BS: Unfit for SCOTUS

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 04:01 PM

"Fair Enough"? Do keep it up, Goofus - with those last two you're proving yourself to be even more of a total jackass than I thought - difficult as that may be.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 04:06 PM

Yo Dan. I have days when I growl at everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 04:21 PM

Mind you, growling is one thing.....

The demonstrable existence of a Higgs Boson does indeed show that things can "create" and indeed the present thinking is that the big bang was indeed such an event.

Sadly for the likes of Goofus, it merely shows that you don't actually need a god. Nothing can have created the big bang because conscious thought requires a before, and it has been quite comprehensively demonstrated that there cannot have been a before.

Mind you, there was certainly a "before" biblical stories. A good few billion years of it.

pete. There is a difference between demonstrating microbe to man and having the capacity to accept the principle.

Let there be light eh? Chance would be a fine thing.

Most people of faith realise the difference between faith and literal belief. Those of faith have the intelligence to note the difference.

Even Kryton had faith in Android heaven. 😇

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 04:54 PM

What do you mean by " the principle " ,musket ? I would have thought that the guiding principle should be, does it accord with observable testable science, of which the general theory of evolution does not. Therefore, I say that microbes to multimuskets has never been demonstrated. Creationism however, does accord with observable science in a number of ways, but the evolutionary story contradicts it in many ways, as I have formerly pointed out.   So , go on. Show me some evolution !.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 05:30 PM

I borrow, with thanks "A man who jettisons evidence in favour of the teachings of demented madmen is patently not fit to be a judge."

Olddude - enjoy your own sexual fantasies. I am not that surprised.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 06:15 PM

It's amusing to see how this thread has drawn the complete nutters out of the woodwork. Joyfully for them, though somewhat frustrating for the sane among us, they don't know who they are. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 06:21 PM

Reminds me of a line from Monty Python

"Dinsdale was a loony but he was a happy loony, lucky bugger."

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 06:40 PM

Steve Shaw: "It's amusing to see how this thread has drawn the complete nutters out of the woodwork. Joyfully for them, though somewhat frustrating for the sane among us, they don't know who they are. :-)"

Well, if you noticed..I was replying to your post...how does it feel to be out of the woodwork??!!??

Musket: "Nothing can have created the big bang because conscious thought requires a before, and it has been quite comprehensively demonstrated that there cannot have been a before."

That is a stupid post....could it be that conscious thought came AFTER the 'Big Bang'? ....in fact, maybe everything did.....but somehow, you and Steve are a separate world unto yourselves.....go figure....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 06:51 PM

I notice everything and I notice nothing. I cannot converse in a constructive manner with someone who's as crazy as Joe C*unt's cat. If you're not already permanently on illegal, mind-altering drugs, dear Guffers, then I suggest you find a source immediately.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 08:07 PM

For what???...the obvious?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 08:29 PM

No issues at all with the big bang or anything else. Science only stregthens my faith. As a math and computer science prof, the beauty and elegance of mathematics and order from caos makes my belief in God stronger. It works for me, others have their own private path to follow. AND RICHARD, BLOW ME (FILLING IN FOR SPAW)

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 08:54 PM

The awkward aspect of that is that the God usually envisaged, if you think about it, is the very antithesis of beauty and elegance. He's distant, he's never going to be explicable, he breaks all the rules and he's invisible. He can never help you to comprehend the beauty and elegance you perceive, because he can't speak to you. All he can do is shroud everything in the kind of mystery that stops us using our brains to look for the real answers, which are all out there.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 09:02 PM

"...people decide by vote they are entitled to vote as they see it. People are entitled to believe what they want without harassment by him or anyone else. "

All of which ignores the principle that one cannot reasonably vote to ignore the Constitution... which includes the principle that believing what one wants does not entitle them or others to impose those beliefs on all others.

The practical application of this is the 1st amendment, which prohibits the establishing a particular religion as binding on others. The problem is that many fundamentalist Christians believe that their religion SHOULD be recognized as 'correct', no matter what the Constitution says. Those who take the bible literally seem to believe that God's law supersedes any man-made 'constitution ', and that therefore, they are **justified** in trying to get their interpretation of the bible accepted as the norm. They are not 'usually' content to simply practice their religion privately,but continue to judge all issues as if they were ultimately religious issues... THAT is what Scalia sounds like he is doing. Several of the current Republican presidential candidates wish to promote supposed biblical 'rules' as campaign issues. They assure us they would sign legislation currently forbidden by the Constitution.
In the USA, there should be NO way to impose one group's religious views on everyone. It is important to comprehend that "belief' means that it is merely an opinion, no matter how many hold it!

