SCOTUS and whatnot

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

what should be the basis?

You coudl start from the 'catagorical imperative.' Kant claimed you could derive it before assuming God because he tried (it is generally concluded unsuccessfully) to prove the existence of God starting from it. Basically it would transpose something like - "Pass no law you would not want  applied to you."  

Of course given Congress' penchant for excluding itself that might require repeal of half the US code at this point.

[Tiger337]

 

3 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Funny how we want to take religion out of everything yet all of our founding documents have God written all over them. Currency, Capital Building, Supreme Court etc God.... I know once all of the historically questionable statues come down anything God related in the Government will be next. Don't you take the oath of office with your hand on a bible? I am not trying to ba a bible thumper but why is it so important NOT to reflect on a moral foundation? The 10 Commandments are a pretty reasonable way to guide your life no matter what you believe.

Commandments 5-10 are pretty universal.  Commandments 1-4 require that everyone belives in God which I think is unreasonable.  

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

what should be the basis?

No one thing, but kindness is at the top of the list.

You can't pretend to be a country of liberty and freedom if laws require belief in God or a particular religion.    

[gehringer_2]

On 10/15/2021 at 5:24 AM, Archie said:

The SCOTUS Commission is supposed to meet today.  Their initial findings are against expanding the court.  They thought term could address the issues the democrats have.   The problem I have with doing anything to the SCOTUS is that Court is supposed to be non-political and with a couple exceptions they currently are.  If the democrats pack the court with their people it will turn it into another political body. The job of the SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution and the law not rule on personal or political feelings.  Most of the rulings show that.  RBG was influenced the most by politics as was Alito. I find it funny that Sotomayor accused the court to be political when she is most politically influenced on the bench. 

I guessing the democrats will ignore this report if it doesn't fit their agenda.  

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/10/biden-supreme-court-reform-commission-releases-initial-report-here-it-is/

all governmental bodies are political. What the founders tried to do was have them operate at different time scales, the House short, the Senate longer, the Federal Courts the longest. This more or less accomplished a similar goal as the hot issues of one decade usually (though obviously not always)  cool with the passage of time. I'm not really sure there is any better way to accomplish political distance than time. I would actually go the other way, The real issue is each party trying to put progressively younger and less experienced people on the court. I'd make the minimum age for nomination 60. Eliminates super long tenures and means everyone who comes up will at least have a real life record to look at.

Edited December 28, 2021 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

4 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

No one thing, but kindness is at the top of the list.

You can't pretend to be a country of liberty and freedom if laws require belief in God or a particular religion.    

what american law requires a belief in god or a particular religion?

[oblong]

And to that… what God or religion. Evangelicals want to base policy towards Israel because of what they interpret in the book of revelations.  The dimmer lot use arguments like “god made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve”. 

[buddha]

all of you seem to base your idea of "religion" on people who hold views outside the norm of most people in the country.  

joe biden is catholic.  is he going to make you take communion and invade palestine?  you all have been watching too many handmaid's tale episodes.

[Tiger337]

3 minutes ago, buddha said:

all of you seem to base your idea of "religion" on people who hold views outside the norm of most people in the country.  

 

I see religion as excluding a large segment of the population.   

[gehringer_2]

13 minutes ago, buddha said:

all of you seem to base your idea of "religion" on people who hold views outside the norm of most people in the country.  

joe biden is catholic.  is he going to make you take communion and invade palestine?  you all have been watching too many handmaid's tale episodes.

What would you expect - he may have a back story but Biden is the guy elected by the 'secularist' party who elders in his Church would love to excommunicate if they could. Go out to rural or southern evangelical America more to better appreciate the undercurrent on the other side. If you are gay in American one would wonder what universe you have been living on with that level of sanguinuity about the influence of religion on US law.

Edited December 28, 2021 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

6 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I see religion as excluding a large segment of the population.   

excluding them from what?  

[buddha]

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

What would you expect - he may have a back story but Biden is the guy elected by the 'secularist' party. Go out to rural or southern evangelical America more to better appreciate the undercurrent on the other side. If you are gay in American one would wonder what universe you have been living on with that level of sanguinuity about the influence of religion on US law.

yes, because i'm sure you spend countless hours in rural america talking with southern evangelicals.  lol.

why did you limit your scope of bad religious people to "rural" and "southern evangelicals" and not urban, inner city evangelicals?

some of the best parts of america and some of the worst parts (in our 21st century morality eyes) come from our history of protestant religiosity (both slavery and abolition, for example).  it's interesting to me how much the 1960s have influenced modern thought on things like law and morality as we move away from common religion as a basis for community and more towards the individual's "right" to do whatever they want as a basis for our social contract with our government.

[Tiger337]

14 minutes ago, buddha said:

excluding them from what?  

Excluding them from due consideration in the establishment of laws.  

[buddha]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

Excluding them from due consideration in the establishment of laws.  

what law excludes non-religious people?

[gehringer_2]

16 minutes ago, buddha said:

yes, because i'm sure you spend countless hours in rural america talking with southern evangelicals.  lol.

actually Buddha, not so far as you may think. When I hop on my bike for a 20 mile ride, I'm deep into red america at the far end. The lines that divide red and blue MI are very sharp and run right through Western Washtenaw county.

