Amy Coney Barrett

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Being against killing innocent babies =/ being against meting out justice and executing someone who has gang-raped a 16 year old bludgeoned, poured gasoline and then buried alive to asphyxiate to death. We are allowed to use our brains and utilize subjective reasoning in determining differences, nuances, and differing circumstances across every situation. We aren't being run by machine learning robots completely yet, after all.

It sounds like people are really stretching to grasp at straws to make this lady a demon hypocrite here, but it just comes off as foolish and desperate, given these particular circumstances.

Your first point is understood. 

Your second point is bullshit, both in the strawman you create as well as given what she allegedly wrote about recusal. 

Edited November 20, 2020 by tantric superman

[JimmyJames 12271]

I used to be in favor of the death penalty. The conviction and death sentence of Robert Springsteen in the yogurt shop murders eventually being overturned, correctly in my opinion, led me to the conclusion that there is no doubt innocent people who have been murdered by the state of Texas. Of which I am a citizen. 
 

This guy probably deserved it, but I don’t trust criminal prosecutions enough to allow for a death sentence in all cases. Life in prison with no possibility of parole is punishment enough. 

[Continental Op 3934]

Everyone's answer to the question of "Am I in favor of the death penalty?" should be the same as the answer to the question of "Would I feel really good about being tried by a Williamson County jury for a capital crime I did not commit?"  

 

[Brisketexan 104628]

2 minutes ago, Continental Op said:

Everyone's answer to the question of "Am I in favor of the death penalty?" should be the same as the answer to the question of "Would I feel really good about being tried by a Williamson County jury for a capital crime I did not commit?"  

 

[hayden_horn 11360]

10 minutes ago, Continental Op said:

Everyone's answer to the question of "Am I in favor of the death penalty?" should be the same as the answer to the question of "Would I feel really good about being tried by a Williamson County jury for a capital crime I did not commit?"  

 

this is amazing

[High Plains Drifter 10978]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's the thing.....she'll feel a deep, religious, and moral obligation to act on matters that just so happen to align with her POLITICAL beliefs....yet won't be troubled by a deep, religious, and moral obligation to act on matters that do NOT align with her political beliefs.

Once you accept that for "conservatives," "religious faith" is just a sheet to cloak whatever they want to do with sacred religious legitimacy, then you will understand all of their actions.  Faith doesn't drive their actions.  It excuses them and insulates them from criticism.  That's it.

 

In other words, they use the bible to justify their actions and beliefs, instead of using the bible to guide their actions and beliefs.

 

[Brisketexan 104628]

2 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

In other words, they use the bible to justify their actions and beliefs, instead of using the bible to guide their actions and beliefs.

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

8 hours ago, Continental Op said:

Everyone's answer to the question of "Am I in favor of the death penalty?" should be the same as the answer to the question of "Would I feel really good about being tried by a Williamson County jury for a capital crime I did not commit?"  

 

Damn this is such a good answer. Bravo.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Although in fairness to Wilco it’s definitely changed over the years to the point where both Beto and Biden won the county.

But as far as law and order I don’t know. Hard to say but I can tell you you did not want to commit a crime there in the 70s through 90s, unless you thought possession of a dime bag merited a 20 year jail sentence.

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

Dean Koontz talked me out of believing in the death penalty in a couple of his works of fiction from a moral perspective when describing the tragedy of ending a life before god has made the determination its over. That’s a philosophical point though. 
from a practical perspective I was against the death penalty by the time I was in my mid 20’s due to lack of faith in the system to get it right every time. 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Although in fairness to Wilco it’s definitely changed over the years to the point where both Beto and Biden won the county.

But as far as law and order I don’t know. Hard to say but I can tell you you did not want to commit a crime there in the 70s through 90s, unless you thought possession of a dime bag merited a 20 year jail sentence.

I suppose it is in part due to demographics changing to a more "enlightened" population.

But it is kind of reassuring that the electorate took notice of the bullshit going down in Wilco and made changes.  Repeatedly.

[WBT 20422]

8 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

This guy probably deserved it, but I don’t trust criminal prosecutions enough to allow for a death sentence in all cases. Life in prison with no possibility of parole is punishment enough. 

That's always felt like a copout to me.  As if society should be any happier with an innocent person serving life without parole.

I don't have any answers though.  From listening to voir dire when called for jury duty (I've never been selected), the prospect of a jury in any way affecting my life is frightening.  The world seems to be full of bootlicking morons that will believe anything a cop/prosecutor tells them.

[JimmyJames 12271]

11 minutes ago, WBT said:

That's always felt like a copout to me.  As if society should be any happier with an innocent person serving life without parole.

