General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Trump Judicial Nominee Isn't Sure She Agrees With Desegregation" video.

Quipore S, how did she answer the question on Roe v Wade? Did she say she agreed with the ruling? If she did not answer it than she is consistent.
3
I agree, we are regressing. When people like you and Kyle cannot understand that her way of answering the question is correct that is scary at how ignorant some people can be. The question was loaded for two reasons 1. It is a political question where justices cannot be political. Her opinion on the issue is irrelevant as she is supposed to rule based on the Constitution, law and previous cases 2. If she gave an opinion on it than it opens the doorway for people to ask her opinions on other cases that have been settled. People will ask about Roe v. Wade, and DC v Heller and so on. Her opinion on them is irrelevant as they are cases that have been settled. It is attempting to pull a fast one on her and she handled herself well.
3
She knows what the case is. When you make statements claiming that she doesn't it makes you look very dumb.
3
Just a Lurker, if she was not asked about Roe v Wade than the point is irrelevant. She can be pro life but still rule based on previous court cases. For example, I may be against the message of the KKK but I would support their right to free speech. Her pro life stance should not be used to prevent her from being a justice. She is there to interpret the law based on the Constitution and other court cases.
2
Space Wizard, you can be pro life and support Roe v Wade on the idea that you support freedom and privacy.
2
Blake Foster, they don't understand, or they refuse to. Either way they are simply showing a low level of intelligence. I find it ironic how these individuals follow politics to this degree but don't realize this is a political trap. In all fairness the question by the politician was great, it placed her in this trap where if she did answer the question the outcome would have been what you said. She gave the answer she did and leftists are labeling her as a racist now. It was a win win for that politician. That is the dirty game of politics to cater to idiot voters.
2
Francesco, when did she say Roe v Wade was wrong?
1
Just a Lurker, if they asked her if she were a racist and she said yes or no than that is different than asking her opinion on a previous case. That is the difference.
1
"Brown v. Board is directly linked to segregation in the same way that Roe v. Wade is with abortion. And if she had some disagreement over the specific arguments in the ruling then she could have specified those. But she didn't do any of that" You can be pro life and still support Roe v Wade. Similar to how I can disagree with the KKK but support their right to free speech. That is the difference.
1
Just a Lurker, whether or not she agrees with the ruling is irrelevant, it is the standard like free speech is the standard. That is why they are the same.
1
Just a Lurker, it is not to weed out racist. You can do that by looking at their track record. It is to trap her so they can label her an activist and start asking questions about other court cases that were not as clear.
1
Just a Lurker, every justice is an activist to a degree, even Scalia. Them asking technical questions will lead to her reciting court rulings. That would be pointless.
1
"Then why did you even bring up activism as a negative brand?" Because you have to be objective as a justice. Saying you disagree with rulings of previous cases means you will use your judicial power to rule on cases while ignoring previous cases.
1
"Because she is clearly for segregation." How is that clear? What did she say to make that clear?
1
Name and Address Supplied, I am hardly on TYT.
1
" However, this is a Republican nominee to the federal bench we're talking about here, so I think one could doubt whether she actually agreed with the Court's decision in Brown." If you were a law student you would not make an ignorant comment like that. That is similar to people freaking out about the Dover v Penn case where a Bush appointed judge was on the case. They felt that a republican nominee they would rule against science when in reality he ruled in favor of science.
1
david, she gave the answer she did because if she would have answered yes or no than it sets the grounds for this politician to ask for her opinion on other cases. If she answered yes or not to Brown v Board than they would have asked what her opinion was on Roe v Wade, a more controversial case. It was a trap question where, in all reality, she was going to look bad to someone no matter how she answered it. The politician asking the question was most likely not going to vote for her to begin with so the question makes her look bad in the sense that 1. She answers yes or no and that proceeds to asking about other questions as I mentioned where her supporters would view her as weak and she does not get the position 2. She answered like she did and leftists who oppose her from the very beginning label her as a racist. But in this case her supporters, who out number her opponents, would vote for her.
1
She is a justice, not a politician.
1
She knows that Brown v Board was. I see you as incompetent to not see that was a trap question. If she said no she would be labeled as a racist. If she said yes should our be labeled as an activist that would go against previous court rulings and instead rule based on her opinion. Her answer was the best approach.
1
MrAntidodo, by answer yes or no to the question leads to two things 1. they will ask for her opinion on other topics where she will have to give it or be called out for it 2. she will be labeled as an activist that will rule against certain cases based purely on how she feels as opposed to how previous court cases ruled.
1
Ensenga 666, say if they were ask her is she agreed with Roe v Wade and she said no. At that point one can argue that any cases involving abortion she will take a pro life stance no matter if it violated the Roe v Wade case. That makes her an activist. If she disagreed with the ruling but still made rulings in abortion cases that favored Roe v Wade than others will call out her hypocrisy.
1
Raizhen010, she says yes to that case which will lead to them asking her about other cases. If she refuses to answer they will press her on why she answered the previous question but not other ones? It doesn't matter how clear the answer is, it leads to a slippery slope she is looking to avoid.
1
Trent, her saying yes or no to any of those questions makes her an activist. Her words can be used against her in future rulings.
