JUstice?

I read to day in the news that " Trump’s pick for a US Supreme Court
vacancy said she will rule based on the law, not her personal views,"

Frankly I find this shocking that a nominee for the supreme Court
would make such a statement... although the remark might be taken out
of context, does this imply that some U.S. judges are inclined to rule
based on their emotions rather than the law?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/11/2020 7:14 PM, John B. wrote:

I read to day in the news that " Trump’s pick for a US Supreme Court
vacancy said she will rule based on the law, not her personal views,"

Frankly I find this shocking that a nominee for the supreme Court
would make such a statement... although the remark might be taken out
of context, does this imply that some U.S. judges are inclined to rule
based on their emotions rather than the law?


I mentioned several egregious (and never reversed) examples
here last week[1], noting that some days they studiously
reflect on the law as written, some days they legislate from
wholecloth and some days they just make things up.

Given an issue of high importance to any given Justice, we
can assume that anything could, and probably will, happen.

[1]I could go on with a very long list. Wickard v. Filburn
for example.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 20:48:26 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/11/2020 7:14 PM, John B. wrote:

I read to day in the news that " Trump’s pick for a US Supreme Court
vacancy said she will rule based on the law, not her personal views,"

Frankly I find this shocking that a nominee for the supreme Court
would make such a statement... although the remark might be taken out
of context, does this imply that some U.S. judges are inclined to rule
based on their emotions rather than the law?


I mentioned several egregious (and never reversed) examples
here last week[1], noting that some days they studiously
reflect on the law as written, some days they legislate from
wholecloth and some days they just make things up.

Given an issue of high importance to any given Justice, we
can assume that anything could, and probably will, happen.

[1]I could go on with a very long list. Wickard v. Filburn
for example.

I'm not sure whether I agree with that finding or not, but I don't
know all the details. But if, for example, he was growing wheat in
illegal amounts which was being used as animal feed and then selling
the animals on the open market then he might be breaking the law to
lower his costs then the judgment would seem logical, as somewhere I
believe I read that there is a law that says you can't profit from an
illegal act. The Son of Sam law?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 2:48:32 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:

I mentioned several egregious (and never reversed) examples

What the Donkey Party fears about Professor Barrett, soon Associate Justice Barrett, is that she will not respect precedents in wrongly decided cases, particularly the enabling judge-made legislation, Roe v Wade (1), of a monstrous campaign of infanticide in the USA, 61 million unborn babies killed since Roe v Wade was decided in 1973, an average of 1.3m licensed murders a year, mostly of black children in a hangover from the eugenics which was the favoured social policy of the Left in the USA until Hitler's shenanigans discredited it, after which it went underground as Planned Parenthood.

(1) Hell, let's not call Roe v Wade "judge-made legislation", which a dingbat like Jay will soon tell us in his prissy way is impossible in the USA under the Constitution (to which I agree -- that's why the many instances of the "impossible" should be reversed before Mr Trump hands over the White House to Mr Pence in January 2025), let's name it for what it really is, the cornerstone of a loudly faithful cult of devil worshippers organised as the Democrat Party, with the million-plus murdered foetuses every year as their offering to their horned master. It's only one of a parade of evil deeds that make the members of the Donkey Party the true racists in America.

On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 12:05:01 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 2:48:32 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:

I mentioned several egregious (and never reversed) examples

What the Donkey Party fears about Professor Barrett, soon Associate Justice Barrett, is that she will not respect precedents in wrongly decided cases, particularly the enabling judge-made legislation, Roe v Wade (1), of a monstrous campaign of infanticide in the USA, 61 million unborn babies killed since Roe v Wade was decided in 1973, an average of 1.3m licensed murders a year, mostly of black children in a hangover from the eugenics which was the favoured social policy of the Left in the USA until Hitler's shenanigans discredited it, after which it went underground as Planned Parenthood.

(1) Hell, let's not call Roe v Wade "judge-made legislation", which a dingbat like Jay will soon tell us in his prissy way is impossible in the USA under the Constitution (to which I agree -- that's why the many instances of the "impossible" should be reversed before Mr Trump hands over the White House to Mr Pence in January 2025), let's name it for what it really is, the cornerstone of a loudly faithful cult of devil worshippers organised as the Democrat Party, with the million-plus murdered foetuses every year as their offering to their horned master. It's only one of a parade of evil deeds that make the members of the Donkey Party the true racists in America.

