Cuepee, thank you........

wasn't aware of Kavanagh's comments after confirmation.

honestly, trump idiots talk about liberals and their "Trump Derangement Syndrome".... they are much much worse with "Clinton - specifically Hilary - Derangement Syndrome"

another funny one is the whole "entrapment"... most people, sometimes me too, don't understand it. they think an undercover cop asking to buy drugs is entrapment. my understanding is it is not.

It's at least a possibility with numerous possible motivations.

Not sure why you're so quick to defend kavanaugh--stuff like the story described was pretty much a weekly occurrence all over the place in md/the general area at the time.

I didn't hear about it at the time but her wikipedia article mentioned something about risque photos being leaked

He really seems evil to me.
The look in his eyes as he was spitting his replies at the hearing.
And the most phony smile there ever was.

I looked at Kavanagh's comments. I think it was from his opening statement.

1) very paranoid about Clintons...... said it was Clinton revenge...... I think that's crazy... thought never occurred to me. I think it was just big big overreach of the "Me Too" movement. maybe politically motivated but doesn't go through the Clintons.

2) he says there will be consequences.. but I think he makes clear the consequences are for the country and not from his future actions.

2) talks about family receiving death threats etc. etc...... does he have zero idea that that's what "the new republicans" are all about?..

he has that constantly aggreived way about him.........

I am kinda surprised he wasn't just as vocal about criticizing trump for the ways he disgraced the office as he was clinton

No chance it was leaked as a false flag. But if the leak was intentional, I think there is a better chance it was leaked by a Roe opponent than a Roe advocate. It makes more sense as a tactic to ensure the majority holds together than it does as a tactic to break the majority.

Or they just couldn't contain their excitement and deep need to spread the good news

I've strongly considered the possibility floating around that it was leaked by a supporter of the opinion(pro-life) to try and lock in Kavanaugh to block him from joining John Roberts in making a watered down ruling. Kavanaugh is the most "moderate" voice on the conservative court at this time and has a history of making statements that confirm roe vs wade.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-...-goal-n1295089

I have to point out the obvious that Alito's opinion is not the opinion of the court. It's not even the opinion of Alito.

For all we know, they only had a straw poll and all the conservative justices are drafting their own opinions, their starting negotiating positions, and they haven't even started discussing what goes into the opinion of the court yet.

Barret's voting record and writing as SCOTUS justice suggest she's closer to Kennedy/Roberts than many believed.

I would say he hasn't lied yet until a final ruling. He should consider keeping his word.
edit: yeah grizy , as I said i'm just talking about what is floating around, I have heard from reasonable sources that the most likely to flip would be 1. Kavanaugh 2. Amy C. Barrett

I always enjoyed Oliver!

Not gibberish at all!

I agree that God does things that would be considered immoral if humans did them.

For example, it would be wrong for me to steal my neighbor's bicycle. On the other hand, it would be literally impossible for God to steal my neighbor's bicycle, because an owner of a thing cannot "steal" that thing from himself. That is to say, God owns EVERYTHING. We are mere stewards of things that God has allowed us to have.

Only God can create a life, so only God can determine when or if that life is to end.

Hope that helps!

I obviously agree that the draft opinion isn't final and that the final opinion could end up being very different.

But I have never heard of a Supreme Court opinion being drafted in the way you are describing.

While there are certainly some in the "don't care as much about people after they're born" camp, a good majority of pro-lifer's that I have engaged also spend a lot of time and/or money helping others.

I suspect that many (most?) politicians who claim to be pro-life are merely pro-life on pragmatic grounds, not because they actually give a hoot about anybody.

That "standard reply" is just for Fella-Gaga. Most of our engagement is in RGT. Won't go into our "backstory" here.

Yes.

I'll have to look up who George Tiller was and get back to you on that. I don't recall the name. But, I'll do a google and find out.

Oh, that's not very helpful. You're again dodging.
The question is about morality and you're speaking to power and ownership.

If I buy a puppy and then lock it in a closet and let it starve I have demonstrated my power and ownership but not any morality.

Not that this is the venue for a discussion but....it does tie in with the court pretending it's above politics while being totally corrupt and partisan.

Okay, let's talk about morality:


By what knowable, universal, absolute and unchanging standard of righteousness is God Himself subject to?.

This discussion can only proceed after we both attempt to answer that question.

I believe in what Philosophy textbooks call The Divine Command Theory. That is to say, something is "right" if God commands it. Since God created everything, He also created the standard of righteousness that His creation are to follow. Since He didn't create Himself, He isn't subject to it.

You do not "own" the puppy. You did not create the puppy. God did. You are a steward of the puppy.

+1

Nothing at all "just" about our Justice System (imo).

You love circular reasoning huh .
And u speak about logical fallacy about others ?
Seriously ……

In a sense, all deductive arguments are circular.

So-called viscous circularity is indeed fallacious because the conclusion is merely a rewording or restating of the premise. For example:

Since Los Angeles has more people living there than any other city in California, it is the most populous city in the state.

Totally uninformative.


Consider a more complex deductive argument:

All four-sided objects are squares.
All rectangles are four-sided objects.
Therefore, all rectangles are squares.

The conclusion of this argument is informative, because the conclusion is not a mere restatement/rewording of the premises.

In a sense, however, this argument is still "circular" in that the conclusion is already contained in the premises. That is, there is nothing "new" in the conclusion that isn't already "old" in the premises (collectively). It is the process of deductive inference that allows us to confidently assert the truth of the conclusion based solely on the truth of the premises together with an elementary law of logic.

The Divine Command Theory isn't a case of viscous circularity, but is rather a case of what we might call virtuous circularity.

Hope that helps.

Obviously, if he's a righteous God then he's subject to whatever is righteous.

We could assume he's subject to The Ten Commandments I guess. Does it seem like he ever broke any of them ?

Your logic about creation and ownership makes no sense.
If I'm only the steward of the puppy because I didn't create it then God is more responsible for me than I am of the puppy. And if that's the case He's doing much worse to me than I did to poor puppy.

This is why people hate both the court and that particular version of God.

They both seem way too human to be above the fray.