• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama Nominates Judge Who Supports Reparations

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Red Dawn said:
what part of even if their sacrifice wasn't originally intended to free the slaves. don't you understand?
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic... You know how the right likes to say that the war wasn't about slavery. It was, it precipitated from slavery in the new states, and they WERE fighting to free the slaves.
 
Last edited:
BTW, since number of generations matters, can we go ahead and tax estates at 100% after 2 generations? Grandchildren and following generations don't deserve the wealth and we can use that money to pay down the national debt.
 
Last edited:
Throckmorton said:
BTW, since number of generations matters, can we go ahead and tax estates at 100% after 2 generations? Grandchildren and following generations don't deserve the wealth and we can use that money to pay down the national debt.
Click to expand...
No Comrade we can't.
 
Throckmorton said:
BTW, since number of generations matters, can we go ahead and tax estates at 100% after 2 generations? Grandchildren and following generations don't deserve the wealth and we can use that money to pay down the national debt.
Click to expand...

Do that and no one will want to keep their money in the US.
 
Government owns the railroads.
Should the Irish and others get reparations from the US government?

Or does this reparations issues really just race pandering.

Funny how it is always the "progressive" who brings race into the picture these days....
 
Patranus said:
Government owns the railroads.
Should the Irish and others get reparations from the US government?

Or does this reparations issues really just race pandering.

Funny how it is always the "progressive" who brings race into the picture these days....
Click to expand...
What's even funnier is that this is an Asian who doesn't hate blacks😱


BTW, care to answer my question to you?

Originally Posted by Patranus
From the bench he can push "social justice"
Click to expand...

And that makes him different than any other Judge? Would you object to a highly religious candidate for that position fearing that he may use the bench for push his religious views?
 
Red Dawn said:
And that makes him different than any other Judge? Would you object to a highly religious candidate for that position fearing that he may use the bench for push his religious views?
Click to expand...

Well, the entire idea behind social justice is using the legal system to "fix" passed injustices.

While it is possible for a religious judge push their religious views from the bench, doing so is not mainstream within those groups.

So, you have someone who believes that that is the role of the court while someone else who doesn't but it is always certainly possible.
 
Red Dawn said:
And that makes him different than any other Judge? Would you object to a highly religious candidate for that position fearing that he may use the bench for push his religious views?
Click to expand...

It would depend on what the judge were doing. The morals of everyone comes in to the mix of forming a judgment. However, if the judge were basing his opinion on the need to prop up one religion, especially if at the expense of another, then he should be removed from his position.
 
Last edited:
Patranus said:
Government owns the railroads.
Should the Irish and others get reparations from the US government?

Or does this reparations issues really just race pandering.

Funny how it is always the "progressive" who brings race into the picture these days....
Click to expand...

If the Irish were systematically and legally, with approval from the Constitution, forced to work with no pay, then yes they deserve reparations.

BTW you know who made it about race? The people who enslaved only Africans
 
Last edited:
cubby1223 said:
It would depend on what the judge were doing. The morals of everyone comes in to the mix of forming a judgment. However, if the judge were basing his opinion on the need to prop up one religion at the expense of another, then he should be removed from his position.
Click to expand...
Well there' the potential he'll do that just like Patranus said there is the potential that this guy in question would "push social justice" from the bench. Do we exclude candidates and nominees because of the potential of them going beyond their authority when there's no evidence that they'll do that?
 
Funny I don't remember howls of protest when Bush appointed the supporter of torture, Jay Bybee, to the court of appeal.
 
Throckmorton said:
If the Irish were forced to work with no pay, then yes they deserve reparations.
Click to expand...

So can my English ancestors get reparations from my Italian ancestors? After all Rome took slaves from every territory they conquered. Also how is this reparations thing going to work for the descendents of free blacks that owned slaves?
 
Red Dawn said:
Well there' the potential he'll do that just like Patranus said there is the potential that this guy in question would "push social justice" from the bench. Do we exclude candidates and nominees because of the potential of them going beyond their authority when there's no evidence that they'll do that?
Click to expand...

Yes/No.

In this case, yes.
He openly stated that he believes in "social justice".

If a judge said he would consult the pope before making a ruling, I would also say they shouldn't be considered.
 
Patranus said:
Yes/No.

In this case, yes.
He openly stated that he believes in "social justice".

If a judge said he would consult the pope before making a ruling, I would also say they shouldn't be considered.
Click to expand...
How about consulting with the Bible?
 
marincounty said:
Funny I don't remember howls of protest when Bush appointed the supporter of torture, Jay Bybee, to the court of appeal.
Click to expand...

2003 is when he was confirmed. It was after that when the libs started going ape on Bush and claiming all sorts of "torture" BS. Oh and BTW, Bybee was cleared of any misconduct if you hadn't heard.
 
Red Dawn said:
Well there' the potential he'll do that just like Patranus said there is the potential that this guy in question would "push social justice" from the bench. Do we exclude candidates and nominees because of the potential of them going beyond their authority when there's no evidence that they'll do that?
Click to expand...

Well, that is the political climate these days. "The left" did it when Bush nominated judges. "The right" is doing it now when Obama nominates judges.

I do think we need to look in to the subjects carefully, when judges are appointed to lifetime positions.

But bigger than any of this, this country better figure out a way to solve this topic of "social justice" instead of having political parties endlessly fight it out by seeing who can appoint the most judges supporting their own ideology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top