I will tell you in my prissy way that you're a dope and should confine yourself to judging warm beer at your local pub -- or based on your latest post, judging psilocybin mushrooms from your local woods. You clearly don't understand the role of US judges or justices in interpreting the 14th Amendment, which is not surprising coming from a country with no written constitution -- and where abortion is both legal and free.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:30:12 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 12:05:01 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 2:48:32 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:

I mentioned several egregious (and never reversed) examples

What the Donkey Party fears about Professor Barrett, soon Associate Justice Barrett, is that she will not respect precedents in wrongly decided cases, particularly the enabling judge-made legislation, Roe v Wade (1), of a monstrous campaign of infanticide in the USA, 61 million unborn babies killed since Roe v Wade was decided in 1973, an average of 1.3m licensed murders a year, mostly of black children in a hangover from the eugenics which was the favoured social policy of the Left in the USA until Hitler's shenanigans discredited it, after which it went underground as Planned Parenthood.

(1) Hell, let's not call Roe v Wade "judge-made legislation", which a dingbat like Jay will soon tell us in his prissy way is impossible in the USA under the Constitution (to which I agree -- that's why the many instances of the "impossible" should be reversed before Mr Trump hands over the White House to Mr Pence in January 2025), let's name it for what it really is, the cornerstone of a loudly faithful cult of devil worshippers organised as the Democrat Party, with the million-plus murdered foetuses every year as their offering to their horned master. It's only one of a parade of evil deeds that make the members of the Donkey Party the true racists in America.
I will tell you in my prissy way that you're a dope and should confine yourself to judging warm beer at your local pub -- or based on your latest post, judging psilocybin mushrooms from your local woods. You clearly don't understand the role of US judges or justices in interpreting the 14th Amendment, which is not surprising coming from a country with no written constitution -- and where abortion is both legal and free.

Andre is correct that Roe v. Wade was Margaret Sanger's eugenic movements on the black population. The Supreme Court stood behind the idea that a mother could murder her child because it was inconvenient and might limit her sexual contacts. I suggest that you've made more than a few psilocybin comments. What would you think if your wife had decided that your son was inconvenient? From your comments, you have more than a little affection for him and couldn't even think of him not being around. If you doubt my comments considering Sanger - every Planned Parenthood Clinic I've seen resides either IN or on the fringes of a black neighborhood. Roe v Wade has also given women the idea that they could live any way they like without any consequences and men as well. A quicky is just a quicky.

On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 9:30:12 AM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 12:05:01 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 2:48:32 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:

I mentioned several egregious (and never reversed) examples

What the Donkey Party fears about Professor Barrett, soon Associate Justice Barrett, is that she will not respect precedents in wrongly decided cases, particularly the enabling judge-made legislation, Roe v Wade (1), of a monstrous campaign of infanticide in the USA, 61 million unborn babies killed since Roe v Wade was decided in 1973, an average of 1.3m licensed murders a year, mostly of black children in a hangover from the eugenics which was the favoured social policy of the Left in the USA until Hitler's shenanigans discredited it, after which it went underground as Planned Parenthood.

(1) Hell, let's not call Roe v Wade "judge-made legislation", which a dingbat like Jay will soon tell us in his prissy way is impossible in the USA under the Constitution (to which I agree -- that's why the many instances of the "impossible" should be reversed before Mr Trump hands over the White House to Mr Pence in January 2025), let's name it for what it really is, the cornerstone of a loudly faithful cult of devil worshippers organised as the Democrat Party, with the million-plus murdered foetuses every year as their offering to their horned master. It's only one of a parade of evil deeds that make the members of the Donkey Party the true racists in America.
I will tell you in my prissy way that you're a dope and should confine yourself to judging warm beer at your local pub -- or based on your latest post, judging psilocybin mushrooms from your local woods. You clearly don't understand the role of US judges or justices in interpreting the 14th Amendment, which is not surprising coming from a country with no written constitution -- and where abortion is both legal and free.

-- Jay Beattie.
Going to jump in on this one. Judge Barrett has all the credentials and has managed more than I believed most of those questioning her at the hearing. She is a Roman Catholic so I have deep knowledge of what that means to those who actually profess the faith. Regardless of who a person is and how much they want to remove themselves from bias it exist. You cannot take the Catholic Faith out of me regardless. It comes before all else. There is not argument or situation that can allow the taking of a innocent human life. That life may have been the result of a bad decision, and intrusion of a rapist, or even horrible incest. That does not make that life worthless. I also oppose capital punishment I am consistent. Judge Barrett will be a great supreme court judge and I believe she probably will get in. Hopefully because the prospects of the election itself don't look great, but then again we can see in the end how much the media is wrong if Trump wins. It will show polls are a farce.

The analogy of who she is in the cycling mechanical world is this.........She is the master mechanic. She can build a bike from nothing but the raw materials. She can mold or weld the frame, build the wheels, piece together the components and in the end you have a serious riding bike.
Deacon mark

Am 12.10.2020 um 16:57 schrieb Tom Kunich:
What would you think if your wife had decided that your son was inconvenient?

