special Bus should be here any minute.

I have nothing? You have ballsack insults and snide remarks about "special busses". I will simply continue to calmly point out that your posts are what reveal your true character.

 

[emilynghiem]

You didn't really give Kavanaugh's positions on the subjects. Very hard to give a proper response.

They are in the LINK.
I asked to refer to the LINK because all those topics there are SUMMARIZED.
Do you want me to copy and paste all that here?
Each topic is as long as the EXAMPLE I did post.
It is very long, are you okay reading the LINK:
Brett Kavanaugh on the Issues: Abortion, Guns, Climate and More
Thanks saveliberty just trying to save SPACE instead of copying and pasting it all...

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't know Kavanaugh's positions on these issues, but nor do I think they would be relevant. A SCOTUS judge isn't there to legislate; he --- or she --- is there to interpret the Law as to whether a given one fits under the Constitution. As such, his or her personal opinions on that law should be entirely irrelevant and absent from deliberation.

Which means a SCOTUS judge must be impartial, even-tempered, openminded and deliberative. What I saw from Kavanaugh on Thursday ... which is the sum total of what I know about him.... struck out on all four of those ideals.

Frankly based on what I saw and heard in that hearing -- from everybody --- I think the next SCOTUS judge, who very much does reflect those qualities, should be Rachel Mitchell.

Yeah, right...if Trump nominated Rachel Mitchell at 9 AM...you on the left would be burning her in effigy by 9:05!

You don't care about Kavanaugh's record. The left was massed in protest against him with signs already printed out that they had to insert his name into! If you'd asked the majority of those protesters to give you a brief synopsis of Brett Kavanaugh's judicial record they would have looked at you like you just asked them in ancient Greek!

Dear Oldstyle for every person on the RIGHT who only cares about this because of Trump,
there's someone on the LEFT doing similar.
For every person using FORD for the LEFT there's someone using Kavanaugh for the RIGHT.

Yes, there is TOTALLY a political problem going on with projecting
prochoice and prolife politics, and men vs. women, onto
Kavanaugh and Ford
Hillary Clinton and Trump.
Yes, for everyone doing that on one side, there is someone on the other.

But that doesn't mean me, Pogo, you or "all people" are doing that for their side!

As for addressing the prolife issue straight on,
why not call for this too?

Instead of making Ford or Kavanaugh victims of politics,
let's get it straight once and for all.
* the prochoice legal defense should only be used to defend due process
from govt criminalization and stop discriminating by holding women more responsible for men
* the beliefs about abortion and right to life itself are BELIEFS and should not be decided by govt
* neither side should be subjected to laws that violate their beliefs
* if we disagree we should separate policies, defund one and fund all health programs we
believe in under the policy of our choice and consent to pay for and be under those terms.
* only where we AGREE on policy should that be made law by consent of all governed affected

And if people CANNOT agree to keep their biases out of public policy,
they should either abstain, recuse themselves or remove themselves from office
if they cannot handle inclusion of representation and due process for
people of all beliefs, regardless of creed and their own beliefs as well.

Either be neutral and keep faith based issues and biases out of govt,
or agree to conflict resolution to come up with mutually agreed solutions.

And quit this bullying and harassing abuse back and forth
because of FEAR one side will push their political beliefs through govt
to the exclusion or discrimination of other creeds!

We need to call a truce.
Then we'll see which parties can produce which leadership
that can handle political diversity and inclusion for all people equally!!!

 

[Pogo]

We need to call a truce.
Then we'll see which parties can produce which leadership
that can handle political diversity and inclusion for all people equally!!!

"Truce" is well spoken. But I can't agree we need parties to produce leadership. They don't do that. If anything they do the opposite. The dichotomous tribalism proves that every day.

 

[G.T.]

I don't know Kavanaugh's positions on these issues, but nor do I think they would be relevant. A SCOTUS judge isn't there to legislate; he --- or she --- is there to interpret the Law as to whether a given one fits under the Constitution. As such, his or her personal opinions on that law should be entirely irrelevant and absent from deliberation.

Which means a SCOTUS judge must be impartial, even-tempered, openminded and deliberative. What I saw from Kavanaugh on Thursday ... which is the sum total of what I know about him.... struck out on all four of those ideals.