I don't have any answers though.  From listening to voir dire when called for jury duty (I've never been selected), the prospect of a jury in any way affecting my life is frightening.  The world seems to be full of bootlicking morons that will believe anything a cop/prosecutor tells them.

I don’t do criminal law but I’ve seen enough to know this.

The more heinous the crime, the more likely a jury believes right from the start that the accused did it.

Probably 90-95 percent of the time that intuition is correct. But not always. And then it becomes a game of chance dependent on who winds up on the jury as to whether or not they get it right.

My personal belief is this. When it comes to death, whether it be the death penalty or abortion, the state should stay away for the most parts because the state doesn’t always get it right.

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Great concise statement of the issues.

As a callow youth, I thought the death penalty was A-Ok.  

That actually started to change because of a joke Jack Ratliff told in Texas Civil Procedure in 1989.  The joke was during a voir dire the prosecutor asked if anyone would have problems imposing a death sentence.  One venireman raised his hand and asked "They do that down in Huntsville, right?" To which the prosecutor replied, "Yes, sir, that's correct."  And the potential juror said, "Well, I suppose if they do it on a weekend or I could get off work, I'd be ok with it."

For the first time, I considered whether I personally could vote to impose the death penalty.  And mentally, I balked.  From that point forward, I have looked askance at the death penalty and the information I have gathered supports my internal belief that I want nothing to do with it and for me, it is just wrong.

Same here that I was pro death penalty back in my younger days, but as it became more and more obvious that we executed innocent people my view changed 180 degrees.  The old addage that it's better to let 1,000,000 guilty murderers live life in prison rather than execute one innocent person is absolute truth.

To be honest if we're going to have the death penalty then I believe we need to take the shroud of secrecy around the actual deed away.  Put that shit on live TV on every channel in prime time.  After a few years hold a vote on whether or not we should continue with the practice.  Do the vote on a national level or state level, I don't really care; but the people need to see what is happening in their name.

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

8 hours ago, Continental Op said:

Everyone's answer to the question of "Am I in favor of the death penalty?" should be the same as the answer to the question of "Would I feel really good about being tried by a Williamson County jury for a capital crime I did not commit?"  

 

This post wins all the internet points for the day.

[Cousin Strawberry 1261]

8 hours ago, Continental Op said:

Everyone's answer to the question of "Am I in favor of the death penalty?" should be the same as the answer to the question of "Would I feel really good about being tried by a Williamson County jury for a capital crime I did not commit?"  

 

You know what people who are actually innocent of crimes get sentenced to in Williamson County? Probation.  

 When I stated practicing, Wilco DA's office would make 2 offers.  If your client would agree to plead guilty without having seen any discovery, they would recommend deferred or probation. If you wanted to see the evidence against your client, then the offer was TDC.  Shamefully, a lot of attorneys didn't realize how fucking improper and unethical this was. This was John Bradley's policy.  He is an awful piece of shit.  

[burntorangebongos 10681]

Wow. Fuck that guy. 

"He had a tough-on-crime reputation that suffered due to his handling of the 2005 Michael Morton appeal. He fought against the DNA testing that ultimately exonerated Morton, who spent nearly 25 years in prison after being wrongfully convicted for the death of his wife." - from Claire Osborn article in 2016.

He is this POS. Yeah, I remember him now. Crisp him in a red hot fire, pull him out and stick him in a vat of rubbing alcohol first.

Edited November 21, 2020 by burntorangebongos
looked him up and realized he was this dick.

[Guest Lobo]

In her concurring opinion, Justice Barrett writes, "I have now sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber.  Don't want to do it, feel I owe it to you..."  

[Cousin Strawberry 1261]

5 minutes ago, Lobo said:

In her concurring opinion, Justice Barrett writes, "I have now sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber.  Don't want to do it, feel I owe it to you..."  

How bout a Fresca?

[Cousin Strawberry 1261]

14 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Wow. Fuck that guy. 

He went to work on some island that was involved with the Survivor television show and then they ran him off because he is a worthless piece of shit. He is a garbage human.

I feel bad for his kids because they don't know what a complete piece of shit their father is.

Edited November 21, 2020 by Cousin Strawberry
more info

[Mo Horn 8807]

 

[Reynolds Woodcock 4669]

18 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

 

Gorsuch just cannot fucking help himself.

 

[UpperWestside 6136]

1 hour ago, Mo Horn said:

 

When I read a quote about it being impossible to exercise their faith without being in the actual building, well, we know that to not be a factual statement. You can practice your faith in your own home at any time of day. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

ACB is the deciding vote against covid restrictions in religious gatherings. The court previously ruled 5-4 with Ginsberg on similar cases. So the Theocracy is upon us. Go pack the churches and spread that shit around!!!