1
Raizhen010, Bernie Sanders hardly answers questions When he does he answers with talking points like "the 1%" and "fair share" and "living wage" and "big corporations". Bernie evades questions all the time. For example, in the town hall in Vegas someone asked Bernie how he will prevent prices from going up when he raises the min. wage. Bernie went on a rant about how no one should live in poverty went on a rant about the rich. Those are talking points. The guy had to ask the question again and expanded it on how it would keep people in poverty as prices will go up. Bernie admitted that prices will go up and then went on a rant about how there are poor people. He never answered the question. Another example was during the healthcare debate against Cruz where the hair salon owner asked him a question on how she can afford healthcare for her employees. He said he did not know but that she will have to do it. Bernie is the king of dodging questions. "Secondly, this is Brown v Board of Education, one of the few cases every nominee answers with a yes, I support that. " Ok, so she answers with yes. The next question is Roe v Wade, something more controversial. She has to answer yes or no as she has now set the grounds that she will give her opinion on previous cases. Now she is screwed.
1
" but I believe Bernie was talking about how when the minimum wage goes up, people can afford to buy more products so even if prices go up a little, it's more than evened out by the increased wages." He did not address the question as prices can go up above what the new min. wage is keeping them in poverty. Say the min. wage went up 50% and so did prices, what have you solved? Also, what about people not earning the min. wage, now their prices are higher? Bernie avoided that by simply saying raising the min. wage will take people out of poverty but failed to address the issue that price could go up. Is justification is that there are rich people. "He's one of the few politicians who is willing to say I will raise your taxes to eliminate all of your healthcare costs. Why can't you respect this level of honesty? " He only said he would raise taxes after someone from Denmark pushed him into the corner. For a long time he only talked about the rich paying taxes. "I remember that town hall with Cruz and Bernie told the woman in question he was sorry, but he didn't believe anyone should be without healthcare and as an employer she has a moral responsibility to her employees for their healthcare in our current system. He also told her that if an employee does get sick and can no longer work that is actually harmful to her business so she should want to give them quality health insurance for preventative care. If that's not answering the question for you then I have no idea what is. " The question was how. How does she provide it? Bernie never cared about her revenue, her expenses, how many of her employees are part time, full time, temporary, etc. In his eyes he sees a business and feels that businesses must offer employees something even if they cannot afford it. There are several problems there. He supports a law that will make running her business harder, and make her life harder. She is asking Bernie for advice in how to overcome those barriers and Bernie had no idea how to answer it nor had the desire to learn how a business operates. That is very disturbing. "He told her, basically, you're free to disagree, but I'm sorry, I don't find your decision moral or financially smart. " Is it moral to force a business to give up their money? It is financially smart to pay more than you can afford? Also, as for employees getting sick or hurt, those are situations you take care of when they come. What if one of her employees house burns down? Should she give away home owners insurance as well? What if one of her employees get into a major car accident? Should she pay for public transportation as well? You and Bernie giving these what ifs does not justify your stance as that can be done with a lot of things. " The politician answer would have been to evade and never really answer it to avoid offending a small business owner." Bill Clinton was posed the same question in 1994 by Herman Cain. Clinton gave an answer with numbers and data showing he understood the challenges that law will create. You can find the video on Youtube. That is the correct approach. Bernie gave the typical politician answer. "Why can't you at least say I disagree with Bernie, but he tells it like it is when it comes to what he believes in? " Because Bernie has been pushed in a corner many times and resorts to talking points of "living wage" and "fair share" or "rich people" or "income inequality" etc. He never gets into details. Cruz said multiple times that Bernie wants to raise everyone's taxes where Bernie never responded. The guy from Denmark finally showed the tax rates in Denmark where Bernie admitted he would have to raise everyone's taxes but went on a rant about free shit. He never said how much he would have to raise, he never said how his policies would be implemented. He just kept dodging the issue and when pushed he went on a rant with his talking points. "Even when I disagree with Bernie, like when he only runs positive issue based campaigns" He has called Trump a bigot numerous times in his campaign and has attacked rich people. "As for Vitter, I want her to answer questions on all cases. Don't you? Don't you want to get actual answers? " It is a trap question and here is why. If she answered yes or no they would ask her on more controversial cases such as Roe v Wade. Also, her opinion is irrelevant as she has to rule based on rulings from SC cases. As a lower court judge she has to rule based on rulings done by the SC in the past. So with her answer being irrelevant she nipped the issue in the butt. I saw the answer as being correct. " The fact that she did this evasive bs on Brown v Board, something we all agree with" Ok, what about Roe v Wade? Not so clear now.
1
Raizhen010, to add, you complain about politician like answers, what about politician like questions? Bernie has been very guilty of this as well. But what I mean are questions that are trap questions, or loaded questions. This one was clearly that. There are two sides to the coin here.
