He’s a judge’s judge. He’s imminently qualified, and there should be no serious objection to his nomination. He’s conservative for sure, but a Republican president gets conservative judges, and the Democrats have no principled basis on which to oppose him. (Ideology isn’t a principled basis, IMO, unless it’s so far out of the mainstream as to be unreasonable. And Kavanaugh doesn’t fall into that bucket.)
One thing I like about his ideology is, like Gorsuch, he has expressed some skepticism about the judicial view that agencies deserve nearly unlimited deference in how they interpret, administer, and enforce the law. I want an entire SCOTUS willing to have that view, regardless of where they fall otherwise.
Solid pick by Trump. Well, solid pick by Trump’s advisors. I’m certain Trump had little to do with it. Trump was probably going with Judge Judy until his advisors intervened.
No, it isn’t grammar; it’s vocabulary. The believers who try and argue against atheism, who make the ridiculous and false claims that they can prove God exists, that atheism is just as irrationally based as religious belief, use your argument to bolster theirs. Absence of belief is not a belief. Belief is believing something exists without evidence (hence irrational). Not believing something exists because of a lack of evidence is not a belief.
Beginning to think you can’t read. you can’t take anyone’s right, by utilizing you’re rights this is not a superiority of rights issue. I am really having a hard time understanding why you were having difficulty with that fact
You cannot kill someone for religious reasons. Therefore, the right to life, the right to exercise the right to life, supersedes the right to exercise religion if there is a conflict between the two. They are not equal. Tell me how there is an equal outcome? One person gets to live, the other does not get to exercise religion as freely as he wants.
This isn’t like someone exercising free speech to call a religion silly yet anyone who follows it can still exercise their right to do so.
One could say it is only superior in the sense that you necessarily remove another person’s right to free exercise of religion through killing them.
In the end though, I don’t care. I’d keep it simple, Yeah the right to life trumps (not a pun) the other rights. Like the right to abortion/privacy.
If we even believe in a right to life beyond some fancy.
Or, hey, a society could decided to only respect the lives its dominant religion tells them have a right. All other lives are to be disposed or spared as desired by the society’s members.
Dude you don’t understand. the right to life is not a greater right than free speech, freedom of religion, the right to your property. No right is greater than another. No right of yours is an excuse to take somebody else’s right. Your right to life does not give you the right to steal food from somebody else. Even if you’re starving to death. My right to worship my cannibal religion, does not give me the right to take somebody else’s life for the same reason.
Know if you’re starving to death You are not given the right to steal to save your own life. though in reality somebody would just give you the food before they let you die. Assuming food wasn’t such a rare commodity that doing so would kill themselves
If you’re simpleminded enough to believe that rights are given an order of preference. But simply put. All rights trump all law. And you’re rights never give you the right to interfere in any one else’s rights.
Of course we don’t believe in the independent existence of these rights in the first place. They’re just fanciful things we all hold different opinions on. And at large, which fancies rule the day, can change dramatically by which opinion holders have the guns.
Again you’re understanding is weak. Using your right to free speech to call for an violent act is using your right to interfere with another person’s right. Eminent domain is the acknowledgment that no one can take your property, through due process it must be bought and paid for at a fair market rate.
Because the right to life as well as the greater good of the public, in the case of Eminent Domain, are more important than one’s right to yell fire in a crowded theater or own land that the public has a greater need to make use of.