I will say, my favorite part of the opinion is where Gorsuch points out limiting service to 10 people excluded all women in certain orthodox Jewish religions because they require ten men to be present to form a quorum. Sooo because they don’t consider women equal to men, a minyan may not be formed unless 10 men are present, and women won’t be able to worship under these covid restrictions. Seems like that’s their fucking problem. 

Edited November 26, 2020 by Neonmoon

[tchookem 3900]

ACB is the deciding vote against covid restrictions in religious gatherings. The court previously ruled 5-4 with Ginsberg on similar cases. So the Theocracy is upon us. Go pack the churches and spread that shit around!!!
 

Are there any implications for city mask mandates or private businesses requiring them?

[wildcat09 29258]

Pretty soon some Qanon freak will get charged with murder and claim they were just practicing their Christian faith and 5 or 6 SCOTUS justices will rule that they can’t be convicted for murder.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

ACB is the deciding vote against covid restrictions in religious gatherings. The court previously ruled 5-4 with Ginsberg on similar cases. So the Theocracy is upon us. Go pack the churches and spread that shit around!!!

I will say, my favorite part of the opinion is where Gorsuch points out limiting service to 10 people excluded all women in certain orthodox Jewish religions because they require ten men to be present to form a quorum. Sooo because they don’t consider women equal to men, a minyan may not be formed unless 10 men are present, and women won’t be able to worship under these covid restrictions. Seems like that’s their fucking problem. 

since Cv-19= instant death, prevailing winds should take out the church-goers in say... 12 weeks?

Victory for the left, if the church going is just political.  Stop fighting it!

Edited November 26, 2020 by slorch

[tchookem 3900]

since Cv-19= instant death, prevailing winds should take out the church-goers in say... 12 weeks?
Victory for the left, if the church going is just political.  Stop fighting it!

There he is... Slorched.

[Neonmoon 38127]

6 minutes ago, tchookem said:

15 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

ACB is the deciding vote against covid restrictions in religious gatherings. The court previously ruled 5-4 with Ginsberg on similar cases. So the Theocracy is upon us. Go pack the churches and spread that shit around!!!
 

Are there any implications for city mask mandates or private businesses requiring them?

I’m sure someone will sue and try to argue for it, but it seems this was specifically about the persons inside cap. 

Gorsuch stupidly argued that if a person can go to a liquor store or shop at a grocery store or a big box store, then the same caps should be applied to religious activities. The dissenting correctly pointed out that patrons going in and out of stores is nothing similar to people spending prolonged periods of time next to each other singing and praying. Religious services were not being treated unfairly as similar secular activities such as concerts, sporting events, movies, etc were all being treated with equal caps. Additionally they pointed out it was horrible precedent to overrule health officials on what is safe and what is not safe during a health crisis. 

But whatever, Theocracy gonna theocracy 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, tchookem said:

There he is... Slorched.

[Neonmoon 38127]

Anyone been to a grocery store recently? Was it similar to this Hasidic wedding that happened recently? 

Yep totally the same thing

[formermav43 4599]

18 minutes ago, tchookem said:

There he is... Slorched.

It’s not any more unreasonable than the, “OMG THEOCRACY!!!!” responses.

[Anastasis 23394]

41 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

ACB is the deciding vote against covid restrictions in religious gatherings. The court previously ruled 5-4 with Ginsberg on similar cases. So the Theocracy is upon us.

LOL. Good brain work man. 

[Anastasis 23394]

Just now, formermav43 said:

It’s not any more unreasonable than the, “OMG THEOCRACY!!!!” responses.

Clowns. 

[tchookem 3900]

It’s not any more unreasonable than the, “OMG THEOCRACY!!!!” responses.

If it's making an allowance for religion that other gatherings are not getting, isn't that letting religion dictate policy... like in a theocracy?

[HenryJames 65890]

33 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Anyone been to a grocery store recently? Was it similar to this Hasidic wedding that happened recently? 

Yep totally the same thing

Far West HEB?

[Brisketexan 104628]

Gorsuch’s concurrence appears to be self-righteous masturbatory crap, which leads to some pretty weak reasoning, but the majority opinion/order isn’t terrible.

I skimmed it, and at that look, it's not a terrible decision. The regulation is ham-handed, and NOT of general applicability, so it doesn't clear strict scrutiny. Cuomo could have just limited religious and similar indoor gatherings to a low percentage of capacity of the building, and passed muster. In fact, they give him a blueprint to do just that. When you’re crafting rules that do have some arbitrary nature (which many of these restrictions are, necessarily), you have to be careful that they’re not particularly arbitrary with respect to churches and such.

I could re-write these regs to avoid that, and still be effective and backed with public health data.

[formermav43 4599]

8 minutes ago, tchookem said:

30 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

It’s not any more unreasonable than the, “OMG THEOCRACY!!!!” responses.

