Please don’t think I’m insulting your family. I would never do that. My family is very religious too. All Mormon’s. They are generally lovely people and I love them.
My argument is just
you don’t need religion to be lovely
being religious much more strongly correlates
to being an awful person than being non-religious does
while there are lovely religious people, on aggregate, there are no lovely religions. Religions are a nearly absolute bad for humanity.
Someone’s going to murder a SCOTUS judge at some point.
It’s obviously going to be a right-winger because the left is a bunch of pussies who would never murder anyone.
Let’s just agree to disagree.
Pointing out that some Christians made some good humans isn’t even close to saying it is the only way to do so.
Not sure about the scientific validity of “religious people are awful.” My understanding is that the biggest correlation is poverty. Sounds like a less shitty version of hating the poors ala Edems.
Hot take: It’s a dogshit opinion and conservatives are correct that it is legislating from the bench. It should be supported anyway because standing on lol “principle” is for saps who don’t understand that the Supreme Court is a nakedly political institution and all the controversial/close decisions in con “law” are Calvinball where you just pick the arguments that will lead to the conclusion you want. But it’s not GOOD that complex national policy questions are being decided by an unelected court, it’s evidence of a dysfunctional political system.
This. There is a reason you never hear anything from the Canadian, British or Australian Supreme Court. Because their government actually functions and makes most of the laws as intended.
Protest in the middle of town today. There were 17 religious nuts there as well. May 14th is the nationwide one.
In the UK, the Supreme Court is not permitted to use judicial review to overturn an Act of Parliament. Imagine if it was like that in the US.
I’d be curious to see, throughout history not just recent years, what that option has prevented/allowed and whether it is a net benefit/loss.
Especially you, mister “I’m more of an idea man” when it comes to any action whatsoever, violent or non
A lot would be solved if all women said
DON’T
There are three high profile leaks from SCOTUS in the last 10 years or so. The previous two were both to National Review, and if I recall correctly one was when Roberts was wavering on the ACA to save it, and the other related to Obergefell.
So yeah I think Clarence should stop bringing papers home from the office.
This isn’t some anomaly. This is the average understanding of elected republicans.
Ooooooooh extra edgelord points for you today. Keep collecting. Soon you will be able to trade for the medium-sized prize.
Most of the times, I don’t believe in centrism, but I believe abortion is legitimately an issue where having a truly democratic process that expresses the will of the people would land on an abortion regime midway between all abortions are allowed and no abortions except maybe in the cases of rape or incest.
Is it a coincidence that the rare time the principles of your ideology can be thrown away and you’re fine with it, it has to do with reproductive organs you don’t possess?