In those countries where such a decision is possible, it is typical that
if the two persons involved in producing offspring together are on
talking terms, they talk about grave matters like this, and it would not
be "his wife deciding it was inconvenient".

The only reasons for abortion inside a married relationship that occurs
in any significant quantities are
Grave danger for the mother's life and
Severe diability of the fetus

On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 8:29:47 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 12.10.2020 um 16:57 schrieb Tom Kunich:
What would you think if your wife had decided that your son was inconvenient?
In those countries where such a decision is possible, it is typical that
if the two persons involved in producing offspring together are on
talking terms, they talk about grave matters like this, and it would not
be "his wife deciding it was inconvenient".

The only reasons for abortion inside a married relationship that occurs
in any significant quantities are
Grave danger for the mother's life and
Severe diability of the fetus
Rolf, I don't know anything about Jay's case and am making no inferences but in the US these days the woman is very often pregnant which forces a marriage. Or leads to a moral decision of the woman. Planned Parenthood suggests abortion in almost 100% of the cases in which the woman is not white upper middle class or higher.

On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 8:03:14 AM UTC-7, Mark Cleary wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 9:30:12 AM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 12:05:01 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 2:48:32 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:

I mentioned several egregious (and never reversed) examples

What the Donkey Party fears about Professor Barrett, soon Associate Justice Barrett, is that she will not respect precedents in wrongly decided cases, particularly the enabling judge-made legislation, Roe v Wade (1), of a monstrous campaign of infanticide in the USA, 61 million unborn babies killed since Roe v Wade was decided in 1973, an average of 1.3m licensed murders a year, mostly of black children in a hangover from the eugenics which was the favoured social policy of the Left in the USA until Hitler's shenanigans discredited it, after which it went underground as Planned Parenthood.

(1) Hell, let's not call Roe v Wade "judge-made legislation", which a dingbat like Jay will soon tell us in his prissy way is impossible in the USA under the Constitution (to which I agree -- that's why the many instances of the "impossible" should be reversed before Mr Trump hands over the White House to Mr Pence in January 2025), let's name it for what it really is, the cornerstone of a loudly faithful cult of devil worshippers organised as the Democrat Party, with the million-plus murdered foetuses every year as their offering to their horned master. It's only one of a parade of evil deeds that make the members of the Donkey Party the true racists in America..
I will tell you in my prissy way that you're a dope and should confine yourself to judging warm beer at your local pub -- or based on your latest post, judging psilocybin mushrooms from your local woods. You clearly don't understand the role of US judges or justices in interpreting the 14th Amendment, which is not surprising coming from a country with no written constitution -- and where abortion is both legal and free.

-- Jay Beattie.

Going to jump in on this one. Judge Barrett has all the credentials and has managed more than I believed most of those questioning her at the hearing. She is a Roman Catholic so I have deep knowledge of what that means to those who actually profess the faith. Regardless of who a person is and how much they want to remove themselves from bias it exist. You cannot take the Catholic Faith out of me regardless. It comes before all else. There is not argument or situation that can allow the taking of a innocent human life. That life may have been the result of a bad decision, and intrusion of a rapist, or even horrible incest. That does not make that life worthless. I also oppose capital punishment I am consistent. Judge Barrett will be a great supreme court judge and I believe she probably will get in. Hopefully because the prospects of the election itself don't look great, but then again we can see in the end how much the media is wrong if Trump wins. It will show polls are a farce.


The analogy of who she is in the cycling mechanical world is this..........She is the master mechanic. She can build a bike from nothing but the raw materials. She can mold or weld the frame, build the wheels, piece together the components and in the end you have a serious riding bike.
Deacon mark


We're appointing a justice and not a cardinal or a pope. The Constitution is not the Bible, and Roe v. Wade is not about saving or killing babies (whatever your conception of "baby" or a Constitutional "person"). It is about the proper role of state government in individual decision making -- and at what point the state government can impose its will over that of an individual. You would think conservatives would be lining up in favor of Roe since it is basically a libertarian opinion.

In fact, it is pro religion since it allows individuals to pursue their own, faith-based views on when life begins, up to a point, which the Roe court Solomonically determined was 12 weeks. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...on/1808776001/ Are the Jews wrong? Are the Buddhists wrong?

The court should not be the arbiter or religious disputes. If judge Barrett is deciding cases based on her faith, we're screwed. This is not a theocracy.

Your religious beliefs met with considerable hostility in this country -- all the way back to its founding. https://tinyurl.com/y2jorkqz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathol...rteen_Colonies Look out if government starts dictating religious beliefs. They may not be yours.

I'm sure judge Barrett has appropriate qualifications, but going back to your mechanic analogy, I'm not going to the mechanic who puts a Brooks saddle on every bike because its the "best" or thinks eBikes are an abomination because they are not mechanically pure or that technology stopped in 1788.

-- Jay Beattie.