Trump Appellate Nominee Says Her Religion Supersedes the Constitution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-09-2017, 12:25 AM (This post was last modified: 18-09-2017 12:32 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Trump Appellate Nominee Says Her Religion Supersedes the Constitution
(17-09-2017 10:27 PM)mordant Wrote:  It's my view that it IS that far gone -- and that dysfunctional.

Bah. I seen worse than this when I was 6 and DC was on fire. I got more faith in the resilience of this particular socio-economic system designed by a bunch of white slave owners who liked to get drunk and dress up in wigs and women's clothes while designing their social experiment than you do. Primarily because its resilience has already been proven in the most unresolvable of disagreements and over and over since, but also because of the wigs and women's clothes. And the mead of course.

(17-09-2017 10:27 PM)mordant Wrote:  So no I'm not optimistic.

Banjo yet lives. That's all my optimism needs.

Our military leaders are true patriots who will not allow shit to go Third Reich. The fact that they are in the top ranks of the Trump administration and have no doubt already replaced the nuclear football with a dummy one signed by Tom Brady gives me comfort.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
18-09-2017, 08:13 AM
RE: Trump Appellate Nominee Says Her Religion Supersedes the Constitution
(18-09-2017 12:25 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Bah. I seen worse than this when I was 6 and DC was on fire.
So have I. The question is, are we ever going to move on from such nonsense? Can we afford the constant self-immolation in the face of the need to take decisive action concerning things like climate change, and to take at least basic stands in favor of fact and reality like having public policy follow good and established science?

The other question for me is whether our institutions can withstand arbitrary amounts of the "unprecedented". I do not think the founders foresaw Trump. Sure they foresaw him in the sense that they also had greedy, dishonest fuckers who wanted power and personal profit from public office and so they installed checks and balances. But they also assumed some basic level of convention and decorum so they didn't bother to elucidate things that in their day were laughably self-evident -- exactly what was and wasn't an "emolument" or describing exactly what violates the "dignity" of the executive office or why you wouldn't behave in ways beneath that dignity and thus destroy your credibility in the family of nations. I would imagine they would say, if we have to explain THAT to you, then we're all well and truly fucked and there's no founding principle or law we can give you that will help you. You don't DESERVE a stable democratic republic.

It seems to me there are, psychologically and philosophically speaking, only two ways to respond to this situation. Your way -- which is to say pffft, this is no big deal -- or my way which is to say OMFG this is a HUGE deal. Ironically, your way may end up being the better one functionally as you'll have less stress and will continue to do little things that you can to make the world a better place, whereas my way produces anxiety, stress and tends towards paralysis. It is the perennial question of whether to be a realist or an idealist, and in what situations.

I am not constitutionally given to anxiety or overwhelm except in those fairly unusual circumstances were I don't feel in control of pacing. The rapid fire pace of disastrous policy initiatives (anti-policy initiatives really), rampant corrupt practices, inveterate lying, pointlessly bellicose posturing on the world stage, pandering to a base of knuckle-draggers, filling the entire government with not even remotely qualified managers, to the point of appointing a non-scientist as a chief scientist ... it just spins one's head, day after day after day.

The middle ground for me is to just cease to care, to have a spurt of volunteerism or donation here and there for things I believe in, and probably, to withdraw mostly from the toxic realm of politics and stay with helping kinds of charity work such as volunteering with the local food kitchen, which is the sort of thing that just happens to strike back at the sort of things Trump is doing to produce more hungry, homeless people in the first place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
18-09-2017, 08:22 AM
RE: Trump Appellate Nominee Says Her Religion Supersedes the Constitution
(18-09-2017 12:25 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Banjo yet lives. That's all my optimism needs.
Yeah there's that. "Miracles" do happen. I have just learned not to count on them. Every day my body doesn't malfunction is a gift. But eventually, especially if I mistreat and abuse it, it will malfunction spectacularly.
(18-09-2017 12:25 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Our military leaders are true patriots who will not allow shit to go Third Reich. The fact that they are in the top ranks of the Trump administration and have no doubt already replaced the nuclear football with a dummy one signed by Tom Brady gives me comfort.
Every coup leader regards themselves a true patriot. People successfully pursue self actualization in banana republics all over the world every day, but that doesn't make coming to the crossroads of seeing a military junta as a lesser evil is not ... lamentable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2017, 08:31 AM
RE: Trump Appellate Nominee Says Her Religion Supersedes the Constitution
(12-09-2017 09:24 AM)Rachel Wrote:  Trump Appellate Nominee Says Her Religion Supersedes the Constitution
Sep 11, 2017 8:01am PDT by Rmuse


.....
Barrett has no right serving in any capacity as a judge. And no, her religion is not the issue. Nobody has any shit to give about what Psalms she sings, how she worships, who she prays to, or to which Christian denomination she subscribes. However, every American alive should shudder that Trump is nominating Christian extremists who fervently believe that judges have "a duty to put their faith above the law of the land;" because it is a direct line to an oppressive theocracy which is exactly what whoever nominated an Christian extremist like Barrett intended.

