Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court
-
wrote on 11 Apr 2022, 18:12 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Probably the only arguably unqualified candidate in my lifetime was Harriet Myers.
Why do you hate wimmenz?
-
wrote on 16 May 2022, 19:03 last edited by
-
wrote on 16 May 2022, 19:07 last edited by Horace
Pretty simple decision tree. If a rational response would contradict the pop cultural mass outrage of the moment, that same pop culture that floated you to your high status perch atop the culture, you simply shut your mouth. Same decision tree that produced the timeless "I'm not a biologist" gem.
-
wrote on 16 May 2022, 19:36 last edited by
@George-K said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Has any other SCOTUS justices publicly commented on this? This may become a First Amendment case to be heard by the SCOTUS in the future. Publicly commenting on it now may become grounds for recusal later on.
-
@George-K said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Has any other SCOTUS justices publicly commented on this? This may become a First Amendment case to be heard by the SCOTUS in the future. Publicly commenting on it now may become grounds for recusal later on.
wrote on 16 May 2022, 19:37 last edited by George K@Axtremus Roberts and Thomas have condemned the leak and I believe one of the Justices has condemned the demonstrations. I may be wrong on the latter.
ETA: An appropriate answer to the third question would be, "As a judge, my job is to determine whether actions break the law, after cases are brought by prosecutors. The law in this case is clear. I leave it to the Justice Department to see that it is enforced."
-
The idea that Homo sapiens possess 'natural' rights is objectively false.
Go back 30,000 years on the Savanah and tell me what 'natural rights' we had.
The only way the sentiment can really be understood is as an 'ought', not an 'is'.
Something more like "there exist a set of fundamental rights that all humans should have, and society should recognize and respect those rights"
wrote on 16 May 2022, 19:44 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
The idea that Homo sapiens possess 'natural' rights is objectively false.
Go back 30,000 years on the Savanah and tell me what 'natural rights' we had.
The only way the sentiment can really be understood is as an 'ought', not an 'is'.
Something more like "there exist a set of fundamental rights that all humans should have, and society should recognize and respect those rights"
That is a dangerous, scary way of seeing the issue. And I disagree with that 1000%.
-
wrote on 16 May 2022, 19:50 last edited by
Ok, then feel free to correct me. What natural rights did Homo Sapiens possess on the savanna 30,000 years ago?
-
Ok, then feel free to correct me. What natural rights did Homo Sapiens possess on the savanna 30,000 years ago?
wrote on 16 May 2022, 19:53 last edited by Larry@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Ok, then feel free to correct me. What natural rights did Homo Sapiens possess on the savanna 30,000 years ago?
What in the hell does that have to do with anything?
-
wrote on 16 May 2022, 19:57 last edited by jon-nyc
Natural rights are not granted by society (government) but inhere to the individual. So what rights inhered to people 30k years ago?
Or, as I suggested, are “natural rights” to be understood in an “ought” rather than an “is” framework? Something they should be granted?
Or am I speaking Greek to you?
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
wrote on 16 May 2022, 20:00 last edited by Horace
Is there a definition of "natural rights" which indicates they are necessarily enforceable? If such rights aren't necessarily enforceable, then we are all free to believe in whatever rights we would like to believe in.
-
wrote on 16 May 2022, 20:03 last edited by
Horace agrees with my post that upset Larry so
-
Natural rights are not granted by society (government) but inhere to the individual. So what rights inhered to people 30k years ago?
Or, as I suggested, are “natural rights” to be understood in an “ought” rather than an “is” framework? Something they should be granted?
Or am I speaking Greek to you?
wrote on 16 May 2022, 20:05 last edited by Larry@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Natural rights are not granted by society (government) but inhere to the individual. So what rights inhered to people 30k years ago?
Or, as I suggested, are “natural rights” to be understood in an “ought” rather than an “is” framework? Something they should be granted?
Or am I speaking Greek to you?
I agree with you that natural rights are not granted by government. I disagree with your equating government with society. Societies set up governments, government is not society, and fuck 30,000 years ago. It has nothing to do with anything.
-
wrote on 16 May 2022, 20:08 last edited by
I was speaking Greek to you apparently. You misunderstood every single sentence.
-
wrote on 16 May 2022, 20:10 last edited by Horace
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Horace agrees with my post that upset Larry so
I made the same point on april 3. I don't actually consider this distinction between natural rights and socially conferred rights to be meaningful to the discussion, especially after one realizes that natural rights wouldn't extend beyond an ability to try do whatever you want to. But everything else has that right too. So you may get eaten, or put into jail, or whatever.
-
wrote on 16 May 2022, 20:13 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
I was speaking Greek to you apparently. You misunderstood every single sentence.
Maybe we arent using the same definition of "natural rights".
-
wrote on 16 May 2022, 20:13 last edited by
Well I don’t know how you conceive “inalienable” rights in anything but a normative framework.
Because obviously they are all quite alienable and were alienated for most of humanity for most of history.
-
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
I was speaking Greek to you apparently. You misunderstood every single sentence.
Maybe we arent using the same definition of "natural rights".
wrote on 16 May 2022, 20:14 last edited by@Larry said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
I was speaking Greek to you apparently. You misunderstood every single sentence.
Maybe we arent using the same definition of "natural rights".
Then reread my original post maybe you’ll agree with it. It seems objectively true.
-
Well I don’t know how you conceive “inalienable” rights in anything but a normative framework.
Because obviously they are all quite alienable and were alienated for most of humanity for most of history.
wrote on 16 May 2022, 20:18 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Well I don’t know how you conceive “inalienable” rights in anything but a normative framework.
Because obviously they are all quite alienable and were alienated for most of humanity for most of history.
"Do exist, and ought to be enforced". There, done.
-
wrote on 16 May 2022, 20:21 last edited by jon-nyc
You spelled “should exist” wrong.
-
wrote on 16 May 2022, 20:23 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
You spelled “should exist” wrong.
Only if you assume that rights do not exist without enforcement. I make no such assumption.