If it's making an allowance for religion that other gatherings are not getting, isn't that letting religion dictate policy... like in a theocracy?

Even if we stipulated to that interpretation of what’s transpired (and I don’t necessarily agree-see Brisket’s post), that’s still not a theocracy.

 That argument is akin to stating that there are religious people here-just like in a theocracy!-therefore, theocracy.

Edited November 26, 2020 by formermav43

[Neonmoon 38127]

20 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Even if we stipulated to that interpretation of what’s transpired (and I don’t necessarily agree-see Brisket’s post), that’s still not a theocracy.

 That argument is akin to stating that there are religious people here-just like in a theocracy!-therefore, theocracy.

Is it a bridge too far to think that a court that "twice stayed its hand when asked to issue similar extraordinary relief" in South Bay and Calvary when ACB wasn't on the Court, but then had a "change of heart" in the similar Roman Catholic case when ACB was on the court, you know, a practitioner of Catholicism might be a bit Theocratic?

[formermav43 4599]

Is that like being a little bit pregnant?

[Neonmoon 38127]

Just now, formermav43 said:

Is that like being a little bit pregnant?

It's like believing in ghosts, but not yet willing to join the Ghostbusters. 

[Js1 85112]

2 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

When I read a quote about it being impossible to exercise their faith without being in the actual building, well, we know that to not be a factual statement. You can practice your faith in your own home at any time of day. 

Can’t grift your congregation as easily from home. Who will shame them into dropping a $10 bill instead of a $1? Joel Osteen needs another private jet 

[Pasken 1309]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Anyone been to a grocery store recently? Was it similar to this Hasidic wedding that happened recently? 

Yep totally the same thing

Where and when was this?

[Celery Man 20886]

2 hours ago, slorch said:

since Cv-19= instant death, prevailing winds should take out the church-goers in say... 12 weeks?

Victory for the left, if the church going is just political.  Stop fighting it!

quarter million Americans dead and counting, but no biggie because they're old and fat. happy thanksgiving with your skinny young white healthy loved ones.

[Neonmoon 38127]

16 minutes ago, Pasken said:

Where and when was this?

Williamsburg neighborhood, Brooklyn, New York,  November 8th 

 

[Telegraph_it 3354]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Anyone been to a grocery store recently? Was it similar to this Hasidic wedding that happened recently? 

Yep totally the same thing

They are wearing HEPA filters. Nbd. 

[Sawbonz 27436]

On 11/20/2020 at 8:55 PM, WBT said:

As if society should be any happier with an innocent person serving life without parole

I don’t think anyone is happier with that scenario but the chance to get it right ends with execution. 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6555]

7 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m sure someone will sue and try to argue for it, but it seems this was specifically about the persons inside cap. 

Gorsuch stupidly argued that if a person can go to a liquor store or shop at a grocery store or a big box store, then the same caps should be applied to religious activities. The dissenting correctly pointed out that patrons going in and out of stores is nothing similar to people spending prolonged periods of time next to each other singing and praying. Religious services were not being treated unfairly as similar secular activities such as concerts, sporting events, movies, etc were all being treated with equal caps. Additionally they pointed out it was horrible precedent to overrule health officials on what is safe and what is not safe during a health crisis. 

But whatever, Theocracy gonna theocracy 

 

When is the Supreme Court going to rule on why I can’t get a freaking bottle of beer on Sunday mornings because of some dumb antiquated Christian laws that affect every Christian and non Christian where I live.  Isn’t that infringing on my rights to get blitzed on a nice Sunday morning!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

When is the Supreme Court going to rule on why I can’t get a freaking bottle of beer on Sunday mornings because of some dumb antiquated Christian laws that affect every Christian and non Christian where I live.  Isn’t that infringing on my rights to get blitzed on a nice Sunday morning!

Go ahead and address Texas gambling licenses and why we have to go to every shithole neighboring state for casinos.

The laws around so-called morality are total horseshit.   Are we a free people or not?

The Sunday booze laws are similarly stupid and inconsistent.

Edited November 26, 2020 by slorch

[Beantown Express 2.0 6555]

2 hours ago, slorch said:

Go ahead and address Texas gambling licenses and why we have to go to every shithole neighboring state for casinos.

The laws around so-called morality are total horseshit.   Are we a free people or not?

The Sunday booze laws are similarly stupid and inconsistent.

Florida has the same problem with gambling.  Miami Beach should be like Las Vegas but with nice beaches but the Bible thumpers in the FL panhandle and northern FL have voted against legalized gambling for the last 50 years.  All of those “morality laws” you speak of are for Christians.   Those laws aren’t for Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Atheists.  It’s kind of interesting that many Christians bitch about their rights being infringed upon but they have no problem infringing on everybody else’s rights as long as it is what they believe in.