Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court
-
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.
-
@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.
@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"
@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%.
-
Ok, then feel free to correct me. What natural rights did Homo Sapiens possess on the savanna 30,000 years ago?
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
Ok, then feel free to correct me. What natural rights did Homo Sapiens possess on the savanna 30,000 years ago?
@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?
-
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
-
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?
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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".
-
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.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
@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".
@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.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
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:
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.
-
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?
@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?
The way I see it: You can of course not look at our touch natural rights. You cannot discover them with science.
That does not mean they don't exist.
My somewhat Schopenhauer-esque take on the issue is that we can "will" natural rights into existence. Each of us makes a choice of whether natural rights exist or not. That's not the same as "should exist".
-
Ok, then feel free to correct me. What natural rights did Homo Sapiens possess on the savanna 30,000 years ago?
@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?
@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?
The same natural rights as all human have. Rights are principally grounded in moral responsibility, since the moral agent must be free to act morally in respect of one's obligations.
Obviously systems of governance and law and philosophy have developed which better understand, recognize, and uphold the rights of man than whatever occurred on the plains of Africa 30,000 years ago. But the rights have always inhered in the human person as a moral agent.
Or, as I suggested, are “natural rights” to be understood in an “ought” rather than an “is” framework?
As the law is ordered to the common good as a matter of justice, and the recognition of natural human rights are required for a just society, the State (those in charge of the community) have the moral obligation to establish laws which respect the natural rights of the members of the society. This is necessary that all members of the society might be able to fulfill their moral obligations to self, family, and society.
Something they should be granted?
Yes, not only should but the State morally must uphold the natural rights of the members of the society. The validation of the authority, as the raison d'être of the State, is found in the ability to establish, promote, and maintain the common good. The common good is the very order of society which allows for human flourishing.
Or am I speaking Greek to you?
It's easier in Latin, if you prefer.