Frankly based on what I saw and heard in that hearing -- from everybody --- I think the next SCOTUS judge, who very much does reflect those qualities, should be Rachel Mitchell.

Yeah, right...if Trump nominated Rachel Mitchell at 9 AM...you on the left would be burning her in effigy by 9:05!

You don't care about Kavanaugh's record. The left was massed in protest against him with signs already printed out that they had to insert his name into! If you'd asked the majority of those protesters to give you a brief synopsis of Brett Kavanaugh's judicial record they would have looked at you like you just asked them in ancient Greek!

Dear Oldstyle for every person on the RIGHT who only cares about this because of Trump,
there's someone on the LEFT doing similar.
For every person using FORD for the LEFT there's someone using Kavanaugh for the RIGHT.

Yes, there is TOTALLY a political problem going on with projecting
prochoice and prolife politics, and men vs. women, onto
Kavanaugh and Ford
Hillary Clinton and Trump.
Yes, for everyone doing that on one side, there is someone on the other.

But that doesn't mean me, Pogo, you or "all people" are doing that for their side!

As for addressing the prolife issue straight on,
why not call for this too?

Instead of making Ford or Kavanaugh victims of politics,
let's get it straight once and for all.
* the prochoice legal defense should only be used to defend due process
from govt criminalization and stop discriminating by holding women more responsible for men
* the beliefs about abortion and right to life itself are BELIEFS and should not be decided by govt
* neither side should be subjected to laws that violate their beliefs
* if we disagree we should separate policies, defund one and fund all health programs we
believe in under the policy of our choice and consent to pay for and be under those terms.
* only where we AGREE on policy should that be made law by consent of all governed affected

And if people CANNOT agree to keep their biases out of public policy,
they should either abstain, recuse themselves or remove themselves from office
if they cannot handle inclusion of representation and due process for
people of all beliefs, regardless of creed and their own beliefs as well.

Either be neutral and keep faith based issues and biases out of govt,
or agree to conflict resolution to come up with mutually agreed solutions.

And quit this bullying and harassing abuse back and forth
because of FEAR one side will push their political beliefs through govt
to the exclusion or discrimination of other creeds!

We need to call a truce.
Then we'll see which parties can produce which leadership
that can handle political diversity and inclusion for all people equally!!!

Emily, we cannot appease all beliefs. Thats fantasyland. If I believed in Murdering Folks named Emily on the internet, that should be made legal just for wiw ole me? Of course not.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't know Kavanaugh's positions on these issues, but nor do I think they would be relevant. A SCOTUS judge isn't there to legislate; he --- or she --- is there to interpret the Law as to whether a given one fits under the Constitution. As such, his or her personal opinions on that law should be entirely irrelevant and absent from deliberation.

Which means a SCOTUS judge must be impartial, even-tempered, openminded and deliberative. What I saw from Kavanaugh on Thursday ... which is the sum total of what I know about him.... struck out on all four of those ideals.

Frankly based on what I saw and heard in that hearing -- from everybody --- I think the next SCOTUS judge, who very much does reflect those qualities, should be Rachel Mitchell.

Yeah, right...if Trump nominated Rachel Mitchell at 9 AM...you on the left would be burning her in effigy by 9:05!

You don't care about Kavanaugh's record. The left was massed in protest against him with signs already printed out that they had to insert his name into! If you'd asked the majority of those protesters to give you a brief synopsis of Brett Kavanaugh's judicial record they would have looked at you like you just asked them in ancient Greek!

Dear Oldstyle for every person on the RIGHT who only cares about this because of Trump,
there's someone on the LEFT doing similar.
For every person using FORD for the LEFT there's someone using Kavanaugh for the RIGHT.

Yes, there is TOTALLY a political problem going on with projecting
prochoice and prolife politics, and men vs. women, onto
Kavanaugh and Ford
Hillary Clinton and Trump.
Yes, for everyone doing that on one side, there is someone on the other.

But that doesn't mean me, Pogo, you or "all people" are doing that for their side!

As for addressing the prolife issue straight on,
why not call for this too?

