Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum MOBILE
Byrne Robotics | The John Byrne Forum
Topic: Nones Post Reply | Post New Topic
Author
Message
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4066
Posted: 17 October 2020 at 10:38am | IP Logged | 1 post reply

I very much liked Bill Maher's New Rule last night. Beware this is not safe for work and some homes. =)

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne

Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 122052
Posted: 17 October 2020 at 11:18am | IP Logged | 2 post reply

Hes still an asshole, but occasionally he make a good point.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 12836
Posted: 17 October 2020 at 11:20am | IP Logged | 3 post reply

A lot of what he says is funny, but I'm not convinced what he says adds up. He says, as an atheist, he has no problem separating church and state.. and then advocates a process by which who gets on the Supreme Court should be influenced by religion. You can argue she is getting the spot because of her religious views and that is wrong -- and, yes, he sort of does argue that -- but he goes further to suggest she is nuts because of her religion. Easy to assassinate her character by saying she talks in tongues, but does she? Has she ever brought that into the legal profession? He needs to demonstrate instances where her religious views have encroached on her legal judgement -- I don't say those instances don't exist, I simply say he doesn't bother to even look for them.

In a nutshell, his argument seems to be: I've decided she will inevitably be a certain way because of her religion. Therefore I don't like her and she shouldn't get the job. Take out the humour and it's a pretty ugly viewpoint.


Edited by Peter Martin on 17 October 2020 at 11:21am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security

Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 33668
Posted: 18 October 2020 at 1:34am | IP Logged | 4 post reply

 John Byrne wrote:
Hes still an asshole, but occasionally he make a good point.

This.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security

Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 33668
Posted: 18 October 2020 at 1:48am | IP Logged | 5 post reply

 Peter Martin wrote:
In a nutshell, his argument seems to be: I've decided she will inevitably be a certain way because of her religion. Therefore I don't like her and she shouldn't get the job. Take out the humour and it's a pretty ugly viewpoint.

I don't think so. At all.  Her beliefs outside the courtroom hold an incredible sway to how she advocates from the bench.  They are not "out of bounds" to comment upon nor are they some sort of ephemeral dogma that can be wished away into the cornfield.  She is who she is.  That's EXACTLY WHY she was chosen as the RBG replacement. To argue otherwise, to say that everything she has said, stood for and represented is somehow wiped away during this singular moment is, I'm sorry, absurd. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne

Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 122052
Posted: 18 October 2020 at 7:17am | IP Logged | 6 post reply

Remember when the first trailers started to appear for Ang Lee's HULK? There was a moment when Bruce Banner describes the terrible rage that overwhelms him when he transforms, and adds "I like it!"

Totally the wrong characterization, of course, and many fans jumped through hoops trying to claim the quote was "out of context" and when we all saw the movie it would make sense.

Then we all saw the movie, and the quote was exactly what it had been in the trailer.

Now we have people jumping thru very similar hoops trying to recast Barret's previous stances on key topics as not being anything that will affect her rulings on the bench.

But, you know, I kinda doubt it.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4066
Posted: 18 October 2020 at 11:00am | IP Logged | 7 post reply

It is almost laughable to think this nominee is being put forth for anything other than exactly how she will rule on ACA, Obergefell, and Roe. She has history telegraphing her beliefs and ideology in writings and speeches. But during the hearings a great deal is made to feign impartiality.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 12836
Posted: 18 October 2020 at 5:09pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

Her beliefs outside the courtroom hold an incredible sway to how she advocates from the bench.  They are not "out of bounds" to comment upon nor are they some sort of ephemeral dogma that can be wished away into the cornfield.  She is who she is.  That's EXACTLY WHY she was chosen as the RBG replacement. To argue otherwise, to say that everything she has said, stood for and represented is somehow wiped away during this singular moment is, I'm sorry, absurd. 
---------------------------
No need to apologise. You are, however, putting words into my mouth. Did I say anything was wiped away? Rather than saying what she stands for is wiped away, I expressly stated instances of her religion encroaching on her legal views may very well exist... But if they do, why not actually cite them? If Maher has such instances, why not include them?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 12836
Posted: 18 October 2020 at 5:23pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

Obviously she has been nominated by Trump with an expectation that she will vote a certain way on certain key issues. There's no denying that, (though conversely if it was a Dem choice being put forward, would they be chosen in the hope they would vote the wrong way -- wrong in terms of the hopes of those doing the nominating -- on key issues?).

As I said, there is certainly an argument to be made it's wrong for her to be given a spot based on religion, which Maher sort of does. I don't have a beef with that. I expounded on the bits where I thought he went beyond that.


Edited by Peter Martin on 18 October 2020 at 5:24pm
Back to Top profile | search
 

If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login
If you are not already registered you must first register

  Post Reply | Post New Topic |

Forum Jump

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login

You are currently viewing the MOBILE version of the site.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL SITE