Biden Creating Commission to Study Expanding the Supreme Court

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
...and absolutely nothing beyond that.

Every day on Christian Forums, I learn something new.

What would you like to see happen beyond established laws and guidelines?
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
What would you like to see happen beyond established laws and guidelines?

An underlying belief in right and wrong.

It's called "morality."
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
An underlying belief in right and wrong.

It's called "morality."

That is what the ethics guidelines and laws represent. What specific changers do you feel need changing?
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
That is what the ethics guidelines and laws represent. What specific changers do you feel need changing?

And you're back where we began -- there is no morality except that which comes from an authority figure, and that figure needs to write it down and codify into law or else it doesn't count.

I've been on CF long enough to see how that works.
 
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And you're back where we began -- there is no morality except that which comes from an authority figure, and that figure needs to write it down and codify into law or else it doesn't count.

I've been on CF long enough to see how that works.

That isn’t what I asked -

What specific changers do you feel need changing?

What changes in the process would you like to see happen. Specificity would be helpful in bringing understanding.
 
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,076
7,405
✟343,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
It was the party that held the majority of the Senate.

Senate Majority controls the placement of SCOTUS.

There was nothing illegal, nor immoral with Garland. If RGB was still alive, this would be a non issue and not even spoken of. Only when one party became outnumbered in the court did it become and issue.

The previous forty plus years of that party’s majority in the court, there was never a discussion. Not by either party.
The Senate majority in 1988 was the Democrats, while the White House was held by the Republicans.
 
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Senate majority in 1988 was the Democrats, while the White House was held by the Republicans.

Was it not the senate majority that placed SCOTUS?
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
That isn’t what I asked -

Nevertheless, it is where you ended up.


What changes in the process would you like to see happen. Specificity would be helpful in bringing understanding.

I'd like to think that morality is a more personal process, where one need not wait for written orders from on high before they can opine about a given action being "right" or "wrong."

...but not everyone is ready for that kind of responsibility.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It was the party that held the majority of the Senate.

Senate Majority controls the placement of SCOTUS.

There was nothing illegal, nor immoral with Garland.
Which section of the Constitution says that presidential appointments are not allowed in their last year when the other party controls the Senate? I couldn't seem to find anything in my copy - hence my previous post about the current norm.
 
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Nevertheless, it is where you ended up.




I'd like to think that morality is a more personal process, where one need not wait for written orders from on high before they can opine about a given action being "right" or "wrong."

...but not everyone is ready for that kind of responsibility.

I guess what I am looking for is proactive dialog. If we don’t discuss solutions to the issue, then all we have left is complaints.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Which section of the Constitution says that presidential appointments are not allowed in their last year when the other party controls the Senate? I couldn't seem to find anything in my copy - hence my previous post about the current norm.

More importantly, which section of the Constitution dictates morality?

Or is hislegacy claiming it wasn't immoral because it wasn't illegal?
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I guess what I am looking for is proactive dialog. If we don’t discuss solutions to the issue, then all we have left is complaints.

There are no "solutions" to personal morality.

When Merrick Garland was nominated by President Obama, McConnell could have held the hearings, grilled Garland like a well-done cheeseburger, and then had his Senate majority vote "no." Instead, he refused to hold a hearing.

His actions were legal, but cowardly.

When Amy Coney Barrett was appointed by Donald, McConnell could have been consistent with his previous stated position and delayed the hearing. Instead, he rushed Barrett's confirmation through in record time.

His actions were legal, but hypocritical.

I consider cowardice and hypocrisy to be immoral because I don't need someone to write such things down first.

Can you believe that there are people out there who are so morally bankrupt themselves that they can only determine "right" or "wrong" by what people they consider above them say and do? Even people they would nominally consider their "enemies"?

"___________ said/did the thing (or never said not to), so it must be moral."

Pathetic, ain't it?

Sadly, there's nothing to be done for such people except to expose their deficient morality for what it is. It does nothing to correct their own behavior because they take no responsibility for their own (nonexistent) morals, but it does turn them into a useful object lesson for observers.

So at least they're good for something.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I consider cowardice and hypocrisy to be immoral because I don't need someone to write such things down first.

That is open to conjecture though - it is a personal perception, nothing more. The issue with personal perception is that it changes from person to person. That includes actions from any political party.