Instead of making Ford or Kavanaugh victims of politics,
let's get it straight once and for all.
* the prochoice legal defense should only be used to defend due process
from govt criminalization and stop discriminating by holding women more responsible for men
* the beliefs about abortion and right to life itself are BELIEFS and should not be decided by govt
* neither side should be subjected to laws that violate their beliefs
* if we disagree we should separate policies, defund one and fund all health programs we
believe in under the policy of our choice and consent to pay for and be under those terms.
* only where we AGREE on policy should that be made law by consent of all governed affected

And if people CANNOT agree to keep their biases out of public policy,
they should either abstain, recuse themselves or remove themselves from office
if they cannot handle inclusion of representation and due process for
people of all beliefs, regardless of creed and their own beliefs as well.

Either be neutral and keep faith based issues and biases out of govt,
or agree to conflict resolution to come up with mutually agreed solutions.

And quit this bullying and harassing abuse back and forth
because of FEAR one side will push their political beliefs through govt
to the exclusion or discrimination of other creeds!

We need to call a truce.
Then we'll see which parties can produce which leadership
that can handle political diversity and inclusion for all people equally!!!

Emily, we cannot appease all beliefs. Thats fantasyland. If I believed in Murdering Folks named Emily on the internet, that should be made legal just for wiw ole me? Of course not.

Dear G.T.
You missed the whole point.
Consent and consensus means the other people too!
So you are welcome to practice your belief between you and all other people who agree
to be murdered. You can agree to kill each other if you all consent.
But other people dissenting might ask for terms first
1. that you all go through spiritual therapy and healing to make
sure you are truly consenting and not mentally ill or legally incompetent and unable to consent due to disability
2. that you all agree to live in a certain district so that it is clear
all people in that district agree that killing is legal so there is no
mistaking homocide for agreed suicide. Only people who AGREE
to make it legal will live there, so the law enforcement agrees to that too.

When people go to WAR, they agree to certain rules about killing
and taking prisoners. So the right to kill would be similar to setting
up terms for allowing executions or abortion or euthanasia.

We should do this for drugs and pitbulls and gun laws anyway, just allow district to pay
for their own policies they want to make legal and only people who
live there are under that and pay for the health care and medical
costs for their own decisions. And if you don't agree, then don't live there!

So G.T. if you are serious sure, I'd support your right
to form your own district if you want to live by rules
that only the residents of that region agree to enforce.
Then you are welcome to do drugs, kill your brain cells or kill each other,
as long as you all agree to pay for the costs including
health care and any legal disputes over this policy. Fine!
If those are the neighbors you want to live with, ask for that.
Just be careful what you ask for, because that's what you attract.

 

[G.T.]

jesus fuckin christ

neeever mind

 

[ph3iron]

Instead of judging people by drunken molestation complaints
during high school, I looked up the actual summary of Kavanaugh's
opinion on Constitutional issues and cases.

Here's the link I found:
Brett Kavanaugh on the Issues: Abortion, Guns, Climate and More
The cases and Constitutional rulings are Subheaded by topics of:
Abortion, Religion, Guns, Executive Agencies, Terrorist Detainees,
Voting laws, Climate/Business Regulations, Campaign Finance
so I listed these in a Poll.

I propose that anyone here who thinks they can make a better Judge
and stay more representative of the people with respect to the
integrity of Constitutional law, government, principle and process,
please review Judge Kavanaugh's opinions summarized in the link.

And state what you would agree with or what you would rule differently.
Especially object if you spot any bias from political belief or party
that unfairly excludes, penalizes or discriminates against people of other beliefs,
and/or establishes a faith based belief or bias to the point of being
“proselytizing (seeking to convert) or otherwise exploitative.”

Ready?
If some good answers come out of this exercise, I will consider
inviting more of the public and more politicians to review our
Reviews, and take into consideration any shortfalls or conflicts
that should be looked at more in depth to resolve them.

=================================
Example:

Religion

Judge Kavanaugh disagreed with his colleagues in a 2015 case about a part of the Affordable Care Act that required insurers to cover contraception. Under the law, employers must provide insurance to their workers or pay a fine. But employers who oppose contraception on religious grounds can bypass the requirement by submitting a form to their insurers, which then cover the workers’ contraception at no expense to the employers.

Some religious organizations challenged that arrangement, contending that even submitting the form made them complicit in providing contraception. An appeals court panel rejected their argument, and the full appeals court decided not to rehear it — over Judge Kavanaugh’s objections.