1
"Bernie doesn't agree with the notion that raising the minimum wage raises prices higher than the wage hike and studies have shown that to be true." There is more to it. You also have reduction of hours for example. Businesses usually reduce hours first as raising prices will mean less customers. Business owners diversify their resources for that reason. You create a situation where say a franchise owner of 15 McDonalds will cut down to 10 McDonalds. He will still own 10 McDonalds and will save money by cutting down leading to less jobs. So I will agree it isn't as easy as prices will go up, but as numerous studies have shown nothing positive has ever come from a min. wage increase on the large scale. As for the study they have 5 points in their summary. A couple points are that a large min. wage increase leads to higher prices. A greater than 100% price increase in the min. wage is a large increase as it has never been raised that high recently. Next, they say varying results when looking at federal, state and local cases. Bernie was citing cities likes Seattle and San Fran for his justification where this very study showed that what happens in the city differs from what happens federally. Also, while I have not read the paper closely, but the paper does get into detail of the effect of jobs and how that influences prices like I did. As I said, someone going from 15 restaurants to 10 can keep prices the same. They just made up for the cost by reducing the price of labor. There is also the point that if you raise the min. wage to $15/hr you have people making, say $15.10/hr. They are not getting a raise but now prices have gone up. That paper did say prices do go up in the end. "I followed Bernie Sanders closely during the campaign and you're just wrong about the tax issue. He said time and time again taxes will go up for nearly everyone but that healthcare costs will go down." I followed him closely as well. I did not see him say that at all. Cruz pushed Bernie and Bernie did not admit it. Bernie kept saying the rich will pay. Even on Bill Maher's show Bernie refused to admit that he will raise taxes on everyone, he said only the rich will pay. "Bernie really doesn't like the employer based healthcare system and neither do progressives, but if that's the system we're going to have then every employer must participate." The employer base system exist because of the payroll tax which was a "progressive" action. Bernie wants to raise the tax. Also, why must every employer participate? That is the problem. "Progressives" created this environment with the payroll tax and then create more laws forcing employers to do things they cannot afford. What makes it worse in Bernie's case is that he does not care about the situation the business is in. He literally says "screw you, pay up". Bill Clinton, in his remarks to Cain, at least showed he understood how a business operates and that his new law will influence prices and expense. Bernie had no desire to do that. The only thing he suggested was that it would lead to higher prices which harms the poor, the very people he is trying to help. "He said time and time again taxes will go up for nearly everyone but that healthcare costs will go down." Nothing suggests healthcare costs will go down. It makes zero sense economically to say that increasing demand while keeping supply the same will lead to lower cost. "How else are we going to get to universal quality coverage?" With innovation and by incentivizing becoming a doctor. Reality is, though, that every nation has limited resources. No nation covers everyone unless they are very small and very rich. Resources are limited and as of now there will always be people that are not covered. Read the paper entitled "The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine" in the journal Chest. You want to cover everyone, so do I. My way is more realistic. Your way is to "cover" everyone on paper while many people wait on waiting lists and end up dying. Your way clogs the system to where less people get covered in all reality. But you say that everyone is "covered" as, on paper, they are. But what happens on paper and in reality are not true. Compare it to this, on paper everyone has access to a K-12 education. However, due to limited resources, many students in rural areas are no offered AP courses. But on paper they have a high school education just like someone from a larger city with access to numerous AP courses. Are they equal? On paper they are, but in reality they aren't. " I'm sure you wouldn't argue for private fire insurance for this very reason" Many cities have private fire departments. Fire departments are locally ran and funded and around 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. Also, the fire department puts out the fire, it does not buy you a new home. "Trump is a bigot. " How? You have to give me examples. Trump is the same person who allowed a woman to live in one of his hotel for free after her family was murder to protect her. He has appeared on TV shows and movies with many minorities like Fresh Prince for example. "and was successfully sued for not renting to African Americans." That was not him but the management of that apartment complex. He owns many businesses and cannot micromanage all of them. When the issue was brought up he ended up taking it to court because, like in all cases, the person pressing charges is asking for a large amount of money and Trump was going to fight it to settle for a smaller amount. It was a case he was going to lose from the beginning, and he knew that. But he fought it and settled for a smaller amount. That was not him, though, enforcing that policy. "he said during the campaign like calling most Mexicans coming across the border rapists and criminals." He said illegals who are criminals. As for being rapist, I would agree, they aren't. However, he is being a politician at that point. Just like when Bernie makes the assumption that all min. wage workers are poor when they aren't. Or that they are working full time jobs when they aren't. He is exaggerating things to rally voters. Welcome to politicians. He did not say all Mexicans though, he said only illegals. " The right wing views what papers to you read as a gotcha. Just answer the damn question. And her opinion on Brown v Board of Education is certainly relevant since we don't want someone biased against minorities ruling on issues that predominately impact minorities." We want justices to rule based on the law, the Constitution and based on prior cases. Her answer is irrelevant. If you have actual proof that she ruled on a case in a bias way than point it out and it can be handled in an appropriate way. In this case the SC would take charge. The question was a trap question. "Just talk like a normal person and answer questions" At that level it isn't that easy as any words you use can be used against you for political gain. You are doing it yourself with Trump. You are twisting his words to smear him. You are twisting stories to smear him. Welcome to the world of politics.