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2017/9/11...=emaildkre

She is an activist judge, and we all know the far right dislikes activist judges. If she was a left winger who put SWJ priorities above the Constitution, the conservatives would all be up in arms and frothing at the mouth.

“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction.”
― Harry G. Frankfurt, On Bullshit

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post
18-09-2017, 08:42 AM
Trump Appellate Nominee Says Her Religion Supersedes the Constitution
(18-09-2017 08:31 AM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  She is an activist judge, and we all know the far right dislikes activist judges. If she was a left winger who put SWJ priorities above the Constitution, the conservatives would all be up in arms and frothing at the mouth.

She is a true activist judge, contrary to her denial. To the right an “activist” judge is someone who reaches a conclusion they disagree with, by following the law. The concept is similar to the new concept of “alternative facts” or “fake news,” where true facts one disagrees with may be summarily dismissed with a label.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Rachel's post
18-09-2017, 06:38 PM
RE: Trump Appellate Nominee Says Her Religion Supersedes the Constitution
(17-09-2017 07:53 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(17-09-2017 06:19 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  As Thump already said, we are doing what we can in an unfair and ridiculous political system.

Your post came across with an accusatory tone. That's all.

I'm not responsible for interpretation.

One thing that appears very very different between our two nations is how we deal with criticism. Americans seem unable to deal with it. Tell an Aussie he screwed up and it's likely he'll agree. An American will probably deny it and blame those stating it.

I think when an ally points out a fault, it is worth taking the time to listen. Save the "USA USA!" BS for someone else. Aussies will just laugh at you.

Ask DLJ. The poor Poms have been putting up with us for years. An Aussie cricketer once asked the Queen for her autograph at a match. Big Grin

We don't respond well to so called authority. Nor patriotism. The vestige of scoundrels.

Duly noted.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2017, 07:32 PM
RE: Trump Appellate Nominee Says Her Religion Supersedes the Constitution
(18-09-2017 06:38 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Duly noted.

Good. Big Grin

Seriously though, I never realised it was this bad. You poor bastards. Sad

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2017, 04:05 PM
RE: Trump Appellate Nominee Says Her Religion Supersedes the Constitution
(16-09-2017 03:16 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(15-09-2017 05:49 PM)SYZ Wrote:  "Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:

'I, ______________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _______ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.'"

"So help me god" is not required for any federal oath. The inductee may simply omit this as he or she wishes. I did so swearing into the USAF -- er, affirming.

While that is technically true, the fact remains that the wording is officially enshrined in the US Code.

Let's say a legislator in Congress proposes a bill to change the oath, eliminating the "so help me God" phrase. Any idea of the kind of shit-storm that would result? For a clue, look at the attempts to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance -- words that weren't in the original adopted version, and that were added 62 years after the fact by a religious special interest group.

The fact that the phrase is there in the code tells much about the workings of the system, regardless of whether individuals are required to speak those words out loud when they take the job.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2017, 04:10 PM
RE: Trump Appellate Nominee Says Her Religion Supersedes the Constitution
(17-09-2017 03:47 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I stand corrected insofar as judges are concerned, though that part of the statute is likely unenforceable, given that the judge in question could simply appeal on the grounds of Art VI, Sec 3 of the American Constitution forbidding religious tests for public office.
I believe you're probably right about that, although depending on what state one was taking the oath in, they might actually have to take their case to the Supreme Court before being allowed to finish being sworn in.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
19-09-2017, 04:24 PM
RE: Trump Appellate Nominee Says Her Religion Supersedes the Constitution
(17-09-2017 03:50 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Is America so dysfunctional that there is no way out?

Personally, I don't think The Donald is going to finish out his term. He's playing a game that he doesn't really understand, at a level for which he's unqualified, and he's surrounded by a lot of people who do understand the game at that level, many of whom don't like him. Sooner or later he's going to fuck up and either get called on, or be threatened with being called on the impeachment carpet.

Don't forget: we did get rid of Nixon.
Only after most of the damage he was going to do was already done, unfortunately, but we got rid of him nonetheless.

As Winston Churchill is alleged to have said (but probably didn't):
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

Give us some time.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dr H's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: