Should a new Scotus judge be appointed before the 2020 Presidential election?

At the visceral, purely reactionary level, I should find things to disagree with in your reply, but I don't. Maybe I'm just too tired right now, but I don't.

I have become aware that the very 'way' we work must surely change in the decades ahead (which I won't be around for). The truth is that because of the very nature and interactive power of those 'tools' I mentioned earlier, and the 'internet-of-things', we simply will not find enough WORK for somewhere between eight and ten billion human beings.

Moreover, as you suggest, we must (MUST) find better products for consumption, better methods of distribution, and far less impact on the planet if man is to survive for even another 200 - 300 years. I don't imagine that the "Vulcans" are any similar race of aliens is coming to rescue us from ourselves....

Some kind of 'subsidy' or 'welfare' seems a looming requirement in the decades ahead in this century. Work is literally DISAPPEARING before our eyes... and a lot of the 'work' that's being created will be done by robots, or, interestingly, by CUSTOMERS THEMSELVES....

Going down that road, it will be so tempting for the 'Inner-Party' members in our several, various "swamps" to enslave the 'Proles' and everyone else ("1984" again)! How will mankind achieve a truly egalitarian, world-wide society when it seems more and more clear every year that only a steel-fisted, authoritarian, central government of some kind can project the power and discipline necessary to keep the world from devolving into complete chaos...? CHINA would seem to be the more prominent of exponents for this hypothesis, but I sure as hell would not want to live in China!

But, I might want to live in the only country on Earth I know of where Socialism really does work well for nearly everyone -- GERMANY....

 

So you will have no issues when Democrats add 3 justices and then reimplement a 2/3’s requirement for future confirmations? Right?

 

I saw a program recently in which several Western expatriates living in China said they like living there, and that life is continuing as normal for them without any interference from the government at all.

Obviously if you keep out of politics - and don't go demanding the overthrown of the CCP like those fools in HK are doing, you won't be hassled by the Chinese government. And mainland Chinese are increasingly happy to put their heads down and partake in their system which is increasing their prosperity faster than any other nation in the world.

Won't argue with that, except to say Germany with its current account surplus benefits from having the EU's most powerful economy, and hence greatest influence over the ECB.

While several EU nations with external trade deficits are suffering low growth rates and are on the brink of insolvency.......

 

Hmmm that would be one party changing the rules of the Congress in order to make a fundamental and drastic change to one branch of the government for their political purposes and then once doing it changing the rule back. But quite frankly I would never vote them into office to do so. But how on earth are you attempting to equate the two. The Republicans are not trying the change the government as it exists nor circumvent it. They are in fact just carrying out their constitutional duty. A key distinction you seem to overlooking.

 

You gave me nothing to engage on the topic, I will await.......I'm not here to read other people's links I am here to discuss the issue with them.

What I said was, which is why we need justices and judges like Barret and not Ginsburg.

If you believe the contrary then explain why.

 

Republicans are doing only what is legal, not what norms have been established.
Why do you support Republicans doing this but not Democrats?

There is a word for that...

Democrats packing the courts and then mandating a vote threshold would be completely constitutional.

And I wouldn’t blame them.
Shenanigans beget shenanigans

 

Do you also attack Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi for the CRIME of being a Catholic? Asking for a friend.

 

You are naïve. All politicians are hypocrites, to one degree or another. You can't really believe that if Chuck Schumer had a majority in the senate and a Dem president that he wouldn't be pushing for a replacement immediately? Of course he would, and if the situation is reversed at some time in the future, he will change his current tune. They all do it.

Yep and I guess if you don't care about free speech, you should go live there.

 

I'm attacking Barrett (and Pompeo) for their literalism.

Background:

Two centuries of investigation of scripture since the advent of the Enlightenment in Europe has revealed scripture, ANY scripture, is not the 'perfect', inerrant Word of God, but the word of men in search of God.

Hence the progressive wing of Christianity has adopted a non-literalist approach to scripture, which has profound consequences for religious belief and practice....one day hopefully in the not too far distant future, the Peoples of the Book - the Abrahamic religions - will come together under a new understanding of the ontology of biblical and Koranic scripture.

Catholicism, being the oldest branch of Christianity faces special difficulties eg, though the present Pope is a 'liberal', I expect he must still present the Trinity doctrine as truth, denied in the Koran which correctly rejects the Divinity of Christ. But of course the Koran has numerous textual problems along with the OT from which it is derived.

Meanwhile Christ himself remains the greatest Jewish teacher in history (rejected by the Jewish religious authorities themselves), to be counted in the exalted company of eg the Buddha in India, Zoroaster in Persia, and Confucius in China.

(Note: I don't include Moses or The Prophet of Islam in that group, because they were warriors who conceived of a god of war who punished transgressors, to whom they could appeal for victory over their 'enemies' (Jehovah in ancient Israel, and Allah - the same One True God worshiped by the OT prophets - in dark-age Arabia, respectively. Note: Islam was incredibly successful in the middle ages, conquering half the world by the sword or by persuasion.

In conclusion, Joe and Nancy, not being fundamentalists, are open to new gentler, more kind interpretations of scripture; as described by Christ himself when he said:"This is the first and the greatest commandment: "Love God and love one-another".

We can safely relegate a literalist interpretation of St John's phantastical 'Revelations' to the fiction department....

 

Not necessarily, unless the US degenerates into civil war.....

I like free speech, but I recognize the difficulties faced by a government in raising a huge population out of agrarian subsistence poverty into prosperity. China appears to have achieved a balance between the unbridled competition of capitalism which always results in some being left behind, and state planning, or government intervention to ensure minimum acceptable standards for all.


India and China present an interesting case study comparing a two-party democracy with free elections (in my book mostly examples of the 'blind leading the blind', free speech included...), and a one-party meritocracy in the case of China.

The differences in development have been dramatic in the last 4 decades; from similar starting conditions and populations, China is now the world's 2nd largest economy with 5 times the GDP of India!

 

I prefer it to be apolitical. Do what many countries do - have the court itself nominate a replacement which is then either accepted or rejected on merit

 

OK, since it seems I missed your post quoted immediately below, I will continue on the terms insisted by you; but I cannot explain to the Right, person by person, the error of the Right's world view (leaving aside the Left's view here because all is explained in the linked posts in a debate which you refuse to read).

Governments don't maintain, or need to maintain "their own welfare" via the collection of taxes. Governments need to maintain their capacity to govern which is not equivalent to "welfare" in the common usage of that word.


Undoubtedly some of the taxes raised do pay for the provision of security forces required to enable government to carry out its law enforcement functions; but the term welfare in the common usage relates to well-being of citizens, not government, well-being which is sadly lacking eg, in the inner city ghettos. (****holes according to Trump...).

Addressed and refuted above; to repeat, the maintenance of necessary functions of government is not the same as the "welfare" of the citizens governed.

'Welfare' is "subsistence", generally understood to imply poverty?

 

sadly we could never trust a far right court to do that, this country is too divided anymore

 

Back on TOPIC: because the Constitution flatly forbids the establishment of any (ANY) 'state-religion', circumlocutions that wander off into anyone's chosen variety of "Catholicism" are wholly irrelevant to this thread's question of whether or not a Supreme Court Justice should be confirmed by the Senate before November 3rd...(♪ ta-DAH! ♫)

Trump nominated a person for consideration. The nomination was duly forwarded to the Senate. The Senate will take up the nomination for consideration. All the constitutional "i's" have been dotted; and all the "t's" have been crossed.

It's all out of Trump's hands now, really... and the fact that he has 'tested-positive' for a virus has nothing to do with the conformation process, either....

 

Of course they do else how do they operate and pay their debts. And the term "welfare" at the time and in the Constitution did not mean section 8 housing and food stamps. Its the welfare of THE UNITED STATES, the federal government. It is to pay for it's maintenance and proper function.

You are looking at it from a prism of today not when the Constitution was written and when the Constitution speaks of the citizens it says the PEOPLE. The founding fathers NEVER envisioned the federal government provide subsistence to the People, if the were to occur at all the STATE would provide it.

Addressed and refuted above and yes the Tax and Spend Clause is not about the "welfare" of the citizens it authorizes the federal government to pass certain taxes to pay for itself and pay it's debts and it then list those specific spending authorizations which do not include subsistence payments to individual citizens.

Not in how the word is used in the constitution tax and spend clause where it means in good working order and solvent. It's the welfare of the government not the people.

