I'm with Carson

[DSUrocks07]

Would you have been saying back in the day when inter racial marriage was prohibited by State law that a county clerk who ignored the law and issued marriage licenses to inter racial couples because that's what her religious beliefs told her to do was "wrong?"

I suspect that most of the people who are saying she should follow "the law" (as defined by Federal Court edict) now would have lauded her as a courageous hero if, before the Federal Court issued its edict, she had decided to issue licenses to homosexual couples in defiance of Law saying that marriage licenses can only be issued to people with normal sexual orientations.

Love him or not (and I do, but no homo), JSO can volley with the best of them.

So can I...when i feel like it

[DSUrocks07]

Would you have been saying back in the day when inter racial marriage was prohibited by State law that a county clerk who ignored the law and issued marriage licenses to inter racial couples because that's what her religious beliefs told her to do was "wrong?"

I suspect that most of the people who are saying she should follow "the law" (as defined by Federal Court edict) now would have lauded her as a courageous hero if, before the Federal Court issued its edict, she had decided to issue licenses to homosexual couples in defiance of Law saying that marriage licenses can only be issued to people with normal sexual orientations.

John that technique of debate ^ I like to call Reverse Hypothetical Conjecture

Counterpoint.

Interracial marriage is allowed and legalized by a state and a person working as the clerk refuses to issue them citing religious reasons...

Something something God's image...something something black being the color of demons...something something fairer skin.

There's a process as a part of our system of government to exacerbate change. Religion is an unnecessary hurdle, sometimes roadblock, to that. Women's suffrage was prohibited in this country until the early 1900s, also for religious reasons, woman's being a part of a man (rib) and therefore not his equal.

[CID1990]

Would you have been saying back in the day when inter racial marriage was prohibited by State law that a county clerk who ignored the law and issued marriage licenses to inter racial couples because that's what her religious beliefs told her to do was "wrong?"

I suspect that most of the people who are saying she should follow "the law" (as defined by Federal Court edict) now would have lauded her as a courageous hero if, before the Federal Court issued its edict, she had decided to issue licenses to homosexual couples in defiance of Law saying that marriage licenses can only be issued to people with normal sexual orientations.

John that technique of debate ^ I like to call Reverse Hypothetical Conjecture
The situation is Kim Davis applied for a government job and swore an oath to her country
She should resign her post - obviously - done end of debate

Side note:
She disregards certain parts of the Bible and reveres others...
I wonder why she thinks she can disregard some of Jesus teachings and uphold others..?

Oh I know why because the ones she disregards apply directly to HER
the ones she adheres to apply to others - classic religious narcissism

see?

even christian fundie whackjob troglodytes of the worst order believe the bible can be fvcked around with

[DSUrocks07]

John that technique of debate ^ I like to call Reverse Hypothetical Conjecture
The situation is Kim Davis applied for a government job and swore an oath to her country
She should resign her post - obviously - done end of debate

Side note:
She disregards certain parts of the Bible and reveres others...
I wonder why she thinks she can disregard some of Jesus teachings and uphold others..?

Oh I know why because the ones she disregards apply directly to HER
the ones she adheres to apply to others - classic religious narcissism

see?

even christian fundie whackjob troglodytes of the worst order believe the bible can be fvcked around with

"Because it was written by man" is the most common excuse I've heard.

[kalm]

see?

even christian fundie whackjob troglodytes of the worst order believe the bible can be fvcked around with

"Because it was written by man" is the most common excuse I've heard.

Just like the constitution.

[JohnStOnge]

The situation is Kim Davis applied for a government job and swore an oath to her country

What she probably did was swear an oath to uphold the laws. And there's an interesting thing there. The Judiciary frequently issues rulings that are contrary to the law.

Go beyond something like a County Clerk and think of President. A President swears to uphold the Constitution. He (or someday she) does not swear to obey the Supreme Court. I think a President with any balls at all should be willing to say that he (or she) will not honor a Supreme Court edict because the Supreme Court edict is contrary to the Constitution and he (or she) is going to uphold the Constitution so screw the Supreme Court.

We really need that. We need for people from the elected branches of government to be willing to tell the Federal Judiciary to go fuck itself.