1
" Raising wages increases profit for businesses because people have more money to spend." Huh? How? Those businesses have to pay more. There is no guarantee that others will spend more at that business. Also, if those individuals are so quick to spend their money then they are poor for a reason. They should save and invest it. You cited work that said prices went up. That is the point. How do you stop prices from going up? Any price increase hurts me as I am on salary. A min. wage increase does not raise my salary. " He had exactly how each policy was going to be paid for written down in detail on his website and answered questions about paying for his policies time and time again" I read his website. It was vague. Also, he ignores increase in demand. Take, for example, tuition free college. You increase demand for college you will increase prices. In fact, the college loan program is what cause tuition to go up to begin with. Bernie wants to make it worse. Saying "tax the rich" is not an argument. "Red states have continued to slash education time and time again and we base funding on education on property tax rates. Since the wealthy pay more in property tax, their schools are funded far more than schools in poor neighborhoods. That's the root of the issue with education. It's also a large part of the reason why teachers are now striking across the country. You can only push people so far before they finally stand up." There are several components to that. To start, the idea of property taxes funding education is so that schools can improve internally attracting people with money. Next, Title I schools receive a lot of federal dollars. Also, there have been cuts due to the most recent recession. States, unlike the federal government, has to balance a budget. Education is typically the largest portion of a state's budget. What do you think will be cut? There are several problems to the education system, I agree. But to me it is the unions that care more about dollars than actually encouraging teachers to work for the kids and community. "Progressives are the ones who want to free up employers to not provide healthcare by moving to a single payer system like nearly all of the rest of the world has" We can also do that by removing the payroll tax. Why not that way? You want more government. I am saying government created the problem, so why add more? " You're the one who wants to ration care based on income. Progressives want to do it based on need." Need, like in Canada where people died waiting for "elective" heart surgery. Read the papers "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “ "Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart "I like how you ignored the fact that Trump wanted to execute innocent black men for a crime they did not commit after he knew they were innocent. " When? Also, he has no authority in that case, so it is irrelevant. "On that alone, he's a racist piece of crap." I felt OJ Simpson was guilty, but I guess that makes me racist. "Also, he's a politician so that excuses the Mexicans are rapists and criminals line? " Again, illegal Mexicans, not all. They are criminals by definition at the very least. "This is on top of calling for a blatant Muslim ban " Read the law, never happened. Again, look at the difference between talking like a politician and actions. He never put in place a "Muslim ban". " Or going 1MPH over the speed limit? In that case, you would be a criminal too. We all would." You are, but 1 MPH over is not even a misdemeanor. Illegal immigration is much worse. "Volunteer fire departments existing does not change the fact that fire service is a public service we all receive. " Again, many are private. Also, it shows that we lack funds for a fire department so many places need volunteers. Do you want volunteer doctors? You see the same issue in K-12 education. You need many volunteers due to lack of funds and workers. Taxing the rich more does not help either. Many places just don't have the fund period. "Please tell me you're not in favor of fire service only for those that pay for a private fire service. That's not only absurdly immoral, but ridiculously stupid as well. You'd have entire towns and cities burning to the ground because one family didn't have fire insurance for whatever reason plus competing fire companies fighting over hydrant use." Again, many cities do it already with no problems. "I still don't know if you're in favor of the Brown v Board of Education decision" I am to the point. I feel it should have repealed Plessy v Ferguson. But besides that the decision was correct. What's your point? " Even John Roberts said he was in favor of the decision during his hearing, btw. " When he was in running for SC justice. He has the ability to overturn SC rulings. This justice does not. She will work in the lower courts and must obey SC rules. Different situations all together.
1
"It raises profits because people have more money to spend that typically overrides the increased cost in labor. " That is not true. If someone produces only $8/hr than they will only produce that much product. If people have more money than demand goes up, but not supply. So prices have to go up. You are not increasing productivity. You may go on an say "hire more people" but they only produce $8/hr as well. Now you are overpaying. That is costing a business money. You can't consume what you don't produce. If people have more money that does not mean productivity goes up. In fact, productivity will stay the same as people were given raises who did not deserve it. If the company does not have anything to sell than no one can buy it and their profits do not go up. Also, if you want to go that route just skip the middle man. Just give people checks for $50,000. "Yes, prices went up, but they went up far less than the wage increase itself was. " What happen to labor hours? Again, there is more to this. If a company can cut hours they will before raising prices. " I also don't find it all that compelling that someone who is already doing well has to pay a few cents more per item complaining about that when other people struggle just to put food on the table." That few cents add up. Restaurants around my city raised prices and I stopped eating out. Why? I cannot afford it. Same goes for others. " I'd gladly pay an extra ten cents for my burger so someone can make a living wage." That's you. How about you just tip them. "You're still misstating or misremembering Bernie's policies because he had exactly how he would pay for everyone on his website down to the percentage tax increases. " He doesn't. Picking one at random. "Decent paying jobs". To start, define "decent". Next, he says "putting 13 million Americans to work". Who? What kind of skills do they have? Just giving people jobs is not a solution. He is talking about infrastructure. Do all those 13 million have that experience? He went on and talked about the cost of $1 trillion, but never says how he will pay for it. Right there, picking one at random, he does not say how he will pay for it. Where will that $1 trillion come from? "The issue with cutting education is you're not investing in the future." Eh, debatable. There are many ways to invest in education. Also, education comes from the individual and families. Just throwing money at it is not a solution. If the student does not care or the parents than nothing happens. "We literally have schools that are physically falling apart in many areas and that's why so many teachers are fed up with it and have demanded more funding without taking no for an answer. " So you are saying a government program is failing? What a shocker. And you want more government? That aside, many schools are falling apart, a main reason why is because of the students. Students don't take care of the schools. I work for the public school system. I see many textbooks, that are only a couple years old, torn apart. My city built a new high school and within a year the students destroyed it. You know what I say about that? Fuck them. They don't care so I don't care. "So you found one story about someone dying from a wait list. " Not a story, a peer reviewed study of numerous people dying. I suggest you read that paper. "In the United States nearly 50K die each year due to a lack of health insurance. The scale just isn't the same and it's misleading to pretend that they are the same." I was waiting for that. That is deceptive. To start, 50,000 is around 0.01% of the total population. That is minute. I have shown you that numerous people have died on waiting lists for heart surgery only in Canada. Point to me a study that does a comparison between the US and other countries. You can't find one as no one has done such as study. That makes that 50,000 an empty number as it has no comparison. Also, those individuals are poor and there are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor. All of that self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of healthcare or due to being in bad health to begin with? "Are you comparing OJ Simpson, a man who wrote a book on how he would have committed the murders he was accused of, to the Central Park Five, who we KNOW are innocent thanks to DNA evidence? " To a degree yes. You brought race into it. There was nothing racist with what Trump said. "And again, no they don't with fire departments. " They exist in AZ and TN. That is something you can easily look up. This is a very basic fact you need to know. " If not, be aware that just one person not have fire insurance means your entire community could burn to the ground without an issue" Not true. In 2010 a home caught on fire in Obion County, TN. The fire department showed up only to make sure neighboring property, of people who do pay the fee, did not catch on fire. Their town is not going up in flames. Anyway, the issue of fire departments is asinine. They are ran locally. You are pushing for more federal government and federal government take over of 1/6 of our economy (healthcare) by pointing to fire departments. Really? "Again Brown v Board of Education is not a controversial case. There is no reason to avoid answering a question about it for any nominee." Slippery slope. She answers that than they ask her about other cases that are controversial.