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 09:05 PM

Exactly bill same with the atheists here who want toimpose their ppersonal belief on me and others like me. Show me a thread where I or any like me preached. I will show you a thousand where you preached your religion to us

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 09:11 PM

You don't like some one's religious views, don'tvvote for them. Real simple. As far as the court, if Congress ie Senate doesn't like him, hewwon't be approved. You want people that follow your religion of atheists only, but you see others can vote also as is their right to elect those who represent them best. However if you want a king to decide.. Well wrong country to live in

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 09:15 PM

Kinda sick of the atheist religion preaching also. Ya my want to keep your beliefs to yourself as we are pretty sick of it. At least the salvation army gives soup after the preaching unlike atheists here

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 09:40 PM

How did someone saying that embracing creationist lunacy casts legitimate doubt on a person's ability to reason and think critically morph into a campaign of and by militant proselytizing athiests (whatever they are supposed to be) to convert the faithful?

What did I miss?

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 10:06 PM

Blame Richard Greg, he is a prick

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 10:21 PM

Spaw would say he has a needle dick also, I would not know but that's the word on the street.
Any way we use to talk about fun stuff but mudcat likes starting fights instead
Want some one of your religion in office instead of those terrible Christian people, elect someone cause that's how it works unless you prefer a taliban type of government

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 10:21 PM

There is a big difference between "atheist religion preaching" (whatever that is), and objecting to certain fundamentalist claims by others.

The point of the thread, I thought, was to assert that no one who inserts his own personal religious views into the public record should be considered as a Justice of the Supreme Court. Scalia's and Thomas' often go way beyond what a justice ought to publicly espouse, no matter WHAT his private beliefs are.
In lower courts, such pronouncements can get one removed from certain cases, but some justices treat a 'lifetime appointment' as an excuse to meddle and sound off in inappropriate ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 10:39 PM

Then elect your senator who will say no. In my life I have worked with people of no faith, great faith and represent a world of different beliefs. Guess what, we all got the job done. The supreme court has all kinds of people all of which uphold the constitution even when it goes against their private beliefs. There would be no abortion or gay marriage or anything else if that wasn't true. Most elected officials have some faith and still the law works. You are biased and simply want your guy in the court. Personally I don't care if they have faith or are atheist. I care that they uphold their oath to protect the constitution and for over 200 years now it still works.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 10:47 PM

Justso I am cclear, I detest abortion. But I would never stop those who choose. I think it's a terrible thing but it's their choice and the law of the land. It appears all of the scary Christian judges on the court now set aside their beliefs for the constitution. Wow how can that be, they are people of faith... Hmmm maybe the oath to protect the constitution means something

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 10:49 PM

The most important qualification for a judge is that he follows the evidence and the law. If he does not do that he is not fit to be a judge. Olddude, you clearly need professional help nearly as much as fugitive from sanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 10:56 PM

I am That and more Richard you jadrool. By the way you don't get nominated for the supreme court unless you have a lifetime track record of upholding the constitution. It is not something given for political favor.   If the guy had a track record of favoring his personal belief over the constitution, he would never be nominated

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 11:05 PM

I am a crazy fucker but a happy one and don't starts fights like you Richard but to each their own

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 11:42 PM

"We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:546

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 11:57 PM

By the way I like gfs, I may not agree all the time but I don't like those who want to bully him all the time. It's wrong but muck heads like Richard don't see it cause they are to self absorbed. Wanna pick another fight or are we done

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 12:03 AM

Anyway I done with this, fight on if you want its not productive. Those of you who are friends ofmmine you know where I coming from. Others whatever floats your boat. Richard go fuck yoursel ....

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 02:28 AM

Even from you OD, this is stupid, stupid, stupid. Your posts immediately above suggest an evening of heavy drinking. Even your pointless insults are inconsistent and self-contradictory.

How a judge is appointed is irrelevant to whether his public utterances show that he is unfit to be a judge. And if you really believe that US judges in SCOTUS do not make decisions based on their personal political and religious beliefs, you are from another planet. And if you really believe that their only job is to "uphold the constitution" (which clearly they often don't) then that planet is billions of lightyears away.

But more importantly than that, if a judge is unfit for office, we should all say so.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 04:02 AM

I'll have a pint of whatever Goofus is on.

Get one in for Stephen Hawking whilst you are at it. Roger Penfold wants lager and Einstein a stein of the stuff.

Reminds me of a Chris Smither song I like called Train Home with the wonderful lines ;

I don't think I see there's anything for me
In visions of the past or the ever after
What is is meant to be
All the rest is wait and see
Those prophets they don't hear that cosmic laughter.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 06:44 AM

May I call you Dan?

Dan, your vote is a very blunt instrument that you use once every few years. You vote for your senatorial candidates (if you're mature) on a whole host of issues, not just the one. After that, you either accept that you are at their mercy as to what or who they vote for in your Houses, or you kick up if you suspect that they are in danger of making a stupid decision, such as electing a creationist judge. You make a fuss and get a groundswell going in order to pressurise the fellow to not make the stupid decision. It's called living in a democracy. And, if I may say so, you have rather more faith in the integrity of your political nominations procedures than they probably deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 07:26 AM

The problem of course for people of faith, is that your opponents here are only interested in the destruction of the Church and Christianity itself.

