Biden Creating Commission to Study Expanding the Supreme Court

No.

NxNW said:

Considering that we routinely separate Siamese twins, I don't see this as much of a refutation. But if an adult twin insisted that s/he be separated, even if it results in the certain death of the other twin, I would still consider that to be a Constitutional right.

Click to expand...

Siamese twins can only be separated with the consent of both twins (assuming they're adults), or, in the case of babies, the consent of the parents... and for good reason.

AvilaSurfer said:

No.

Click to expand...

If you're referring to the OP, I think Biden agrees. I think he's against the idea, but the progressives (who helped him get elected) are for it.

So... he'll form a commission (which is bipartisan, so it'll almost certainly say "no") and he'll have a graceful way out... after all, one of the many improvements he has over his predecessor is that he actually listens to experts, right?

NxNW said:

Yes, but it didn't refute my point, which remains valid.

Click to expand...

Right, but I knew I’d need read no further.

Pommer said:

Thank you for beginning with this.
It was delightful.

Click to expand...

I was confused by what you meant by this. Now, later on you posted this:

Pommer said:

Right, but I knew I’d need read no further.

Click to expand...

So this indicates what you meant was that you thought it was a really bad point and didn't need to read further. If so, I'm a bit saddened, given that I viewed the bit about the Siamese twins as more of a side point that I just wanted to get out of the way before I proceeded to what I viewed as the more pertinent arguments--the claim was made that "in what other circumstances can someone attached themselves to another person against their will?" and Siamese twins seemed like such a situation so I brought it up. And anyway NxNw subsequently said that he did think a Siamese twin had a constitutional right to force the other to undergo an operation to split them up, even if it would be a guaranteed death of the other, at least demonstrating he was taking his view to its logical conclusion.

JSRG said:

I was confused by what you meant by this. Now, later on you posted this:

So this indicates what you meant was that you thought it was a really bad point and didn't need to read further. If so, I'm a bit saddened, given that I viewed the bit about the Siamese twins as more of a side point that I just wanted to get out of the way before I proceeded to what I viewed as the more pertinent arguments--the claim was made that "in what other circumstances can someone attached themselves to another person against their will?" and Siamese twins seemed like such a situation so I brought it up. And anyway NxNw subsequently said that he did think a Siamese twin had a constitutional right to force the other to undergo an operation to split them up, even if it would be a guaranteed death of the other, at least demonstrating he was taking his view to its logical conclusion.

Click to expand...

Using conjoined twins though means that the one who would live would have to be such a complete monster to consider exercising the “right”, and since it’s not ever going to be likely that this would ever get into a courtroom (let alone an operation room), NxNW’s standing by this “right” is cheapened because of the unlikeness of the hypothetical ever coming up in real life.

(A “trolley problem” scenario has a 400 pound person next to you, who would block the tracks, if you pushed them.

This disregards the fact that a 120 pound person trying to push a 400 pound person will just get a stare, because do you know who is capable of moving a 400 pound person?
The 400 pound person.)

You have to find a new one; conjoined twins isn’t a good hypothetical.

Pommer said:

Using conjoined twins though means that the one who would live would have to be such a complete monster to consider exercising the “right”, and since it’s not ever going to be likely that this would ever get into a courtroom (let alone an operation room), NxNW’s standing by this “right” is cheapened because of the unlikeness of the hypothetical ever coming up in real life.

Click to expand...

Well, what was asked was "in what other circumstances can someone attached themselves to another person against their will?" This was, as far as I could tell, claiming that there aren't other situations where someone can be unwillingly "attached" to someone in the same way as pregnancy... but a Siamese twin is indeed attached in a rather similar fashion. That was my point.

If I had known that what I regarded as a minor point would be getting this kind of attention, I probably wouldn't have even brought it up, or would've at least rephrased it considerably.

JSRG said:

Well, what was asked was "in what other circumstances can someone attached themselves to another person against their will?" This was, as far as I could tell, claiming that there aren't other situations where someone can be unwillingly "attached" to someone in the same way as pregnancy... but a Siamese twin is indeed attached in a rather similar fashion. That was my point.

If I had known that what I regarded as a minor point would be getting this kind of attention, I probably wouldn't have even brought it up, or would've at least rephrased it considerably.

Click to expand...

Oh, I get that it was a debating tool, (and served it’s purpose, getting @NxNW to confirm his stance), so it was effective in that regard. It just struck me as “loose”.
It’s not you, it’s me.

Pommer said:

Oh, I get that it was a debating tool, (and served it’s purpose, getting @NxNW to confirm his stance), so it was effective in that regard. It just struck me as “loose”.
It’s not you, it’s me.

Click to expand...

It was not all that relevant, because it isn't a case of someone attaching themselves to another, since they were formed that way. There was never a time when they were not attached.

Here's another example, taken from (I think) Law & Order. Someone has their kidney forcibly removed, which is then transplanted into someone who would have died otherwise. The recipient didn't know where the kidney came from, only that there was a 'donor'. When the facts came to light and offenders went to jail, the episode ends with the victim remarking that he wishes he could have is kidney back.

Seems to me that he should be able to demand that it be removed from the recipient, assuming it could be reattached. It's not his problem that the recipient will die. Let's take it one step further than the episode: imagine that the victim's sole remaining kidney begins to fail, or is damaged in an accident. Should the recipient of the stolen kidney then be forced to give it back? Why does the recipient of the stolen kidney have more of a claim than the rightful owner, if both need it and both will die without it?