1
"You know that fire department was sued because the neighbor's property was damaged right and it was damaged precisely because the fire department didn't do its job and put out the fire before that happened." They were sued by the paying neighbor, not by the home owner. Big difference. "This backs up my point, not yours. " It doesn't. They weren't sued for the home owner who's house burned but for the neighbor who did pay for the services.
1
Raizhen010, they were sued as they did not serve a person who paid them. You can control fires very easily. They failed at that. As for NYC, that is a city with more resources and a higher incentive to have a government run fire department. Compare it to K-12 schools. In cities they have more resources to offer AP courses where rural areas don't
1
Raizhen010, fires are easy to control in that situation. I am not talking about a forest fire in CA (where those are even controlled in many cases). That guy did not pay so his house burned down. Just like if you don't pay for food at a grocery store you don't get food. Or if you don't pay rent you get kicked out.
1
Raizhen010, also, you are ignoring the bigger picture. You are looking at expanding the federal government by pointing at local programs where most of the workers are volunteer and some places have private systems even though you said that was not true. What is shown here is that I understand the issues more than you. I proved to you private fire departments exist and I showed you a situation where Bernie does not explain how he will pay for a program.
1
Raizhen010, house fires are easy to control as you have concrete that can stop it from spreading. As I said, we can control forest fires from spreading. In my hometown a hardware store caught on fire. With all that paint and oil they could not put it out. All they could do was let it burn and stop it from spreading. They kept it contained to that area, but did not put it out. It had to put itself out. " And again stop pretending volunteer fire fighters are the same thing as a private fire department. " They essentially are. They are not paid. "We had this in the past and it lead to fire departments literally fighting over fire hydrants and lettings homes burn to the ground." And? That was in the past. We have adjusted. Also, when did I ever say I supported private fire departments? I am simply saying they exist and nowhere are we seeing cities burn to the ground. They exist as they are ran locally and many local areas have it so they are private or ran by volunteers. Those situations exist due to limited resources. Just like in many public schools they don't offer AP courses. Or in many rural areas they don't have stop signs on their roads. You are pushing for a federally ran healthcare system by pointing to locally ran programs, many of which are ran differently. Your argument is flawed.
1
The question was pointless. It was over 60 years ago and is the law. Her opinion is irrelevant. The question was a loaded question for two reasons 1. It is political and justices cannot be political. 2. If she made an opinion on that case then you start going into other cases. People will ask her about DC v Heller, and Roe v. Wade, and Casey v. PP, etc. That places her in a bad spot overall as she is supposed to rule on future cases based on the Constitution, the law and previous cases.
1
Remember how leftists continue to show a complete lack of understanding of the role of justices? This is that exactly.
1
Leftists want justices to write laws, that is not their job.
1
Ylze Tyr, she is there to rule based on previous rulings, especially SC rulings as she will be working in the lower courts. Her opinion is irrelevant as she is supposed to rule based on those previous cases. If she does not rule based on those previous cases she is writing laws. Say a justice said they disagreed with the Obergefell v Hodges ruling. At that point it can be argued that in future rulings regarding gay marriage they would rule against gay marriage even though they are not allowed to legally. They will be creating new laws if they did.
1
Ylze Tyr, to add if she were to answer either yes or not to that question then they would have asked her about other court cases that were highly controversial. In the end she is there to rule based on the law, the Constitution and previous cases. This is a situation where a legislature will push her by saying "you will get my vote if you rule in may favor no matter what the law is". Compare it to the time Dianne Feinstein asked Gorsuch about DC v Heller and his opinion on it. Gorsuch said clearly that case was the standard to go off of. Feinstein was pushing him to say that he would be in support of ban on certain guns and would rule in that way which would be him creating laws. That is not his job.
1
Ok, she says "yes", than the next question is "Do you support the ruling on Roe v Wade?" Not so clear now.
1
Ylze Tyr, you are changing the topic. I never said if I agreed or disagreed with homosexual marriage. My point was that her opinion on previous court cases is irrelevant as she is supposed to rule on cases based on the ruling of previous cases. She stopped the situation of being asked questions right there and then.
1
"ok that’s what said on paper. But nearly all modern SCOTUS picks have clear political leanings." Yes, every justice has a political leaning. However, they are not allowed to rule on it. Do they? Yes, but it isn't clear. If it were clear they would be removed. "And Brown v Board of Education is one the most obviously good decisions the Court has ever done" Doesn't matter. The question was a trap question. If she said no she would be labeled as a racist. If she said yes she would be labeled as an activist who is bias. Her opinion on it is irrelevant as she was not a judge on that case. As a justice she needs to make rulings based on the Constitution, the law, and based on previous court cases. Brown v. Board is done, it was settled over 60 years ago and is the standard to go of off. Her opinion is irrelevant.