[Tiger337]

12 minutes ago, buddha said:

what law excludes non-religious people?

Old laws that used to discriminate against groups such as women and gays, two groups that have been marginalized by religion, have been altered on a non-religious basis.

Edited December 28, 2021 by Tiger337

[gehringer_2]

20 minutes ago, buddha said:

yes, because i'm sure you spend countless hours in rural america talking with southern evangelicals.  lol.

why did you limit your scope of bad religious people to "rural" and "southern evangelicals" and not urban, inner city evangelicals?

some of the best parts of america and some of the worst parts (in our 21st century morality eyes) come from our history of protestant religiosity (both slavery and abolition, for example).  it's interesting to me how much the 1960s have influenced modern thought on things like law and morality as we move away from common religion as a basis for community and more towards the individual's "right" to do whatever they want as a basis for our social contract with our government.

and  it is, or should be, ironic that it is Evangelical America which seems to have the most anti-communitarian outlook right now. I guess they missed that 'common religion' somewhere? There is definitely an aspect where it isn't just religiosity pre se but the nature of the particular strains in vogue.

[gehringer_2]

27 minutes ago, buddha said:

why did you limit your scope of bad religious people to "rural" and "southern evangelicals" and not urban, inner city evangelicals?

fair point. though on the LGBQT  issues while it is true inner city churches are often conservative, the don't generate much political power since theirs is the minority view within the democratic party to which they mostly belong. Same lack of political relevance as moderate Republicans suffer today!

[Tigeraholic1]

34 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

actually Buddha, not so far as you may think. When I hop on my bike for a 20 mile ride, I'm deep into red america at the far end. The lines that divide red and blue MI are very sharp and run right through Western Washtenaw county.

You make it sound like you risk your life to ride your bike through enemy red territory....... But it is much safer to ride your bike through Buddas Chicago stomping grounds. Those evil country folk are whats wrong with "your" America. 

[gehringer_2]

9 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

You make it sound like you risk your life to ride your bike through enemy red territory....... But it is much safer to ride your bike through Buddas Chicago stomping grounds. Those evil country folk are whats wrong with "your" America. 

No - no. I'm just responding to the Buddha's implication that I live a life with no contact points with Red America. I buy a lot of Gatorade from Red America.

Of course as to the first point - you do get the occasional wahoo in a dualie pickup tryng to blow you off the road. Not particularly appreciated.

Edited December 28, 2021 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

Old laws that used to discriminate against groups such as women and gays, two groups that have been marginalized by religion, have been altered on a non-religious basis.

right, "old laws."

i think the passage of laws by any group has something to say about the morals of that group and what they value.  its not just "religious people" who pass laws to put their moral views onto others, its every group.  you just happen to agree with the current cultural/moral group that believes in their modern notions of equality and the ability of individuals to do whatever they want.

and so do i.  most of us are children of the 60s and the post civil rights era interpretation of the constitution.

[Tiger337]

2 minutes ago, buddha said:

right, "old laws."

i think the passage of laws by any group has something to say about the morals of that group and what they value.  its not just "religious people" who pass laws to put their moral views onto others, its every group.  you just happen to agree with the current cultural/moral group that believes in their modern notions of equality and the ability of individuals to do whatever they want.

and so do i.  most of us are children of the 60s and the post civil rights era interpretation of the constitution.

 

As someone who travels a lot to red rural areas of New Hampshire, I feel safer in those areas than I do in the big cities which I try to avoid. 

[chasfh]

54 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

You make it sound like you risk your life to ride your bike through enemy red territory....... But it is much safer to ride your bike through Buddas Chicago stomping grounds. Those evil country folk are whats wrong with "your" America. 

I love riding my bike around the city of Chicago. I'll go north side, south side or west side literally depending on which way the wind is blowing. I feel as safe as you can sharing a street with traffic.

Edited December 28, 2021 by chasfh

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

 

Commandments 5-10 are pretty universal.  Commandments 1-4 require that everyone belives in God which I think is unreasonable.  

Those commandments at the end of the tablet are pretty stupid, too. A commandment against coveting your neighbor's goods? Isn't coveting what our entire market economy is based on? 😏

Edited December 28, 2021 by chasfh

[Tiger337]

17 minutes ago, buddha said:

right, "old laws."

i think the passage of laws by any group has something to say about the morals of that group and what they value.  its not just "religious people" who pass laws to put their moral views onto others, its every group.  you just happen to agree with the current cultural/moral group that believes in their modern notions of equality and the ability of individuals to do whatever they want.

and so do i.  most of us are children of the 60s and the post civil rights era interpretation of the constitution.

True, but I don't think it's quite the same thing.  Religious people really have no choice in their morals as they have already been established.  People who are not religious are free to develop their own set of morals.  These morals may have been drilled into them, but they are more free to think about them critically.  This may or may not produce a better society but I prefer this concept as the basis for a country.      

[chasfh]

Just now, Tiger337 said:

True, but I don't think it's quite the same thing.  Religious people really have no choice in their morals as they have already been established.  People who are not religious are free to develop their own set of morals.  These morals may have been drilled into them, but they are more free to think about them critically.  This may or may not produce a better society but I prefer this concept as the basis for a country.      

You might be giving short shrift to the idea of religious people developing their own morals.