 

Again
How on earth are you attempting to equate the two. The Republicans are not trying the change the government as it exists nor circumvent it. They are in fact just carrying out their constitutional duty. A key distinction you seem to overlooking. The Republicans aren't trying to change anything or engage in these political partisan schnanigans your attempt to conflagration the two is absurd.

 

YOU prefer? And your dawg in this hunt is what exactly?

 

False. They changed the vote requirement for SCOTUS nomination and they have backtracked on their previous stance of “letting the people decide”.

Now feel free to answer the question.

 

Reid change the rules on judicial nominees. No need to answer a specious question the Republicans are not engaged in partisan political shenanigans, changing rules back and forth etc, they are carrying out their Constitutional mandate and duty and not changing anything to do it.

 

Where was their congressional mandate with Garland?

Don’t act like rushing through the quickest SCOTUS nomination in US history isn’t partisan, saying otherwise is just... well, a reach.

Since you are unable to answer the question your narrative is clear.

 

Right there in the Constitution and they carried it out, the Constitution doesn't say the Senate HAS to confirm they can deny which they did. Since you have to conflate the Republicans carrying out their constitutional authority and mandate without jumping through hoops changing rules with the Democrats changing the rules to get what they want and then changing them back your narrative is clear. I gave you your answer, they are completely different acts.

 

Note my underlined: times change (eg like I said, people could stake a claim on some land, build a cabin from available materials, and grow/catch their own food.

Agreed, as noted above...

The Preamble says "We the People........in order to........ promote the general Welfare.....do establish this Constitution of the United States...."

The Constitution SECTION 8. Clause 1 says "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to ......... provide for the general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States".

Is it reasonable to assign different meanings to 'People" in the Preamble and the Constitution?

What are the provisions in the US Constitution regarding the power of states to raise taxes to provide for the subsistence of the people in the different states?

Discussed above....so the Tax and Spend Clause is not about the "welfare" of the citizens, but the Preamble is?

Surely the states need to form a "more perfect union", not only to enable the common defense of all of them, but to promote some sort of general welfare among all of them.

Discussed above.

In any case, do you think the Constitution needs to be amended, in order for the states of the US to be "a more perfect union", which is not marred by "neighborhoods like war zones"?

 

The senate wasn’t even allowed to vote.
Try again

What rules would the Democrats be changing? Noting I have said is prevented by the constitution.

 

As always, things are not so simple.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/religion_and_the_constitution

"Some commentators have suggested that the Free Exercise Clause is contradictory with the Establishment Clause because by protecting certain religious practices that the government would otherwise like to prohibit, the Constitution takes stance in favor of and not neutral to religion".

Meanwhile, the People of Praise cult to which Barrett belongs, is certainly not beholden to the Constitution...but to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

 

Those who will do anything imaginable to thwart Barrett's confirmation will be taking us on tours of 'the weeds' until they accomplish their 'mission' -- anything to gobble-up time! But they're fooling themselves, because even if Trump were to lose the election, Senate Republicans have from now until the Congress starts a new session in JANUARY to confirm her!

The Constitution says what it says -- nothing less, and nothing more. Please remember that, after all, it was designed to control and LIMIT a central, federal government, not provide it pathways of insinuation into areas that are (according to the 10th Amendment itself) "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Thus, in the United States, we have 'freedom of religion', and NO state-imposed religion. Those who want to ponder or address any perceived 'vagaries' in the wording of the Constitution are always welcome to do so, and to amend it if they feel strongly enough about whatever they think is wrong with it....

As it is, a person may be a Roman Catholic, an 'Orthodox' Catholic, or even of a variety known officially as "Old Catholic"! Some of us may want to worship "Gaia", or perhaps nothing at all. One friend of mine has been trying to persuade me of the divinity of "The Great Tree Lizard" for years! It's his choice, mine, and anyone else's in this country.... Heck, with the right credentials, my lizard-worshiping friend could even be considered for an empty seat on the Supreme Court!

The takeaway: The men who wrote our Constitution were trying to prevent the repetition of civil war and murderous strife that occurred about 250 years earlier when King Henry VIII created his "Church of England".

Anyway, back on topic -- there is no reason (ethical, logical, or constitutional) why the Senate cannot proceed toward the confirmation or rejection of Judge Barrett FORTHWITH!

. "I'd actually prefer a state-adopted religion -- MINE!"