1
Cynthia, Trump was never in trouble for racist policies in renting. What happened in that apartment was not due to Trump but due to his managers. He was not aware of what was going on because he ran numerous businesses and does not have time to micromanage, no one does. He took the case to court because he did not want to give away a lot of money. The case was eventually settled. What happened was due to another workers at that place doing what was not correct and Trump only went to court to bring the settlement down to a more reasonable level.
1
Trump is the same person who allowed a black woman to live for free in one of his apartments after her family was murder.
1
fishlove69, other black individuals have lived in his apartments.
1
"Basically she was asked whether she thinks segregation is wrong. " No she wasn't. She was asked for her opinion on a court case. Her opinion is irrelevant as it was settled years ago. "One can answer "yes" to that without being accused of being an "activist". " In her position she can't because that would mean she would have opinions on other cases that would influence her decision. This is similar to Gorsuch being asked about DC v Heller. Gorsuch, correctly, said that case set the standard for him and other justices to go off of. You want justices to rule based on the law, Constitution and previous cases. That is the standard. You leftists want justices to just write laws which is not their job. If being correct and having standards disappoints your than I don't care. That is your problem.
1
"And your argument, that then she has to tell her thoughts on every other case too when asked, is a slippery slope." So? Why do we have a Constitution with clear rights given to the people? It was to set a standard to prevent slippery slope. Again, you want to do away with checks and balances and just have justices write laws. You want to push for a dictatorship in all reality.
1
"it's a simple yes or no not everything in life has to have a ill intentions" In this case and at that level it does. I can only assume you have never been at that level in anything in your life. If you were you would see that anything you say will be used against you. Look at this. In my opinion she answered this question correctly. Here you have ultra leftists calling her a racist based on her answer. If she answer yes or no it would be used against her as well.
1
Leinja, let me give a similar situation to show what the situation really is. I support freedom of speech. I do not support the KKK. Now if you were to ask me is I support the message from the KKK I would say no. Now if you were to ask me if I support the KKK's right to free speech I would say yes. Now say I were a justice in the position to become a federal judge. Say someone were to ask me if I support the message of the KKK. If I were to say yes I would be labeled as a racist. If I were to say no I would be labeled as an activist that will use my judicial power to silence groups I don't agree with. Thus the best approach would be to not answer the question, or simply say that I support freedom of speech. You see the point I am making?
1
Richard Mancha, to answer your question on homosexual marriage, there are several arguments against it. One is that if government should be tied to marriage to begin with? Now justices cannot make laws, so they cannot make that. Next, is marriage even a Constitutional right? Arguably it isn't. So they can rule against it based on the fact that there is not right to marriage. One can argue for equality based on the 14th amendment. But one can argue the case in why should married people get special benefits to begin with as that also violates the 14th amendment. There are several arguments against it that does not involve any feelings which is why it was a 5-4 decision. You say that nothing in the Constitution bans homosexual marriage. Well, nothing bans murder as well in the Constitution. Also, homosexual marriage was never banned, ever. It just wasn't recognized by law. On that point, homosexual marriage was no recognized by law. Thus it can be argued that the states should be the deciding factor in this situation if they have a vested interest in allowing homosexual marriage or not. It is similar Casey v PP where it was ruled that states can outlaw abortion based on certain situations if the had a vested interest in doing so. There are several cases and situations were it was left up to the states. Take Michigan State Department of Police v Sitz. The court, in the end, left DUI checkpoints to the states even though one can argue DUI checkpoints violate the 4th amendment. The same can be said about homosexual marriage. One can argue that not recognizing it violates the 14th amendment, but one can also argue that it should be left up to the states. Again, that is why there was a 5-4 ruling. Now with her and Brown v Board, her opinion is irrelevant. It was a decision made long ago. If she said no to the answer she would have been labeled a racist. If she would have said yes, or even saying no, she would be labeled as an activist that will rule in cases despite previous cases making clear ruling in the opposite. She would be labeled as an activist that will want to use her judicial powers to overturn previous cases in some way. She will have not logic or reasoning behind her decisions. And with logic and reasoning I mean using the Constitution or other court cases and laws. .
1
Ricard Mancha, there is a lot to this. You may say I am rude when I am not. You just can't see that this is not a black or white issue when in reality there is a lot of gray to it.
1
"If you support KKK, you are not fit to be a judge." Why not? You have to break that down. If a judge supports the KKK but rules based on the Constitution and previous cases without bias, wouldn't that be OK? Judges are there to interpret laws, not create them. Most of the times their views should not matter and typically don't.
1
" Its the law of the land.. Its like asking s police officer what they think about homicide.. They are not there to give their opinion but to enforce the law." That is correct. This is similar to Ted Cruz when he was AG. He was criticized for supporting a ban on dildos. In reality he was just enforcing and existing law created by the legislatures. It wasn't if he support the ban or not. He was simply doing his assigned job. I bring this up because Kyle preaches about fact checking. He brought this situation up so I fact checked it where it was ruled "mostly false". I just find Kyle and his fan's hypocrisy funny. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ted-cruz-opposed-self-pleasuring/
1
"Yeah, if you support the KKK then you have a predisposed bias against minorities." As long as it does not influence your ruling why should you be denied a job? Everyone has a bias in some way. Justices are trained to put them aside when making rulings. Even if they don't, at times, you have more than one justice for a reason. And if they show a bias and it is clear they are removed. You can't just condemn anyone until they do something illegal or something that violates some rule. This is in line with due process.
