Law Justice Kennedy Retires!!! New SCOTUS justice to be announced 9PM Monday, July 9th

Rank Justice Kennedy's career

  • Total voters
    49
  • Poll closed .
IGIT said:
hello Super Mikey,

its a health related matter, Super Mikey.

i don't think this is too hard to understand.

the procedure in question is a woman's right to choose to erase her fetus - the actual medical description is the word, "abortion".

if describing the procedure as the erasure of a fetus energizes you in some way, have at it my friend. most thinking adults grasp what the process entails.

i am not moved.

- IGIT
Click to expand...

I’m not denying that it can be construed as health related. I’m criticizing you for framing the issue innocuously as though we were just talking about health. Your frame erased the most the important subject matter - the in-womb baby. It’s called a rhetorical frame: it’s manipulative political language.

Whether you’re moved or pro-choice isn’t the point. The issue here is your use of language.
 


So much whining and friendly fire.
 
Super Mikey said:
I’m not denying that it can be construed as health related. I’m criticizing you for framing the issue innocuously as though we were just talking about health. Your frame erased the most the important subject matter - the in-womb baby. It’s called a rhetorical frame: it’s manipulative political language.

Whether you’re moved or pro-choice isn’t the point. The issue here is your use of language.
Click to expand...

hello Super Mikey,

i frame the issue innocuously, because i see the "issue" of abortion itself as a non-issue.

like i've said, i don't get emotional and up in arms over the topic.

that's why i don't use terms like "erasure of a fetus". i mean, why stop there? why don't you describe it as the "unjust execution of an innnocent"? you should just go for it, my friend.

also, an "in-womb baby" is actually called either an embryo or a fetus.

- IGIT
 
hullo walguoren,

waiguoren said:
Hello IGIT. Nice to meet you.
Click to expand...

same here my friend!

I suppose you are referencing the claims of Thomas's ex-girlfriend Lillian McEwen
Click to expand...

yes, i am referencing the allegations made by judge Lillian McEwen.

Not exactly.
Click to expand...

pretty much exactly, actually.

look for meaning in the governing text, ascribe to that text the meaning that it has borne from its inception - yep.

A good test for you: in your view, is capital punishment unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment"?
Click to expand...

injecting sodium thiopental probably isn't the right way to go about it.

as to your question, i side with Justice Breyer.

No, IGIT, that is not true. One side seeks to interpret the text with deference to the text's authors in cases of ambiguity. The other side does the same except when it does not like the outcome, in which case new meanings are attributed to old words.
Click to expand...

we'll just have to agree to disagree here, walguroren.

- IGIT
 
Last edited:
IGIT said:
hello Super Mikey,

i frame the issue innocuously, because i see the "issue" of abortion itself as a non-issue.

like i've said, i don't get emotional and up in arms over the topic.

that's why i don't use terms like "erasure of a fetus". i mean, why stop there? why don't you describe it as the "unjust execution of an innnocent"? you should just go for it, my friend.

also, an "in-womb baby" is actually called either an embryo or a fetus.

- IGIT
Click to expand...

Again, the point is not about how you view the issue personally. If you’re framing the issue of debate, you can’t erase the subject matter that is being debated, acting as if your opponents are objecting to healthcare. That’s not a charitable frame. That’s not an accurate frame of the debate. The debate doesn’t concern women’s healthcare as such, but the pregnancy and life of the in-womb baby, or what you characterize as as embryo or a fetus.

Frame the issue between you and your critics fairly and accurately.
 
Super Mikey said:
Again, the point is not about how you view the issue personally. If you’re framing the issue of debate, you can’t erase the subject matter that is being debated, acting as if your opponents are objecting to healthcare. That’s not a charitable frame. That’s not an accurate frame of the debate. The debate doesn’t concern women’s healthcare as such, but the pregnancy and life of the in-womb baby, or what you characterize as as embryo or a fetus.

Frame the issue between you and your critics fairly and accurately.
Click to expand...

hello Super Mikey,

if there was any ambiguity that i was referring to a woman's decision to seek an abortion, i apologize. if i suffer from anything, its not a lack of charity - its merely a lack of passion for the topic.

i find the debate itself interesting, philosophically, but if a woman decides to erase her own fetus - to use language more bland, i'm going to call this a private healthcare decision - its ok with me.

i see it as a healthcare decision made by the individual. as such, i side with freedom.

- IGIT
 
Last edited:
HockeyBjj said:
The 9:02 lib meltdown will be delicious

Why not 9am tho? Let’s get a full day in if fresh speculation of how it’ll either bring about the 2nd coming or legalize slavery
Click to expand...

I want to be home from work to soak in the announcement live, though. So 9PM is a win in my book. I'm pulling for Barrett since the MSM was totally after her about her religion. "She's very Catholic" was one quote (MSNBC?) among many. Imagine if that was "Jewish", "Islamic", "Hindu", any non-Christian? Would never be said or would result in termination of the reporter/contributor. I'm not particularly religious, but it stood out to me and if liberals will attack to kill a potential female nominee, they'll appear as hypocritical as they are going into the midterms. The other two choices (if the short list is indeed 3) are top-shelf as well, though.
 
Bump and vote for who you think is announced Monday. If you haven't voted yet, you can make two choices, ranking Kennedy's career and who you think will be picked. If you already voted, you can change your vote to who you think will be picked. Interested to see who people on both sides of the WR aisle think will be on the SCOTUS. Because it sounds like it's down to these three.
 
Last edited:
The same day the mass banning in the Reddit Thanos thread. Coincidence? I think not.

@Arkain2K who are you hoping Trump picks out of the likely nominations?

Who is the nut job your worried might get the nomination?
 
PHATV said:
She's very Catholic" was one quote (MSNBC?) among many. Imagine if that was "Jewish", "Islamic", "Hindu", any non-Christian? Would never be said or would result in termination of the reporter/contributor.
Click to expand...

Diane Feinstein's statement was even worse. Have you heard it?
 
Kavanaugh and Kethledge both seem like high-quality picks. Barrett would be an affirmative action pick.
 
Last edited:
Kennedy’s career, hits and misses....ended on a high note, Trump cement my legacy
 
waiguoren said:
Kavanaugh and Kethledge both seem like high-quality picks. Barrett would be an affirmative action pick.
Click to expand...
I don't think I'd use the phrase "affirmative action," but it definitely wouldnt be a pick on credentials. I'm pulling for Kethledge over Kavanaugh from sheer tribalism, and both over Barrett.
 
Quipling said:
I don't think I'd use the phrase "affirmative action," but it definitely wouldnt be a pick on credentials. I'm pulling for Kethledge over Kavanaugh from sheer tribalism, and both over Barrett.
Click to expand...
Which tribe are you and Kethledge both members of?
 
waiguoren said:
Which tribe are you and Kethledge both members of?
Click to expand...

Tribalism in the broadest sense. I've met him in a professional setting. If he saw my name there's a decent chance he might recognize it. That appeals to my ego.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,275,052
Messages
57,965,604
Members
175,884
Latest member
cloudfair

Share this page

Back
Top