Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: New attorney general is terrible on the CSS issue.

  1. Top | #1
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Layton, UT
    Posts
    1,316
    Rep Power
    9

    New attorney general is terrible on the CSS issue.

    Not that it should be surprising to anyone, since the trumpster fire basically continues to pander to his shrinking base.

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...rch-and-state/

    Theocracy alert: Trump’s Attorney General Pick William Barr is a Catholic conservative who rejects the separation of church and state, calls secularists “fanatics,” and blames secularism for “moral decline.”

    Earlier today Trump announced he would nominate William Barr to succeed Jeff Sessions as the nation’s attorney general. Barr previously served as attorney general under the late President George H.W. Bush.

    Barr is a states’ rights, religious conservative who believes women do not have a constitutional right to abortion, that Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided, and that the legality of abortion should be determined by individual states.
    Much more at the link. He's also 'tough on crime', which means more money for for-profit prisons, and higher rates of incarceration for minor crimes, both of which had been improving lately.

    And of course, he wants to get Jeebus back into public schools.

  2. Top | #2
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,645
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    Not that it should be surprising to anyone, since the trumpster fire basically continues to pander to his shrinking base.

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...rch-and-state/

    Theocracy alert: Trump’s Attorney General Pick William Barr is a Catholic conservative who rejects the separation of church and state, calls secularists “fanatics,” and blames secularism for “moral decline.”

    Earlier today Trump announced he would nominate William Barr to succeed Jeff Sessions as the nation’s attorney general. Barr previously served as attorney general under the late President George H.W. Bush.

    Barr is a states’ rights, religious conservative who believes women do not have a constitutional right to abortion, that Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided, and that the legality of abortion should be determined by individual states.
    Much more at the link. He's also 'tough on crime', which means more money for for-profit prisons, and higher rates of incarceration for minor crimes, both of which had been improving lately.

    And of course, he wants to get Jeebus back into public schools.
    The statement that he is opposed to abortion comes from an interview with him in 1991. At that time (27 years ago, if my math is correct), he said that Roe v, Wade hinged on a "privacy" clause in the Constitution... to which he said he thought that the basis was flawed and indeed was a question for states.
    The statement that he is opposed to CSS comes from an opinion article he wrote in 1995.

    are there writings we can review from him on these topics within, say.. the past decade?

    This is like, "evolution is false because Darwin said blah blah blah..... in 1860")

  3. Top | #3
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,894
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    Not that it should be surprising to anyone, since the trumpster fire basically continues to pander to his shrinking base.

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...rch-and-state/

    Theocracy alert: Trump’s Attorney General Pick William Barr is a Catholic conservative who rejects the separation of church and state, calls secularists “fanatics,” and blames secularism for “moral decline.”

    Earlier today Trump announced he would nominate William Barr to succeed Jeff Sessions as the nation’s attorney general. Barr previously served as attorney general under the late President George H.W. Bush.

    Barr is a states’ rights, religious conservative who believes women do not have a constitutional right to abortion, that Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided, and that the legality of abortion should be determined by individual states.
    Much more at the link. He's also 'tough on crime', which means more money for for-profit prisons, and higher rates of incarceration for minor crimes, both of which had been improving lately.

    And of course, he wants to get Jeebus back into public schools.
    The statement that he is opposed to abortion comes from an interview with him in 1991. At that time (27 years ago, if my math is correct), he said that Roe v, Wade hinged on a "privacy" clause in the Constitution... to which he said he thought that the basis was flawed and indeed was a question for states.
    The statement that he is opposed to CSS comes from an opinion article he wrote in 1995.

    are there writings we can review from him on these topics within, say.. the past decade?

    This is like, "evolution is false because Darwin said blah blah blah..... in 1860")
    No, it is absolutely nothing like that. What Darwin said at any point has nor relevance to whether evolution is true. What a 45 year old judge argues in writing is highly relevant is highly predictive of what the think at age 68. Almost no one changes their views on such matters after early adulthood, let alone a person who had already spent decades on the subject as part of their career prior to age 45.

  4. Top | #4
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,645
    Rep Power
    6
    I think it is a fair parallel. One person was expressing their opinion on how descent with modification works, and the other was expressing their opinion on how the legal system should work.
    Both topics change over time as new information is received.
    I do not agree that once a person reaches a certain age, they loose the ability to change their opinion. That's age discrimination, if it is the basis of your objection to the guy.

  5. Top | #5
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,879
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,379
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    I think it is a fair parallel. One person was expressing their opinion on how descent with modification works, and the other was expressing their opinion on how the legal system should work.
    But your example was not about concluding whether Darwin's opinion was right, but about whether evolution is true.

    Not at all comparable.

    This would be more like saying Darwin was a creationist, because he said it'd be hard to imgiine an eye evolving.
    The oroper response to this claim would have zip nada to do with Darwin's age at the time of publication, but to look at the context of the comment. Turns out he went right on and explained a likely path.

    So, were the legal comments taken out of context? If you can show that, you might have a point.
    Or maybe he can explain his current position, if it has changed.
    Much like during his confirmation, where he explained the memo that Trump's people thought meant he was on their side.