Example: I personally believe that abortion is murder and perhaps the lowest level of morality one could possibly have. (immorality actually) It is my personal perception that people who participate in the intentional killing of a child are .... well let's just say not moral, courageous or really have any redeeming qualities.

If I were to present my personal perception into words, I could complain that the current President lacks morals, or courage and is hypocritical in that he is a self professing Catholic, yet does not stand for an elemental value of his church. (this is an example - not open for debate because it is just an example)

That does nothing at all to foster debate, nor does it effect change. All it does is take a potentially informative issue and reduce it to complaining and name calling. The truth of the matter is that, to an extent, each of us are :

there are people out there who are so morally bankrupt themselves that they can only determine "right" or "wrong" by what people they consider above them say and do?

Tell me, if there was no speed limit enforcement, would you drive differently?
If you did not have people "above you" telling you what to say and do, would you follow any rules anywhere? Is that not what we do everyday on CF? Has anyone ever received a warning? Are they morally bankrupt?

All that to say this -

We are a community and nation of laws. That is how we maintain order and civility. Don't like peoples actions, there is a way of changing them.

So again, what laws or regulations would you change?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,612
9,330
the Great Basin
✟325,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
While a valid complaint - still does not break any ethics or legal issues.



Yes, if it is ethical and legal - that is what makes it 'good'. However Just like right now people will complain. I would have the right to complain then, just as you have the right to now.

Being ethical and legal does not prevent the losing side to stop complaining - never has - never will. That right is still here.



No, not at all - the yardsticks are rules of ethics and written law. That is the representation of our nations collective conscious. We are free and able to change those laws through our representatives.

By this logic, the US should remove any type of government student aid (Pell grants, GI Bill benefits, ROTC scholarships, etc) and direct funding to Christian Universities that don't allow same-sex individuals to openly attend or have a relationship (with a person of the same sex). After all, our ethics and law are set up to allow same sex relationships, to not discriminate.

Sure, you can complain, but based on the current "ethics and legality" it would be moral -- at least as I understand your argument.
 
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
By this logic, the US should remove any type of government student aid (Pell grants, GI Bill benefits, ROTC scholarships, etc) and direct funding to Christian Universities that don't allow same-sex individuals to openly attend or have a relationship (with a person of the same sex). After all, our ethics and law are set up to allow same sex relationships, to not discriminate.

Sure, you can complain, but based on the current "ethics and legality" it would be moral -- at least as I understand your argument.

So how would you go about making the changes?
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
That is open to conjecture though - it is a personal perception, nothing more.

It's enough for me.

The issue with personal perception is that it changes from person to person. That includes actions from any political party.

You make that sound like some sort of problem.

That does nothing at all to foster debate, nor does it effect change. All it does is take a potentially informative issue and reduce it to complaining and name calling.

If I see cowardice and hypocrisy, I will call it out as cowardice and hypocrisy. I see no reason not to.


Tell me, if there was no speed limit enforcement, would you drive differently?
If you did not have people "above you" telling you what to say and do, would you follow any rules anywhere? Is that not what we do everyday on CF? Has anyone ever received a warning? Are they morally bankrupt?

If CF tells you what to think and what to believe, then good for you. I can only speak for myself when I say that living such a way would be comparable to the vestibule of Dante's Inferno.

As I said, not everyone is ready to take on personal responsibility for their words and deeds. being told what to do, what to think, and what to believe is ever so much easier.

But for me, I'll take responsibility instead.


All that to say this -

We are a community and nation of laws. That is how we maintain order and civility. Don't like peoples actions, there is a way of changing them.

So again, what laws or regulations would you change?

I'm not quite so interested in changing other people's actions for them -- I'd prefer they change them themselves... But that would require them to assume responsibility for themselves, and that runs counter to their authoritarian philosophy.
 
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,612
9,330
the Great Basin
✟325,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So how would you go about making the changes?

Personally, I wouldn't. It is part of my concern about your "legalistic" argument that seemingly ties morality to the law. As for it happening, it appears the government might be able to do it under current anti-discrimination laws, as the Supreme Court rulings have basically extended Civil rights laws to include sexuality; and I have seen things that some schools believe that the federal government is preparing to make these changes. By your arguments here, based on current law and government ethics, it would seemingly be right for the government to make these changes.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Personally, I wouldn't. It is part of my concern about your "legalistic" argument that seemingly ties morality to the law

Name one law that is not directly connected to morality.
 
Upvote 0