-
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
Comment
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
Biden SCOTUS Nominee Has 'Pattern of Treating Sex Offenders Leniently,' GOP Senator Says
Sent from my SM-G960U using TapatalkComment
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
Four U.S. Marines Killed In Norway NATO Training Identified | The Daily Wire
Sent from my SM-G960U using TapatalkComment
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
The Truth About Joe Biden’s Brother Involvement in Iraq - Truth PressComment
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
Comment
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson: Critical race theory doesn't come up in my work and I don't rely on it as judge
GOP Sen. Ted Cruz pressed Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on her opinions on critical race theory, referring to a speech she gave at the University of Michigan in 2020 where she mentioned Nikole Hannah-Jones' 1619 Project.
Jackson responded, "It doesn't come up in my work as It's never something that I have studied or relied on, and it wouldn't be something that I would rely on if I was on the Supreme Court."
Cruz continued to press Jackson on the subject and whether it should be taught to young children in schools.
The GOP senator grilled Jackson on books about racism and critical race theory that are available at Georgetown Day School, an institution that she's a board member of. Jackson said that she was not aware of the books Cruz had mentioned and maintained that the subject is not something she would use as a Supreme Court justice or something that has been relevant to her as a judge.
"Senator, I have not reviewed any of those books, any of those ideas. They don't come up in my work as a judge, which I am, respectfully, here, to address," she said.Comment
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson: Roe and Casey are "settled law of the Supreme Court"
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said that the two Supreme Court decisions that secured the right to abortion for women in America are "settled law" of the court.
"I do agree with both Justice (Brett) Kavanaugh and Justice (Amy Coney) Barrett on Roe and Casey are the settled law of the Supreme Court concerning the right to terminate a woman's pregnancy," Jackson told Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
Jackson went on to say that the two cases "established a framework that the court has reaffirmed and in order to revisit, as Justice Barrett said, the Supreme Court looks at various factors because stare decisis is a very important principle."
She said that the concept of stare decisis "provides and establishes predictability, stability, it also serves as a restraint in this way on the exercise of judicial authority because the court looks at whether or not precedents are relied upon, whether they’re workable, in addition to whether or not they’re wrong."
However, it makes no difference what a nominee — liberal or conservative — says about the fact that Roe v. Wade is settled precedent. That’s because a Supreme Court justice, unlike a lower court judge, can vote to overturn precedent.
The court is expected to issue a major ruling this summer that could overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in a case involving a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.Comment
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
Ketanji Brown Jackson is a big defender of child molesters. She's a sick bitch. A cunt.Adversity temporarily visits a strong man but stays with the weak for a lifetime.Comment
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
Demonizing Our Opponents: A Threat to Public Discourse
As the November election approaches, we brace ourselves for a barrage of last-minute campaigning. If recent history is any guide, much of it will be negative.
Although many people have decried the general deterioration of civility in U.S. politics, I am especially concerned about one way public discourse often goes wrong: our proclivity to demonize our opponents. By that I mean characterizing those with whom we disagree as morally bankrupt, or at least as approximating some such deplorable state.
Even though demonization has been around since time immemorial, I and many others think we are seeing more of it recently. Consider, for example, the tenor of discourse between pro-life and pro-choice advocates, between AIDS activists and animal-rights proponents, between environmentalists and loggers, African Americans and whites, immigrants-rights advocates and their anti-immigration opponents.
All too often, exchanges among these and other such groups deteriorate into character assassination, smear campaign, and abuse. There are good reasons for concern about this sort of thing.
One reason is the adverse effect demonizing our opponents has on the kind of public discourse democracy needs to succeed. Democratic societies require the free exchange of ideas among a populace willing and able to make informed judgments about them. But if we fail to engage in the rational examination of ideas and seek instead to work our will through vilification and personal attack, the democratic process is subverted.
We become less able to see the strengths and genuine weaknesses of alternative viewpoints. Public discourse becomes more focused on the acquisition of power and less on the pursuit of truth, more enamored of sensationalism and less attentive to the deeper issues of our times, more interested in personalities and less in the plausibility of the policies these persons advocate. Emotionalism usurps reason; cant and prejudice prosper — and democracy suffers a dearth of meaningful social dialogue.
There are also more directly moral reasons for concern. To demonize someone goes beyond saying he is mistaken or misguided. It is, as a rule, to denounce his character and to do so in moral terms. The moral status of one's character, however, is closely tied to the moral status of one's intentions. Thus, it is a conceptual confusion to say that a person's character is evil even though her intentions are good.
But now we enter murky waters: Judging a person's intentions is a notoriously difficult business. For one thing, intentions are often remarkably opaque to others. For another, even if we know what a person's intentions are, it is frequently hard to assess them.
Suppose, for example, that someone advocates a social policy with which you strongly disagree — say, capital punishment — and grounds her judgment on a well-developed theory of justice that you nonetheless reject: retribution. Are her intentions, and thus her character, evil? And what should she say about you?
There is nothing weak or submissive, nothing traitorous or dishonorable, in showing decency to others. On the contrary, morality requires it, as does the welfare of our embattled democracy.
Christopher B. Kulp is an associate professor of philosophy at Santa Clara University and serves on the Center Steering Committee. He is the author of The End of Epistemology (Greenwood Press, 1992), editor of Realism/Antirealism and Epistemology (Rowman & Littlefield, forthcoming), and is working on a book on the theory of moral knowledge.
This article was originally published in Issues in Ethics - V. 7, N. 3 Fall 1996.Comment
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
Comment
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
Suburbs switch to Trump, and he leads Biden 45%-42% in 2024 clash | Washington ExaminerComment
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
FREE FALLING: Biden’s Approval Rating Drops to Record Low as He Jets to Europe | Joe PagsComment
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
Breaking: In a new Zogby Poll released yesterday, Covid leads Joe Biden 43-39 percent. Also, the majority of registered voters trust Covid over Joe Biden to handle the Russia/Ukraine war.Adversity temporarily visits a strong man but stays with the weak for a lifetime.Comment
Comment