1
" you literally just argued that government should not be involved in marriage and that government should be involved in marriage. " There are arguments for both. That is what I am saying. You feel that the homosexual marriage issue should be clear and question why it was a 5-4 ruling when in reality it is not clear. There are many arguments for both sides. I can argue both sides as I am aware of the issue. "you also just argued that the constitution does not illegal prevent murder even though theoretically it does last I checked if a person is killing someone that is a violation that persons liberty to live" The Constitution places limitations on government. It is the framework in how government is to work. Let me use another example, speed limits. Nothing in the Constitution allows that but we have them. In many places we don't. Same with driving. That is a state law. Many states can remove that privilege. Doing so can be argued to remove the pursuit of happiness. "f fact that is a common argument made by anti abortionist which grudgingly does make sense " I agree, it makes sense. One can argue that government is there to preserve life and I would agree with that as well which is why murder laws exist. My point is this. You used homosexual marriage as an example when that example does not support your stance.
1
" Yeah, good luck proving to the Judiciary Committee that you can put aside your bias if you are a member of the KKK. " I agree, that would be challenging which is why it is wise for people in that position not to be apart of that group. To use another situation for an example, I am a sports official looking to work at the college ranks. They tell us to be very careful with social media as any little thing can be used against us. "Yes, we have more than one justice for a reason but that doesn't mean we should allow a bigot onto the bench" But you have to prove they are a bigot, that they will rule in a bias way. "Sorry, she isn't qualified." How? You have not given any reasons why she is not qualified.
1
"Yes, but ruling without bias with such extreme views is unlikely, if not impossible." Why?
1
" your argument was that was that a Justice should not and does not vote by how they feel." They do, but they have to justify their stance based on the Constitution and previous court rulings. "The example adequately proved that the justice's that voted against voted by their beliefs and feelings and the arguments you tried to counter with regardless of the fact that it made no sense still prove my premise just in reverse where the justice's in favor still voted by there feelings." They can justify their stance citing the Constitution and previous court cases. That is the point. To be opposed to recognizing homosexual marriage by law with zero justification is not how justices should act. I gave you several reasons why one can oppose recognizing gay marriage by law and I pointed to the Constitution and other court cases. The 5-4 decision was expected based on the many argument for and against homosexual marriage.
1
" I was going to leave made an entirely new argument against the constitutional rights to live argument and than immediately said you agreed with the right to live argument. your logic is vexing and contradictory." I agreed that it was an argument one can make. Did I say I agreed completely? No. You need to read my entire argument. I am presenting arguments from both sides. I did that with homosexual marriage. That is why it was a 5-4 vote. I looked at these issues so deeply that I can argue for both sides if needed. That is what an intellectual does.
1
Richard, why are you bringing up the supremacy clause? But if you want to go that route there is a reason why states had the option to expand medicaid. Roberts' decision was controversial in that he change the "fine" to a "tax". He re-wrote the law. Besides that point, Roberts is correct, there is nothing unconstitutional in the ACA. It is also arguable that healthcare is not the responsibilities of the federal government. There are arguments on both sides. That is why we have lawyers and justices. That is why we have three branches of government and checks and balances. It is to prevent one side gaining in too much power.
1
"you have to have a position you can't make two arguments. " I do have one. However, this conversation started with homosexual marriage and how you claim that justices do vote based on how the feel. I showed you that is not true and both sides can use logic and reasoning. Also, a part of picking a side is looking at both sides and understanding both. I do that when deciding what I should support. Again, that is what an intellectual does.
1
Richard, you started out by saying justices go off of feelings alone and no logic and reasoning. That is not true.
1
Richard, I had other projects to work ong. You are moving the goal posts. Here is what you said "There is a second part to this logic and that is what is dictating her vote? reasoning or logic does not need to be accurate or the reality of circumstances. How about an example. Let's say the supreme court had a case concerning the recognition of homosexual marriage in the U.S. as many states did not recognize homosexual and could not be married. Hypothetically and according to your logic they should all vote in favor as they are not suppose to let their beliefs or feelings influence their vote. After all liberty and the pursuit of happiness is what the government was established to accomplish according to the constitution. As long as it does not contradict any thing else in the constitution. I also know there is not any clause or sections of the constitution that bans homosexual marriage. I also know the the U.S. is a majority Christian nation and that every Justice of the time was Christian and that the bible consider homosexuality an abomination. So why did four of the nine justice's vote against it? simply they voted how they felt about it." You are saying that justices voted for how they feel and had not standard in voting the way they did. They did have a standard though and I pointed out many reasons why justices voted against homosexual marriage. The idea of leaving it to the states with many court cases, and the 10th amendment supporting that. The idea that marriage is not a right based on the fact that is not written anywhere in the Constitution. You are pushing the idea that justices vote with their feelings alone and you used the case of homosexual marriage as an example as you see not reason to vote against it. I gave you reasons why they could. Do they use their feelings? Yes. They are human. But they have to cite some standard in their reasoning either the Constitution or previous cases. That was my point. Your point was that justices don't have to which is incorrect. Again, you moved the goal posts.
1
Zurround100, look up the Dover v Penn case. They can't teach that.