It is seen as an obstacle to the "great agenda", the promotion of a false equality. As I have said often the inequality in our society is an absolute disgrace.....inequality in life fulfilment and living conditions for all our citizens, but that does not engage the "liberal" left......they are moved only by irrelevancies, like whether 2% of 1% of the population should be allowed to use the word marriage to describe their sexual relationship.

This is where the real venom comes from....my advice? If you have faith, protect it and do not be intimidated by these people.
There is in the Christian Church, a "fifth column", who seem to put pressure on to change and modernise.....this is suicide, death by a thousand cuts!.....take a leaf from Dan's book and start to fight back.......All this said as an atheist, but not a militant one, I feel faith is beneficial to society, but have not the strength to accept the contribution required.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: pdq
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 07:52 AM

...here is Richard "Low" Bridge's very first post on Mudcat:


Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 May 99 - 07:18 PM

You have missed the point of recent events. The fault lies in a society that rewards for belittling and alienating others. Soner or later the worm will turn. If you deny it the power to do so you are one of the opressors.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 08:06 AM

You don't half expend a massive amount of energy and hot air on a matter you regard as an irrelevance, Akenaton. And no-one uses the word marriage to define their sexual relationship. They may use the word to describe their relationship, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 08:59 AM

Well here's another one who shouldn't be let out without a minder:

While speaking at the California ProLife Legislative Banquet last week, California Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R) suggested that the state's worst drought in 1,200 years may be divine retribution for California providing women with access to abortions.

Article Here

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 09:29 AM

Anyone here agree with her? P.......

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: pdq
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 10:55 AM

...here is post that proves Gargoyle to be prophetic:

Subject: RE: Welcome New catter Steve Shaw From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 16 May 07 - 09:43 PM

Stevie boy - stay on yur island

There are lots and lots of webfolks that welcome yur type.

Find them. Seek them out. Prim them. Cultivate your kindred kind.

Don't come here. We are AMERICAN folk, blues, jazz, and most of the drivel contributed by the UK contingent is worthy of a piss-pot initiation to Friar Tuck's Band of Morris Dancers.

Sincerely, Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 11:39 AM

I think you mean pathetic, PeeDee - much like yourself.

Now, back to the topic under consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: pdq
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 11:53 AM

...here is a classic post from Greg Feces:


Subject: RE: BS: Cultural genocide
From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:09 AM

Not so, Keith- YOU deserve to be persecuted. Killed? I'm not sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 12:20 PM

Steve you certainly can my friend. Your one of the good guys. Hey Richard bite me.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,#
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 12:28 PM

As long as everyone's happy . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 12:29 PM

Which one do you like OD?    ;0)

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 12:32 PM

Marriage describing a sexual relationship? Too much information Akenaton. Unlike you when talking of gay couples, the bedroom activities of married people aren't the sort of thoughts healthy people have.

Mind you, marriage can indeed change a sexual relationship. They reckon the best way to stop a woman from giving you a blow job is to marry her... Personally of course, I wouldn't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 12:34 PM

He's got merr faces thin Big Ben.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 12:41 PM

Lol priceless, I like everyone ake. I take no offense when insulated back, even from the dick head Richard. He can't help it he is a dick head. He was born that way

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 01:52 PM

Ah, PeeDee, you 12-year-old silver tongued devil, you!

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 04:57 PM

well, having read the article, I would say that I agree with her , but that article quoting her, only suggested it as a possibility , in light of what the bible contains, and seemed far from definite in ascribing the drought as divine retribution. it is of course a tangent thrown in by greg, but I suppose not entirely of no relevance, since abortion on demand [ and other things once thought unacceptable ]are a natural consequence of a rejection of religious/Christian faith, and the embracing of evolutionary belief that views people as merely rearranged pond scum.
but to go back.....why should a judge [ possibly a creationist ] be blasted for expressing/hinting at, his belief.    in fact , if he is consistent with his Christian profession, he will be a more faithful judge. I suppose that if he had said what you atheists believe, that would make him a worthy judge !. but why,- he might get an evolutionary advantage by being dishonest, and course, as long as he could get away with it, he would have no god to answer to ?!
steve, is right though, that democracy means you can get a groundswell of opinion to change things if possible....but of course that goes both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 05:20 PM

bill, why should a public figures beliefs be private, if he is happy they are public. and if that figure is a Christian, profession of his beliefs is part of that faith anyway. I know we differ, but I am surprised if you agree with the ridiculous idea, that this judge [ however elevated ] should be disqualified for believing in creation [ if he actually does - and I hope so ]. I am sure the atheists would be screaming blue murder if Christian America suggested the same about evolutionist judges !.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 05:56 PM

So society's problems are because of rejection of superstition pete?

Rejection of your weird nonsense led to a fairer society in the first place. We don't need misogyny, homophobia, bigotry or child abuse, thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 06:08 PM

I am sure the atheists would be screaming blue murder if Christian America suggested the same about evolutionist judges !.

We scream blue murder when Christian America suggests it about science teachers who tell their children about the truth of evolution. As a total stranger to the truth, pete, you wouldn't get that.