    But short of that, there is more evidence this was and remains his position than reasons to even susoect that he has changed positions...

  6. Top | #6
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,645
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    I think it is a fair parallel. One person was expressing their opinion on how descent with modification works, and the other was expressing their opinion on how the legal system should work.
    But your example was not about concluding whether Darwin's opinion was right, but about whether evolution is true.

    Not at all comparable.

    This would be more like saying Darwin was a creationist, because he said it'd be hard to imgiine an eye evolving.
    The oroper response to this claim would have zip nada to do with Darwin's age at the time of publication, but to look at the context of the comment. Turns out he went right on and explained a likely path.

    So, were the legal comments taken out of context? If you can show that, you might have a point.
    Or maybe he can explain his current position, if it has changed.
    Much like during his confirmation, where he explained the memo that Trump's people thought meant he was on their side.

    But short of that, there is more evidence this was and remains his position than reasons to even suspect that he has changed positions...
    Yes, that is exactly it... the legal comments were taken out of context... the context of decades of progressive growth.

    It's like the complaint about a comedian that one time, decades ago, made a joke that today would be considered inappropriate, even though it was not considered inappropriate then. The jeers for that comedian to apologize and separate themselves from society is similar to criticism of this guy for what he commented on back then.. in the same way.

    "I would never tell that same joke today" is no different than "I would never hold that position on the law today"

  7. Top | #7
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,879
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,379
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Yes, that is exactly it... the legal comments were taken out of context... the context of decades of progressive growth.
    No. No, the remarks were not taken out of context if he said something different, later

    You would need to show something IN THAT DOCUMENT that changed the meaning of the out-take.

    And you cannot just say he's grown, or say he may have grown, or we have no reason to assume he did not grow.

    You have to actually show something he has said or done to show a different stance now applies, and why. And even then, the quotes are not 'out of context' but just 'old.'
    It's like the complaint about a comedian that one time, decades ago, made a joke that today would be considered inappropriate, even though it was not considered inappropriate then. The jeers for that comedian to apologize and separate themselves from society is similar to criticism of this guy for what he commented on back then.. in the same way.
    no, not similar.
    "I would never tell that same joke today" is no different than "I would never hold that position on the law today"
    No, they are not the same. False equivalency.
    Jokes are driven by the audience. We tell jokes based on what we think the listeners will laugh at, with absolutely no necessary connection to what we actually believe or desire.
    This is why performers keep getting in trouble when they drink and lose their skill at filtering themselves for the audience at hand.

    Writing out things about WHAT I THINK THE LAW MEANS should not be slanted towards particular readers. One's stated position on the law cannot be waived without some serious explaining of what changed, either in your understanding or in the set precedents. You cannot treat it like an ethnic joke you only tell in certain clubs...

  8. Top | #8
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,645
    Rep Power
    6
    I've made no claim that he has "grown". I merely asked if there is anything to read from him in the past decade, as I find documents from before the turn of the century a bit out of date. I made the Darwin analogy because I know you guys are easily triggered to respond to that... and it wasn't such a bad analogy.

  9. Top | #9
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,879
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,379
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    I've made no claim that he has "grown".
    Huh. You said that his words were taken out of the context of decades of progressive growth.
    Strange how i took that as a claim he HAS GROWN.
    I merely asked if there is anything to read from him in the past decade, as I find documents from before the turn of the century a bit out of date.
    Yes, you did ask that, waaaaay up inthe thread. Which is diffferent from what i was responding to.
    I made the Darwin analogy because I know you guys are easily triggered to respond to that...
    ah. So, you were trolling. Kay.
    and it wasn't such a bad analogy.
    no, as an analogy, it sucks wind for thevreasons listed above, which you have not refuted.

    Bye bye.

  10. Top | #10
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,645
    Rep Power
    6
    Interpretation of the law changes with experience... like actual things that happen through the course of history that inform the development of new laws and the interpretation of old ones. Newt said that he was wrong about certain financial regulations he supported because he underestimated the degree of human greed... a position on laws changed from experience and collection of new information. Isn't that Scientific? Altering points of view through the gathering of new information?

    I made no statement of fact concerning this guys CURRENT position on legal topics. I just asked if there was something from this friggin decade. What is your motivation to resist the notion that an opinion from 30 years ago might have changed?

    I bet when you were 5 years old you thought girls were icky. We should just assume you are a gay man now, I guess... icky icky icky.

Similar Threads

  1. Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Nazis didn't deport Jews
    By Underseer in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-13-2018, 05:09 PM
  2. N.Y. Attorney General Sues Trump Foundation After 2-Year Investigation
    By ZiprHead in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-17-2018, 12:10 AM
  3. Trump just fired the acting Attorney General
    By Warpoet in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: 02-02-2017, 05:49 PM
  4. US Attorney General to Prosecute Climate Change Deniers?
    By Cheerful Charlie in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 04-23-2016, 09:41 PM
  5. Most Corrupt Man Ever Resigns as Attorney General
    By Jimmy Higgins in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 09-27-2014, 02:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •