Jump to content

lemonlime

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3635
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lemonlime

  1. This belongs in the circumstantial evidence is inadmissible understanding of the legal system.
  2. I don't want to keep going back and forth on this, and I'm not sure of an exact definition I can put into words. But I do want to know more about extreme views. By way of example, and I'll take Judaism only because I'm Jewish and don't want to comment on others' religions. But Judaism teaches to welcome the stranger. I would hope if there was ever a Justice Lemonlime I wouldn't base holdings on Jewish teachings, but I would come into immigration cases with those beliefs. As would that my atheist parents taught me that we have an obligation to look out for the weakest among us. Or that I have family members who were refugees after WWII. I don't care whether a Jewish nominee goes to synagogue, how often they go to synagogue, their opinions of various Jewish beliefs, etc. But if there were somehow a nominee who was an ultra-Orthodox Haredi Jew, a sect in which men and women aren't even supposed to walk on the same side of the street, and which does not believe in reading books other than religious texts or using the internet or in newspapers, it would be fair game to discuss whether they believe women should be given equal access to education or whether they think government censorship of books that address homosexuality is okay or whether they would be able to rule fairly on cases involving First Amendment freedom of the press. I'm not sure how to define where the specific line is, but there is a point where membership in a certain group, religious or otherwise, could have negative implications on someone's ability to serve as a judge, and when that happens, questioning them on extreme views is appropriate.
  3. Only if they're going to an church services in an extremist sect. I don't care whether or not a nominee is religious, how devout they are, or the basic tenets of their religion. If they choose to affiliate with an extremist group, religious or otherwise, I care about that.
  4. You're right. We should ask nominees if they believe scientists.
  5. Extremist: "A person who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics." So I don't care if a Catholic judge goes to church, was divorced, etc. And I'm sure that Catholic teachings have impact on her worldview. I do care if someone chooses to be a member of an organization that was the basis for the Handmaid's Tale.
  6. The Senate. Since they're supposed to give advice and consent. If the nominee is a member of the Flat Earth Society, Q-Anon, People of Praise, Haredi Judaism, etc. their choice to associate themselves with an extreme movement, religious or otherwise, is fair game. Asking them about the basic tenets of Judaism, Catholicism, Lutheranism, whatever religion of your choice is not fair game.
  7. What burntorangebongos said. Also, I don't believe in going after anyone because of their religion. I do think people who hold extremist views, religious or otherwise, should be asked about them if we're considering appointing them to one of the most powerful positions in the world for decades.
  8. Actually, the more I think on it, I think religious extremism is a fair attack. The actual religion is not. Religious extremists should not be imposing their beliefs on the rest of us. Someone with dangerous world views shouldn't be a judge.
  9. If one is seeking to impose their religious beliefs on others then yes. Just because someone has certain beliefs no.
  10. A combination of Putin wanting chaos. And that the GOP doesn't want any additional investigations. Think how much grift we know about even with the politicization of the DOJ and the purge of non-trumpkins in the federal government. Think about how much more grift there is to be uncovered in a DOJ run by Sally Yates.
  11. Nixing the USPS's plan to send masks to every household. Or politicizing vaccine development. Or railing against scientists/experts/Fauci.
  12. He also announced he was going to nominate her replacement before she's even buried. But I guess the standard is now that he hasn't nicknamed her "kike Ruth" in a tweet.
  13. This is correct. Except the right wing media will do this no matter what. Eg. "Obama was the most divisive president ever" or "Biden is a communist who wants to destroy the suburbs." Nothing the dems do, no matter how reasonable or moderate matters. So might as well grab onto power.
  14. Although trump has proven that you can just fill up your cabinet with unconfirmed acting secretaries and the GOP doesn't give a fuck. Oh, that only applies to GOP presidents.
  15. I think the answer is to castigate the Republicans for their hypocrisy, the vileness of nominating a new justice before RBG is even buried, mention how unpopular this shit is (even 50% of Republican voters don't think the nomination should wait), and then say if the GOP Senate insists on going through with this when I'm President nothing will be off the table to right this wrong. Avoid the specifics, but make a clear threat should the GOP insist on this.
  16. 1000 x this. Also Citizens United. Made some bad decisions on political gerrymandering.
  17. They need to increase the size by 4 to 13. If they only increase by 2, there will still be 6 GOP picks and 5 Dem appointments. With 4, it's 6 GOP and 7 Dem. After the shit the GOP pulled on this they must not have a majority of nominees to the Court. And trump just tweeted he'll be announcing the nominee on Saturday.
  18. I for some bizarro algorhythm keep getting facebook ads for him. The last one was with special guest star Nikki Haley. Does the campaign pay by the click? If I click on his begging for money nonsense, does his campaign have to pay for it?
  19. The dem House.
  20. Why should they cut back anywhere, when they’ve taken in a huge haul over the weekend? There’s plenty of money in the six races you mention. The dems should fight everywhere. At the very least, they’re forcing the GOP to blow money in places like Kansas and Mississippi.
  21. I donated to them Friday night. At least at that point, it didn't include Espy. But it showed up as multiple charges to various candidates---i.e $10 to Greenfield, $ 10 to Jones, $ 10 to Harrison, etc.
  22. Also, just because something is legal doesn't mean something is right. I guess Newt cheating on his cancer stricken wife was totally copacetic. Or trump banging Stormy when his wife was home with a newborn. You know, since it's not illegal.
  23. Yeah. I watched the CNN town hall last week, and Biden was on fire. I didn't really see it covered, I guess because so much other news (?), but Biden said trump should step down due to his Covid response. There was some conciliatory talk at the end about working together, but Biden came across as rightfully and extremely pissed.
×
×
  • Create New...