Forcing employers to submit the form violated their religious liberty, he wrote, though he acknowledged a Supreme Court precedent that strongly suggested that the government “has a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception for the employees of these religious organizations.” The same outcome could be achieved, he contended, if employers instead only had to notify the government of their objections and let the government deal with the insurers.

Separately, in a 2010 case, some atheists challenged the saying of a prayer at presidential inaugurations and the phrase “so help me God” in the presidential oath of office. A three-judge panel dismissed the lawsuit. But while the other two judges merely said the plaintiffs had no standing, Judge Kavanaugh weighed in on the merits.

He upheld the practice as constitutional, citing the principle that government-sponsored religious speech or prayer at public events where prayers were traditionally said do not violate the First Amendment’s prohibition on establishment of religion, so long as the prayers are “not proselytizing (seeking to convert) or otherwise exploitative.”

My opinions:
I believe this shows a slight bias TOWARD allowing prayers so long as they are not "proselytizing or exploitative" but AGAINST involvement in contraception because of belief-based objections.

The same standard of FREE CHOICE should be applied to both.
Not that prayers should be "removed altogether" but more strongly specify that
individuals and states have that right and responsibility to decide on whatever criteria
because it is faith based. Someone may object to any involvement for any reason,
whether it is imposing or not. As long as it is faith based, and conflicts with beliefs
of someone, they have a right to consent or dissent. I don't think Govt should be in the
business of REGULATION conditions on which that consent or dissent is "justified"
or it's a form of "government regulating faith based activities" by enforcing a condition on the choice.

Secondly, nobody addressed the fact that pushing health care regulations through govt
in itself was a faith based political belief established by legislation.

Had this been addressed in the first place, there wouldn't be this contradiction caused,
where religious minded people or groups with beliefs against certain types of contraception
found themselves forced into it. This could have been avoided at the start.

I'm not sure if Kavanaugh or others could have written this into their opinions,
if the argument was not brought up.

But if Justice Roberts can suddenly interpret a public health bill as a tax law,
why couldn't the ACA be addressed in terms of establishing a belief?
Was it "proselytizing or exploitative"
My answers and objections
1. mandates included tax penalties that PUNISHED citizens with an ADDITIONAL
cost or loss off their returns if they failed to comply. So for citizens with Constitutional beliefs
against this mandate as a violation, could not comply without violating our beliefs,
but if we didn't we faced a tax penalty. Thus, this law enacted a punishment on
citizens for not complying against our beliefs.
2. the regulations on exemptions included paid membership in religious membership
organizations as approved by govt. So this constituted govt regulation on the basis
of religion, and discrimination by creed as to which citizens were exempt from ACA mandates.
3. The required payment of taxes or fines went into govt run health insurance programs
and thus deprived citizens of equal liberty and choice to pay into other means of
paying and providing for health care. Citizens were not convicted first of violations,
such as proving first that they incurred health care costs to govt BEFORE depriving
them of liberty and compelling them to pay. So deprivation of liberty without due process
was also a violation of Constitutional beliefs or principles.
4. About half the members of Congress voted against the ACA mandates, and subsequent
shutdown of federal govt in objection to the unconstitutionality of its budget and funding provisions
cost taxpayers over $24 billion because of these conflicts not resolved in advance of passage.
This conflict and the costs related violate the Code of Ethics for Govt Service calling for
civil servants to seek to employ the most economical means of accomplishing tasks.
It can further be argued in general that the vote in Congress along party lines, showed
that passing and enforcing this bill put the beliefs and platform of one party over the
Constitutional equal inclusion and beliefs of the dissenting party, also in violation of the Code of Ethics
and public oath putting Constitutional duty of Govt above party.
5. Lastly, the ACA was not passed as the same law through both Congress (which voted and passed it as a public health bill) and through the Supreme Court (where it failed under general welfare or commerce clause, and only passed as Constitutional as a tax bill though it was not passed as one through Congress).

What should have occurred is an agreement or vote in Congress whether adding this
new form of federal functions required a Constitutional Amendment or not.
That would have been more in keeping with Constitutional process and principles,
or at least included Constitutional beliefs of citizens instead of excluding and discriminating
against half the nation and Congress, and would have prevented billions if not trillions in waste and cost
in keeping with the Code of Ethics for Govt Service due to failures to resolve conflicts in advance of passage.