1
Lizica Dumitru, if she would have said either yes or not to that question two things would have happened 1. they would have asked her opinion on other cases that were controversial 2.She would be labeled as an activist. That means if she would have said no to Roe v Wade that means any case involving abortion she would have been pushed off of as it is arguable that she will rule on a case that goes against the Roe v Wade ruling. Her giving opinions on previous cases creates that environment and would have been grounds for denying her a position as a justice.
1
Richard, I have an actual position. You are the one that keeps moving the goal posts. I am simply showing you how justices act and why. It isn't my fault you lack understanding of law and the legal system. This situation was similar to when Gorsuch was asked about DC v Heller. He said correctly that ruling set the standard for judges to go off of. He did not say he agreed with it or not. He said it was a settled case and the standard to go off of.
1
"Obviously she was trying to avoid the question for some reason. I just didn't gather from the video what it might have been." She said why she would not answer it. It leads to a slippery slope. As I said, she gives an opinion on that they start asking her about other court cases where she will have to answer at that point. She made it clear she would not give her opinion on any court cases from the past. For example, she gives an opinion on Brown v Board and says yes. The person answering the question is smart so ask about DC v Heller, a 5-4 decision. She says yes. They ask about Roe v Wade where she refuses to answer. At that point the person asking the question will destroy her in saying that she gave opinions about other cases and now is refusing to on that one. It will not go well for her and she will be denied the justice position. It was a trap question and she avoided the trap.
1
"As this was a simple yes or no question. " Nothing is a simple yes or no question at that level. Even if she went into her logic (the person asking the questions might not let her) it sets the grounds to ask about other court cases that have been settled. It was a trap question.
1
Richard, to add, this conversation wasn't about my position on the issues. If you want that conversation we can have it. It was about why justice act the way they do. I gave valid points and you twisted the conversation to make it look like I did not have a position on something, in this case homosexual marriage. I do have a position on it. However, that was not the conversation. The conversation was how you can have a 5-4 ruling and I showed how both sides can rule while citing other court cases and the Constitution. You did what Kyle did to this justice. You took a valid answer and twisted it to make me look bad. Just like Kyle took a valid answer and made this justice look like a racist.
1
"Your argument is that the supreme court must make a verdict by objectivity. " No, they to make decisions based on support, either through the Constitution, law or previous court cases. " Does due process and equal rights applies (this is the argument) to homosexual Marriage (this is the framing)." Yes. ". Now the Supreme court has ruled in favor of similar issues we should consider Scalia's record on homosexual cases he voted against all of them regardless of argument being presented in the case." There are arguments on both sides. But let us go back to your argument of due process and equal rights. Marriage is not a right to start, thus no due process is needed as denying homosexual marriage is not denying any rights. Also, as I mentioned earlier, homosexual marriage we never illegal to begin with, it just wasn't recognized by law. You should read Scalia's dissenting opinion on that Obergefell v Hodges case. He cites numerous amendments and court cases. He wasn't just making a ruling based on how he felt. He had support from the Constitution and previous cases. You are claiming he doesn't. You are claiming that the people who ruled in the majority of the homosexual case had objective reasoning and people like Scalia didn't. He did. " That is objectively not accurate I could have pick the cases concerning jim crow and how the Supreme court deemed many jim crow laws constitutional, because again your Hypothesis was that the supreme court justice's vote not from reason of belief or feeling" Jim Crow ruling was based on state rights. Again, objective and in the Constitution. "I am saying that the supreme court justice's have also voted subjectively" When they write an opinion they have to cite other court cases and the Constitution. You are making it sound like they don't. You are making it sound like that Scalia did not have a Constitutional, nor legal argument to oppose gay marriage. He did.
1
Richard, the legal system seems to be something you struggle with, so here is a link to Scalia's opinion on Obergerfell v Hodges https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-556/dissent5.html
1
"k. If you can prove to all of us with certainty that she will decide her vote without bias than she should be on the court, but you can't prove this, " It is not my job to prove it. I am not voting for her nor am I on the panel. You have to look at previous court cases. Also, you are the one claiming she will be bias. Point to me where she will be? Again, look at previous court cases.
1
So "ruler" means "god" to you? You do enjoy moving the goal posts. " It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court." What me means by "ruler" are the 9 justices. Not God.
1
"You wouldn't use my ruler to define the Supreme court because they aren't." He did as they just set a precedent when it comes to marriage and laws regarding it.
1
Richard, one can argue that married people should not receive tax breaks as that is favoring one culture in society. Also, marriage is not a right. One can also argue that homosexuality is an action as opposed to race which is someone's genetic make up. What I mean by that is someone is black based on genetic factor, mainly the color of their skin. Thus the government cannot discriminate base on race. Homosexuality requires an action though. Yes, one may be born to be attracted to the same sex, but homosexual marriage is the action. You need an action at that point. The argument can be made that gays were always be allowed to get married and be recognized by law, it just had to be with the opposite sex. " the 14 should not apply to homosexuality because the people of the time didn't intend for that is a ridiculous argument" It is not as you have to look at when the law was created. It was so blacks can be given equal rights.
1
Richard, you say it is a "ridiculous argument" as you have no argument against it. You just wave it off as if it is not an argument. This is why you do not practice law have little understanding of it.
1
Richard, it is not contradictory as being black is your physical makeup, your genetics. Homosexual marriage is an action. Gays were always allowed to marry and have it recognized, it just had to be with the opposite sex. That is the argument. Not saying I agree but it is a legit point. There is a difference between an action and a race.
1