[JohnStOnge]

The Law is not what the Judiciary says. The Law is what elected branches of governments legislate. It's be really great if this whole society would keep that in mind and quit thinking of "Law" as what Judicial decisions say.

[Ivytalk]

The Law is not what the Judiciary says. The Law is what elected branches of governments legislate. It's be really great if this whole society would keep that in mind and quit thinking of "Law" as what Judicial decisions say.

So, if a legislature passes a blatantly unconstitutional law, that's just tough apples? No judicial review? Thanks, John, I feel so much better.

[Skjellyfetti]

So, if a legislature passes a blatantly unconstitutional law, that's just tough apples? No judicial review? Thanks, John, I feel so much better.

JSO has already said that the legislative branch should be the final word on constitutionality.

If Congress passes a blatantly unconstitutional law... it would be constitutional until the parties swap. In other words,, an absoute clusterfuck,

[JohnStOnge]

o, if a legislature passes a blatantly unconstitutional law, that's just tough apples? No judicial review? Thanks, John, I feel so much better.

There is no perfect solution. But the legislature is accountable to the People. The Judiciary is not. Why would you want the Branch that is totally unaccountable to have the final word?

Seriously. Think about it. Why would you want to give the final word to people who have zero accountability?

It makes no sense at all.

[kalm]

o, if a legislature passes a blatantly unconstitutional law, that's just tough apples? No judicial review? Thanks, John, I feel so much better.

There is no perfect solution. But the legislature is accountable to the People. The Judiciary is not. Why would you want the Branch that is totally unaccountable to have the final word?

Seriously. Think about it. Why would you want to give the final word to people who have zero accountability?

It makes no sense at all.

The legislature is accountable to it's constituents which are not necessarily "the people". I think the courts are supposed to be above the bureaucratic process and partisanship.

Like when Scalia gets invited to conservative think tank galas it has nothing to do with politics. He's above that.

[Chizzang]

John that technique of debate ^ I like to call Reverse Hypothetical Conjecture

Counterpoint.

Interracial marriage is allowed and legalized by a state and a person working as the clerk refuses to issue them citing religious reasons...

Something something God's image...something something black being the color of demons...something something fairer skin.

There's a process as a part of our system of government to exacerbate change. Religion is an unnecessary hurdle, sometimes roadblock, to that. Women's suffrage was prohibited in this country until the early 1900s, also for religious reasons, woman's being a part of a man (rib) and therefore not his equal.

Two things:
Back to Ben Carson the genius
who thinks the world is 5,000 years old
and America 2015 is just like Nazi Germany

He does

"Counterpoint" as I understand it is not hypothetical...
John likes to take real situations - things that are actually happening - and compare them to mythical unrelated but equally frustrating situational conundrums...

Things like:
"Sure but if the south won the war Hitler would have never been born
and then Jesus never would have rode a dinosaur ..."

His is a type of hypothetical spin that is designed to make himself feel better about being wrong
and always includes things that have never actually happened

[Skjellyfetti]

There is no perfect solution. But the legislature is accountable to the People. The Judiciary is not. Why would you want the Branch that is totally unaccountable to have the final word?

Seriously. Think about it. Why would you want to give the final word to people who have zero accountability?

It makes no sense at all.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CID1990]

Counterpoint.

Interracial marriage is allowed and legalized by a state and a person working as the clerk refuses to issue them citing religious reasons...

Something something God's image...something something black being the color of demons...something something fairer skin.

There's a process as a part of our system of government to exacerbate change. Religion is an unnecessary hurdle, sometimes roadblock, to that. Women's suffrage was prohibited in this country until the early 1900s, also for religious reasons, woman's being a part of a man (rib) and therefore not his equal.

Two things:
Back to Ben Carson the genius
who thinks the world is 5,000 years old
and America 2015 is just like Nazi Germany

He does

Actually if we are going back to Ben Carson it should be about whether a practicing Muslim should be elected president (because I think we can all agree- even Dr Carson- that there is no statutory prohibition to it)

But what you said was surprising to me -

I did not realize Dr Carson is a creationist

I also did not know he claimed America 2015 is like Nazi Germany

Or was that just some good ol reductio ad absurdum on things he actually said?