- Emily Nghiem
www.ethics-commission.net
^ Please refer to link above that includes the Bill of Rights, Fourteenth Amendment,
and Code of Ethics for Govt Service. If I open up this Q&A to the invite more
people, I recommend sticking to these principles so we argue on the same terms.

Man do you have a life beyond cutting and pasting?
Sucking off your socialist SS Medicare VA benefits?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear G.T.

jesus fuckin christ
neeever mind

See, there is an answer to that question of
what would we do if people abuse that argument to ask for something unlawful?

If you hold people to their own beliefs, you solve the problem!

 

[Pogo]

jesus fuckin christ

Not sure whether that's anatomically possible.

Laws of physics and all that.

 

[G.T.]

jesus fuckin christ

Not sure whether that's anatomically possible.

Laws of physics and all that.

How about Jesus titty fuckin christ... off of his yo yo dieting.

 

[Pogo]

jesus fuckin christ

Not sure whether that's anatomically possible.

Laws of physics and all that.

How about Jesus titty fuckin christ... off of his yo yo dieting.

If you could, y'know, go ahead and draw a stick figure diagram of that, that'd be great.

 

[G.T.]

jesus fuckin christ

Not sure whether that's anatomically possible.

Laws of physics and all that.

How about Jesus titty fuckin christ... off of his yo yo dieting.

If you could, y'know, go ahead and draw a stick figure diagram of that, that'd be great.

 

[G.T.]

Dear G.T.

jesus fuckin christ
neeever mind

See, there is an answer to that question of
what would we do if people abuse that argument to ask for something unlawful?

If you hold people to their own beliefs, you solve the problem!

The glaring issue, and the reason the idea on its face is short-sighted and divisive, is that if magical fairy lands DID exist where you could point to a City that is magically built for only like-minded individuals...


umm, Id like for the 1st two who share the same exact views on all the same exact issues in life........ to please step forward so they can be recognized on the rare species list.

 

[yiostheoy]

Instead of judging people by drunken molestation complaints
during high school, I looked up the actual summary of Kavanaugh's
opinion on Constitutional issues and cases.

Here's the link I found:
Brett Kavanaugh on the Issues: Abortion, Guns, Climate and More
The cases and Constitutional rulings are Subheaded by topics of:
Abortion, Religion, Guns, Executive Agencies, Terrorist Detainees,
Voting laws, Climate/Business Regulations, Campaign Finance
so I listed these in a Poll.

I propose that anyone here who thinks they can make a better Judge
and stay more representative of the people with respect to the
integrity of Constitutional law, government, principle and process,
please review Judge Kavanaugh's opinions summarized in the link.

And state what you would agree with or what you would rule differently.
Especially object if you spot any bias from political belief or party
that unfairly excludes, penalizes or discriminates against people of other beliefs,
and/or establishes a faith based belief or bias to the point of being
“proselytizing (seeking to convert) or otherwise exploitative.”

Ready?
If some good answers come out of this exercise, I will consider
inviting more of the public and more politicians to review our
Reviews, and take into consideration any shortfalls or conflicts
that should be looked at more in depth to resolve them.

=================================
Example:

Religion

Judge Kavanaugh disagreed with his colleagues in a 2015 case about a part of the Affordable Care Act that required insurers to cover contraception. Under the law, employers must provide insurance to their workers or pay a fine. But employers who oppose contraception on religious grounds can bypass the requirement by submitting a form to their insurers, which then cover the workers’ contraception at no expense to the employers.

Some religious organizations challenged that arrangement, contending that even submitting the form made them complicit in providing contraception. An appeals court panel rejected their argument, and the full appeals court decided not to rehear it — over Judge Kavanaugh’s objections.

Forcing employers to submit the form violated their religious liberty, he wrote, though he acknowledged a Supreme Court precedent that strongly suggested that the government “has a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception for the employees of these religious organizations.” The same outcome could be achieved, he contended, if employers instead only had to notify the government of their objections and let the government deal with the insurers.

Separately, in a 2010 case, some atheists challenged the saying of a prayer at presidential inaugurations and the phrase “so help me God” in the presidential oath of office. A three-judge panel dismissed the lawsuit. But while the other two judges merely said the plaintiffs had no standing, Judge Kavanaugh weighed in on the merits.

