Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sure you do. I call it rationalization.MachZer0 said:I don't support activist judges of any kind.
If this thread is any indication, that day is a long, long way away.Some day, most will recognize that
MachZer0 said:I clearly see the logic. It's called rationalization
I don't support activist judges of any kind. That is a ploy that is common on the left
I think the conspiracy is quite clear, except to those who "can't see the forest for the trees"
Some day, most will recognize that
Judges who rule based on the Constitution, as it is written, are just doing their job. They are not activists. It's as simple as that. Those are the judges I supportElectric Skeptic said:ANY judge who rules on (for example) abortion, no matter which way they rule, is activist - because they would be taking 'direct vigorous action in suport or opposition to one side of a controversial issue'. So if - hypothetically - the SCOTUS one day rules against abortion (overturning itself), will you be calling the judges that do so 'activist'? Of course not. You only use 'activist' to mean judges you DON'T agree with.
It is not rationalization to ask judges to do what they are paid to donvxplorer said:Sure you do. I call it rationalization.
Maybe not. It may only be one Supreme Court appointment awayIf this thread is any indication, that day is a long, long way away.
Enforcing the law is one thing. Finding a way, or an excuse, to apply that law selectively to groups with whom you either agree or disagree is rationalizationNathan Poe said:What you call "rationalization," the rest of us call "enforcing the law."
No, I've clearly stated that I support judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written. That is not activismOf course you support activist judges -- your kind. But they're not "activist," so long as they think the MachZero way.
A bleak day for many on the Left, indeed, but a new dawn for American principlesAnd what a bleak day for America that will be.
MachZer0 said:Enforcing the law is one thing. Finding a way, or an excuse, to apply that law selectively to groups with whom you either agree or disagree is rationalization
No, I've clearly stated that I support judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written. That is not activism
A bleak day for many on the Left, indeed, but a new dawn for American principles
There are existing laws that deal with assassination and arson. The effect of the bubble zones is essentially to suppress the rights of the law abiding protesters. The reference to assassination and arson is the proverbial appeal to emotion to substantiate the rationalizationNathan Poe said:Even you would have to agree that a stricter law has to be applied to a group with a history of assassination and arson.
The jury is still out on Roberts,but I haven't seen any evidence of activism yet.Then you don't support Roberts then? How puzzling.
The effect of the bubble zones is essentially to suppress the rights of the law abiding protesters. The reference to assassination and arson is the proverbial appeal to emotion to substantiate the rationalization
It's not so much the bubble zones as it is the double standard. that's the pointtulc said:So bubble zones are bad, right?
tulc(trying to understand)
There is a clear support here in this thread for the bubble zones at abortion clinics, and clear support for Phelps to be able to protest the funerals. That double standardtulc said:...wait who's double standard? the ACLU came out against bubble zones for Phelps and prolife protesters.
tulc(where's the double standard?)
MachZer0 said:There is a clear support here in this thread for the bubble zones at abortion clinics, and clear support for Phelps to be able to protest the funerals. That double standard
MOving the goalposts. Before it was a question of whether there was any violence or illegal activity. Now, suddenly, it's a question of injuries. At any rate, that is the rationalization of which I spoke earlier. Rationalization allows for disparate treatment based on philosophy, not the law.Nathan Poe said:This has been explained to you before, Mach... for your benefit, it shall be explained again... more slowly.
How. Many. People. Have. Ever. Been. Injured. At. A. Funeral. Protest?
MachZer0 said:MOving the goalposts. Before it was a question of whether there was any violence or illegal activity. Now, suddenly, it's a question of injuries.
At any rate, that is the rationalization of which I spoke earlier. Rationalization allows for disparate treatment based on philosophy, not the law.
As I said, you moved the goalposts from "illegal activities" to "injuries". But that is how rationalization worksNathan Poe said:If you prefer, we can talk only about the legal injuries, since apparantly, hurting someone at a protest isn't against the law in your America.
I don't have an exact number just as I suspect you don't have an exact number tfor the arrests at abortion clinic protestsBut I'll rephrase the question, again, for your benefit.
How. Many. People. Have. Ever. Been. Arrested. At. A. Funeral. Protest?
My answers are clear, they are just not palatable to a left wing mindset.Beyond this, I really don't know what else it'll take to get a straight answer out of you. Clearly, you have none.
MachZer0 said:As I said, you moved the goalposts from "illegal activities" to "injuries". But that is how rationalization works
I don't have an exact number just as I suspect you don't have an exact number tfor the arrests at abortion clinic protests
My answers are clear, they are just not palatable to a left wing mindset.
Your answers are crystal clear, but they're not rejected because of palatability. Actually, it appears you can't stomach the fact that the ACLU isn't trying to overthrow the US government, and this is the reason for your repetitive erroneous statements.MachZer0 said:My answers are clear, they are just not palatable to a left wing mindset.
There is a clear support here in this thread for the bubble zones at abortion clinics, and clear support for Phelps to be able to protest the funerals. That double standard
So, now it's "support here in this thread" rather than the ACLU? What was that you just wrote? Oh yeah...here it is: MOving the goalpostsMachZer0 said:There is a clear support here in this thread for the bubble zones at abortion clinics, and clear support for Phelps to be able to protest the funerals. That double standard
I wasn't responding to a question with that post so no answer should have been expectedNathan Poe said:Still no answer, hmmm? How does that work?
Actually there have been arrests and injuries, possibly even deaths at funerals. I don't have exact numbers any more than you have for abortion clinics.Actually, you do have an exact number, just not the number you'd like: Zero.
It's been years, but the arrests, injuries, etc are the rationalization part of the argument. One person gets arrested, that justifies denying the rights of peaceful protesters. If it was proved that Phelps (speaking hypothetically) had been arrested at a funeral, a different set of criteria would come forth to justify allowing him to protest.But for your benefit, I'll ask an even simpler question:
When. Was. The. Last. Time. Anyone. Got. Arrested. At. A. Funeral. Protest?
Skewed facts, yesApparantly, the left wing mindset relies too heavily on facts.
I'm not sure why this discussion has lowered into the realm of crayons and cartoons other than the rationalization argument seems to be failing"Facts? PFFT! You can use those to prove anything!" -- Homer Simpson.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?