[GannonFan]

o, if a legislature passes a blatantly unconstitutional law, that's just tough apples? No judicial review? Thanks, John, I feel so much better.

There is no perfect solution. But the legislature is accountable to the People. The Judiciary is not. Why would you want the Branch that is totally unaccountable to have the final word?

Seriously. Think about it. Why would you want to give the final word to people who have zero accountability?

It makes no sense at all.

Well, technically speaking, the Judiciary is indirectly accountable to the people as sitting judges can be impeached. And of course the whole appointing and approval part of the process that comes before a Justice ever gets to take a seat at the bench is part of the accountability process as well.

[kalm]

There is no perfect solution. But the legislature is accountable to the People. The Judiciary is not. Why would you want the Branch that is totally unaccountable to have the final word?

Seriously. Think about it. Why would you want to give the final word to people who have zero accountability?

It makes no sense at all.

Well, technically speaking, the Judiciary is indirectly accountable to the people as sitting judges can be impeached. And of course the whole appointing and approval part of the process that comes before a Justice ever gets to take a seat at the bench is part of the accountability process as well.

Think Harriet Miers.

[GannonFan]

Well, technically speaking, the Judiciary is indirectly accountable to the people as sitting judges can be impeached. And of course the whole appointing and approval part of the process that comes before a Justice ever gets to take a seat at the bench is part of the accountability process as well.

Think Harriet Miers.

Yup.

It may not be the best system or the most accountable system, but it's still a system nonetheless.

[Ivytalk]

Well, technically speaking, the Judiciary is indirectly accountable to the people as sitting judges can be impeached. And of course the whole appointing and approval part of the process that comes before a Justice ever gets to take a seat at the bench is part of the accountability process as well.

Think Harriet Miers.

I would have liked to see Doug Ginsburg appointed to the "high" court. So what if he smoked pot a few times?

[GannonFan]

Think Harriet Miers.

I would have liked to see Doug Ginsburg appointed to the "high" court. So what if he smoked pot a few times?

I wouldn't have been opposed to him - interesting character. I just like my Supreme Court nominees to be smart - I don't think Miers was at that level. Disagree with Scalia or Ruth Bader all you want, but those are some pretty sharp people there.

[Chizzang]

Two things:
Back to Ben Carson the genius
who thinks the world is 5,000 years old
and America 2015 is just like Nazi Germany

He does

Actually if we are going back to Ben Carson it should be about whether a practicing Muslim should be elected president (because I think we can all agree- even Dr Carson- that there is no statutory prohibition to it)

But what you said was surprising to me -

I did not realize Dr Carson is a creationist

I also did not know he claimed America 2015 is like Nazi Germany

Or was that just some good ol reductio ad absurdum on things he actually said?

Ben Carson stands by his assertion that WE are just like Nazi Germany
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/politics/ ... omparsion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ben Carson calls Evolution a myth...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/an ... _blog.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



He's Kim Davis with a PhD

[CID1990]

Actually if we are going back to Ben Carson it should be about whether a practicing Muslim should be elected president (because I think we can all agree- even Dr Carson- that there is no statutory prohibition to it)

But what you said was surprising to me -

I did not realize Dr Carson is a creationist

I also did not know he claimed America 2015 is like Nazi Germany

Or was that just some good ol reductio ad absurdum on things he actually said?

Ben Carson stands by his assertion that WE are just like Nazi Germany
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/politics/ ... omparsion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ben Carson calls Evolution a myth...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/an ... _blog.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



He's Kim Davis with a PhD

Well, I read both of those articles and quite frankly I expected more than that

and Im a bit disappointed because to a certain degree you did devolve a bit- call it your dbackjon moment

He's right in a sense- people were afraid to speak their minds in Nazi Germany, and if you arent self employed then you also parse your words here in the good ol USA. So in a narrow sense he is correct

on the evolution thing I disagree with him - but he is eloquent in his defense of his belief - and he also seems rather conciliatory towards those he disagrees with

but in general, creationist views would be disqualifying for me except that he also does not strike me as the kind of guy who would ban science... or is that your fear?

