BS: Unfit for SCOTUS

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 11:05 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 - 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: 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 - 10:47 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: 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: 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 - 10:21 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: olddude
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 10:06 PM

Blame Richard Greg, he is a prick

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 - 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: 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 - 09:05 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 08:07 PM

For what???...the obvious?

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: akenaton
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 03:52 PM

Yes, light is indeed the life force......the sun is god.
My historical hero Aknaton Iknaton Akhenaton, observed this almost 4 thousand years ago....well before "science" came into existence.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 03:43 PM

Oh..I forgot to mention...IF light suddenly came into existence, on a massive scale, would not that result in a 'Big Bang'?????

Yes, science of physics, AND the spiritual explanations, of the realms that we cannot see, ARE compatible.
It's is a shame that BOTH have been bastardized!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 03:39 PM

Steve Shaw: " If you're hoodwinked into ignoring vast bodies of evidence and harbouring the nonsense of creationism, you can't possibly be possessed of the sound enough mind required to officiate in a Supreme Court. You're a menace to society there, frankly. As for Congress deciding, well Congress is always so infallibly wise, isn't it?"

Steve Shaw: "I tried to make the distinction between those people of faith who try to accommodate science, that is the advancement of human knowledge via evidence, and those who wilfully deny overwhelming evidence in order to espouse a completely unsustainable, mad notion such as creationism."

I think you are the one who can't make the 'distinction'.....
Let's say it all began with a 'Big Bang'....and everything that came about, came from that 'Big Bang'.....and everything that came to be, consists of elements from the 'Big Bang'......(Fair enough?)........

Now if light, from which all things are made, and consist of suddenly came into being, as in 'Let there be Light'....and it just came into existence...isn't THAT a creation???????

Also, you might consider this:

John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ..."
Acts 17: 28 "For in him we have life and motion and existence; as certain of your verse writers have said, For we are his offspring."

Now how else would you describe this for the common man to understand, given the times and limitations of the language??

Think about it.

....and this is consistent with other 'religions, AND the laws of physics.......(for what it's worth)
It is a shame that this has been reduced to rituals and 'Church politics of made made structures....(from which you have been bit, and alienated from the fuller meaning, of what people call 'God').

Fair enough????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 01:21 PM

I tried to make the distinction between those people of faith who try to accommodate science, that is the advancement of human knowledge via evidence, and those who wilfully deny overwhelming evidence in order to espouse a completely unsustainable, mad notion such as creationism. Judges are there to weigh evidence. A man who jettisons evidence in favour of the teachings of demented madmen is patently not fit to be a judge.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 01:08 PM

And Richard, shove a broomstick up your ass and rotate.
(filling in for spaw)

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 12:43 PM

Most everyone in the Congress or state government has some belief system. Still they uphold the law. People can and do separate the two as most feel it's personal. One only has to look at same sex marriage or rowe v Wade to see what I am saying is true. In this country your beliefs or non believe doesn't disqualify anyone unlike many other places on earth

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 12:17 PM

He's not some judge Pete, he's an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the USA. If it were you're country would you want to have a justice who promotes an "evangelical atheist" (your term) agenda on it's highest court?
Btw, Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 11:58 AM

usual bluff and bluster from the evangelical atheists. we are not religious, say they , yet some judge, over the pond ,makes a passing remark about being here at least 5,000 yr , and he is attacked with religious fervour. and then they say they are not trying to convert anyone , but they seize any opportunity to hiss their venom ,and consider a judge unfit if he ...may...possibly...at a stretch...is declaring himself a biblical creationist ! in fact, if he does, he is more in line with observable , testable repeatable science. in all the threads they have started they have never been able to demonstrate microbes to men evolution. it is just an interpretation of data, a mindset at variance with both biblical revelation, and observational science. go ahead, prove me wrong, show me some evolution !.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 10:59 AM

I like musket, I will apologize to him. But Richard.. Go fuck yourself

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 10:36 AM

Musket sorry to go off on you, I get testy sometimes my friend. I am glad that it works for you guys

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 05:41 AM

I do think that you can be a brilliant scientist as well as being a person of faith. Religious delusion can be compartmentalised and kept apart from scientific endeavour except at certain interfaces (the "when we found the Higgs Boson did it bring us nearer to God?" type of idiocy, for example). Most practising Christians I know are Christians on Sunday mornings but the same as everyone else the rest of the time.   But if you believe in creationism it means that you are far too easily hoodwinked by the evidence-free nonsense that the average believer, who might still least be making a valiant, yet ultimately fruitless, attempt to reconcile evolution with God, might be trying to avoid. If you're hoodwinked into ignoring vast bodies of evidence and harbouring the nonsense of creationism, you can't possibly be possessed of the sound enough mind required to officiate in a Supreme Court. You're a menace to society there, frankly. As for Congress deciding, well Congress is always so infallibly wise, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 12 Jun 15 - 04:22 AM

No prophets Dan. No worshipping a scientist either.

You know, if you can't see beyond following a belief as real rather than abstract comfort, don't assume lack of belief is just another belief.

f=ma

Today

Tomorrow

Regardless of prayer.

Normal people in The USA deserve better.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jun 15 - 05:40 PM

Good one!!! 'Guest #'. If they brought in a new sheriff into town, , they'd run into the hills like bandits......that is IF they couldn't 'buy off' the new sheriff!!

So far, all they've been doing, is playing different characters!....some times arguing AGAINST what they argued about, in 'their last exciting episode'!!!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,#
Date: 11 Jun 15 - 05:31 PM

"I have no idea how one separates a liberal from a conservative."

With a crowbar, Dan, with a crowbar.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 15 - 04:41 PM

Richard Dawkins is no prophet, he has not started a religion and he is not trying to convert you. In fact, he expects a good argument. Not one "atheist" here has ever tried to convert anyone. In fact, honest-to-goodness atheists all believe in freedom to believe whatever you want to believe. We're a cheerful and disparate ragbag mixture, without a boss in sight. You are arguing from an extremely uninformed position, olddude. It's far better to know thine enemy. In fact, if you read a book or two of Dawkins', you may well find that your true enemies are the authoritarian evangelisers of the Christian and Islamic faiths. It takes a bit of effort to get yourself into a position from which you can put the case from an informed standpoint. "It's Dawkins, I know bugger all about him and I hate him" simply doesn't cut it.