He upheld the practice as constitutional, citing the principle that government-sponsored religious speech or prayer at public events where prayers were traditionally said do not violate the First Amendment’s prohibition on establishment of religion, so long as the prayers are “not proselytizing (seeking to convert) or otherwise exploitative.”

My opinions:
I believe this shows a slight bias TOWARD allowing prayers so long as they are not "proselytizing or exploitative" but AGAINST involvement in contraception because of belief-based objections.

The same standard of FREE CHOICE should be applied to both.
Not that prayers should be "removed altogether" but more strongly specify that
individuals and states have that right and responsibility to decide on whatever criteria
because it is faith based. Someone may object to any involvement for any reason,
whether it is imposing or not. As long as it is faith based, and conflicts with beliefs
of someone, they have a right to consent or dissent. I don't think Govt should be in the
business of REGULATION conditions on which that consent or dissent is "justified"
or it's a form of "government regulating faith based activities" by enforcing a condition on the choice.

Secondly, nobody addressed the fact that pushing health care regulations through govt
in itself was a faith based political belief established by legislation.

Had this been addressed in the first place, there wouldn't be this contradiction caused,
where religious minded people or groups with beliefs against certain types of contraception
found themselves forced into it. This could have been avoided at the start.

I'm not sure if Kavanaugh or others could have written this into their opinions,
if the argument was not brought up.

But if Justice Roberts can suddenly interpret a public health bill as a tax law,
why couldn't the ACA be addressed in terms of establishing a belief?
Was it "proselytizing or exploitative"
My answers and objections
1. mandates included tax penalties that PUNISHED citizens with an ADDITIONAL
cost or loss off their returns if they failed to comply. So for citizens with Constitutional beliefs
against this mandate as a violation, could not comply without violating our beliefs,
but if we didn't we faced a tax penalty. Thus, this law enacted a punishment on
citizens for not complying against our beliefs.
2. the regulations on exemptions included paid membership in religious membership
organizations as approved by govt. So this constituted govt regulation on the basis
of religion, and discrimination by creed as to which citizens were exempt from ACA mandates.
3. The required payment of taxes or fines went into govt run health insurance programs
and thus deprived citizens of equal liberty and choice to pay into other means of
paying and providing for health care. Citizens were not convicted first of violations,
such as proving first that they incurred health care costs to govt BEFORE depriving
them of liberty and compelling them to pay. So deprivation of liberty without due process
was also a violation of Constitutional beliefs or principles.
4. About half the members of Congress voted against the ACA mandates, and subsequent
shutdown of federal govt in objection to the unconstitutionality of its budget and funding provisions
cost taxpayers over $24 billion because of these conflicts not resolved in advance of passage.
This conflict and the costs related violate the Code of Ethics for Govt Service calling for
civil servants to seek to employ the most economical means of accomplishing tasks.
It can further be argued in general that the vote in Congress along party lines, showed
that passing and enforcing this bill put the beliefs and platform of one party over the
Constitutional equal inclusion and beliefs of the dissenting party, also in violation of the Code of Ethics
and public oath putting Constitutional duty of Govt above party.
5. Lastly, the ACA was not passed as the same law through both Congress (which voted and passed it as a public health bill) and through the Supreme Court (where it failed under general welfare or commerce clause, and only passed as Constitutional as a tax bill though it was not passed as one through Congress).

What should have occurred is an agreement or vote in Congress whether adding this
new form of federal functions required a Constitutional Amendment or not.
That would have been more in keeping with Constitutional process and principles,
or at least included Constitutional beliefs of citizens instead of excluding and discriminating
against half the nation and Congress, and would have prevented billions if not trillions in waste and cost
in keeping with the Code of Ethics for Govt Service due to failures to resolve conflicts in advance of passage.

- Emily Nghiem
www.ethics-commission.net
^ Please refer to link above that includes the Bill of Rights, Fourteenth Amendment,
and Code of Ethics for Govt Service. If I open up this Q&A to the invite more
people, I recommend sticking to these principles so we argue on the same terms.

Even a lying strict constructionist who was a boozing teen who molested teenaged Catholic girls is better than Ginsberg on the SCOTUS.

Correct.