[Chizzang]

Ben Carson stands by his assertion that WE are just like Nazi Germany
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/politics/ ... omparsion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ben Carson calls Evolution a myth...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/an ... _blog.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



He's Kim Davis with a PhD

Well, I read both of those articles and quite frankly I expected more than that

and Im a bit disappointed because to a certain degree you did devolve a bit- call it your dbackjon moment

He's right in a sense- people were afraid to speak their minds in Nazi Germany, and if you arent self employed then you also parse your words here in the good ol USA. So in a narrow sense he is correct

on the evolution thing I disagree with him - but he is eloquent in his defense of his belief - and he also seems rather conciliatory towards those he disagrees with

but in general, creationist views would be disqualifying for me except that he also does not strike me as the kind of guy who would ban science... or is that your fear?

Hey I understand the pickins' are thin in conservative land these days - so apologetics be dammed
But Nazi Germany comparisons are for dullards and Glenn Beck. Use any other analogy with your vivid 140 IQ - its a STUPID STUPID comparison and America is NOTHING like Nazi Germany

and anybody who dismisses basic science... should be embarrassed
Its not like anybody is asking him to NOT use that common sense that he's got precious little of

[kalm]

Well, I read both of those articles and quite frankly I expected more than that

and Im a bit disappointed because to a certain degree you did devolve a bit- call it your dbackjon moment

He's right in a sense- people were afraid to speak their minds in Nazi Germany, and if you arent self employed then you also parse your words here in the good ol USA. So in a narrow sense he is correct

on the evolution thing I disagree with him - but he is eloquent in his defense of his belief - and he also seems rather conciliatory towards those he disagrees with

but in general, creationist views would be disqualifying for me except that he also does not strike me as the kind of guy who would ban science... or is that your fear?

Hey I understand the pickins' are thin in conservative land these days - so apologetics be dammed
But Nazi Germany comparisons are for dullards and Glenn Beck. Use any other analogy with your vivid 140 IQ - its a STUPID STUPID comparison and America is NOTHING like Nazi Germany

and anybody who dismisses basic science... should be embarrassed
Its not like anybody is asking him to NOT use that common sense that he's got precious little of

But have you seen him speak? Brother is a good looking, smooth talking dude. Does it really matter what he thinks or says?

[Ivytalk]

Hey I understand the pickins' are thin in conservative land these days - so apologetics be dammed
But Nazi Germany comparisons are for dullards and Glenn Beck. Use any other analogy with your vivid 140 IQ - its a STUPID STUPID comparison and America is NOTHING like Nazi Germany

and anybody who dismisses basic science... should be embarrassed
Its not like anybody is asking him to NOT use that common sense that he's got precious little of

But have you seen him speak? Brother is a good looking, smooth talking dude. Does it really matter what he thinks or says?

Jobiden: "He's bright, and clean, and articulate, and..."

[CID1990]

Well, I read both of those articles and quite frankly I expected more than that

and Im a bit disappointed because to a certain degree you did devolve a bit- call it your dbackjon moment

He's right in a sense- people were afraid to speak their minds in Nazi Germany, and if you arent self employed then you also parse your words here in the good ol USA. So in a narrow sense he is correct

on the evolution thing I disagree with him - but he is eloquent in his defense of his belief - and he also seems rather conciliatory towards those he disagrees with

but in general, creationist views would be disqualifying for me except that he also does not strike me as the kind of guy who would ban science... or is that your fear?

Hey I understand the pickins' are thin in conservative land these days - so apologetics be dammed
But Nazi Germany comparisons are for dullards and Glenn Beck. Use any other analogy with your vivid 140 IQ - its a STUPID STUPID comparison and America is NOTHING like Nazi Germany

and anybody who dismisses basic science... should be embarrassed
Its not like anybody is asking him to NOT use that common sense that he's got precious little of

yes but

you have forgotten what I said so long ago-

does it matter what someone's faith is if he subjugates it to the Constitution? I said that not just muslims but the entire GOP field should submit to that test

so if someone like Carson can disqualify a muslim for the highest office because that muslim cannot subordinate the koran to the constitution.... if Carson himself can do the same with the bible then does it matter what he believes?

because if Im not mistaken- there's been quite a hullabaloo over what Carson said about muslims and their beliefs