Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court

[37L1]

Sure, and for the purposes of our disagreement, this fact isn't relevant to anything I've said.

Really?

As long as you're not taking choices away and people's freedom like the nazi eugenicists. You know eugenicist is not inherently a negative term, right? What's wrong with improving the gene pool?

 

[SamRebel35]

Is a fetus a person? I don't know. Is there a kid hiding in the leaf pile I'm about to run over? I don't know. Let's err on the side of not killing a person, though. Don't kill the fetus and don't run over the leaf pile. Does that sound radical?

 

[n_huffhines]

Really?

Can you explain to me why saying abortion doesn't necessarily improve the gene pool is relevant to my explanation that eugenicists aim to improve the gene pool?

 

[37L1]

Can you explain to me why saying abortion doesn't necessarily improve the gene pool is relevant to my explanation that eugenicists aim to improve the gene pool?

How are you going about "improving the gene pool" and who gets to decide what improvements that are to be made?

 

[Ashevolle]

no it's not...the only reason that unborn children are not taxable or considered dependent status is because the government uses Social Security Numbers to track all citizens. These were never given to unborn children NOT because they weren't considered human life, it was because of the high rate of miscarriages that no one was given a SSN until actual birth, to prevent extra unneeded work on government employees AND for the consideration of the parent's of lost babies.

Source? Seems far-fetched.

 

[n_huffhines]

Is a fetus a person? I don't know. Is there a kid hiding in the leaf pile I'm about to run over? I don't know. Let's err on the side of not killing a person, though. Don't kill the fetus and don't run over the leaf pile. Does that sound radical?

I will never kill a fetus but since I don't know what it technically is, I have a hard time justifying telling other people what to do. Especially since the unintended consequences of banning abortion are bad, too.

 

[volinbham]

Ummm can we get back to basking in liberal tears here? Thanks

 

[Rickyvol77]

Source? Seems far-fetched.

I know...logic and reason usually are for libs

 

[n_huffhines]

I haven't seen much on ACB that made me wary of her, but then Reason just published this. Seems pretty bad. Basically, NY tried to pass labor laws that capped how many hours bakers could work and SCOTUS overturned it for the sake of economic liberty (14th amendment) and she is opposed to that (at least in this case). I mean, this is what you would expect from a Marxist judge.

She thinks the Supreme Court got it wrong when it protected the constitutional right to economic liberty in the famous case of Lochner v. New York (1905).

"In the Lochner era," Barrett replied, and "in Lochner itself," the Supreme Court "was standing in the way of reforms for workers that legislatures were enacting." Say a federal judge "had a preference for free trade, or if one had a preference for having no minimum wage," she said. "To hold such a statute that did the opposite of your policy preference unconstitutional because it didn't comport with your idea of the best economic policy would be to thwart the will of the people without warrant in the Constitution."

Amy Coney Barrett on Lochner and the 14th Amendment

 

[n_huffhines]

How are you going about "improving the gene pool" and who gets to decide what improvements that are to be made?

You're getting too granular and losing the point. We're already sidetracked from the main conversation and you're wanting me to sell you on a viable form of eugenics that is satisfactory to you, when all I'm saying is that eugenics isn't inherently bad. I don't need to tell you all the millions of ways people and scientists can try to improve the gene pool in order for you to understand that's what eugenics is.

 

[37L1]

You're getting too granular and losing the point. We're already sidetracked from the main conversation and you're wanting me to sell you on a viable form of eugenics that is satisfactory to you, when all I'm saying is that eugenics isn't inherently bad. I don't need to tell you all the millions of ways people and scientists can try to improve the gene pool in order for you to understand that's what eugenics is.

So, now, you are concerned about "sidetrack(ing) from the main conversation"?
Nice non answer. You must be becoming aware that it's a topic fraught with ethical questions (or questionable ethics), are you, now? Don't blame you one bit for dancing around it.

 

[golfballs]

bartender sez

 

[ButchPlz]

Huh? You know those guys aren't doing the science, they're just bringing other people's science to light. And yes, it's peer-reviewed "scientific" stuff, because they are mostly honestly following the scientific process.

Please stay in your element. They pull down information from narrow pools of studies that they themselves select from a narrow and biased pool, interpret them in their own way, and come up with their own generally non-testable conclusions based on their own assumptions and very loose math, not necessarily real testing and observation. They've had many people show where they selectively pick what data they want to use and share to get the conclusion that sells and have openly admitted the goal is getting popular.

To say they merely present "other people's science" is wildly misleading and ignorant, but I wouldn't expect too much else from you.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

It's not considered racist. It is racist.

The economic opportunity that blacks enjoy right now has nothing to do with Trump's feelings about blacks, so you're a racist and an idiot. Congrats.

And you are a sad sad little man

 

[UT_VOLS13]

Celebrities react to Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court confirmation: 'The corruption is shameless'

 

[n_huffhines]

So, now, you are concerned about "sidetrack(ing) from the main conversation"?
Nice non answer. You must be becoming aware that it's a topic fraught with ethical questions (or questionable ethics), are you, now? Don't blame you one bit for dancing around it.

@volinbham called it out and he's right. You seem like maybe you really do want some answers, so we can carry this out in another thread.

 

[volinbham]

I haven't seen much on ACB that made me wary of her, but then Reason just published this. Seems pretty bad. Basically, NY tried to pass labor laws that capped how many hours bakers could work and SCOTUS overturned it for the sake of economic liberty (14th amendment) and she is opposed to that (at least in this case). I mean, this is what you would expect from a Marxist judge.

She thinks the Supreme Court got it wrong when it protected the constitutional right to economic liberty in the famous case of Lochner v. New York (1905).

"In the Lochner era," Barrett replied, and "in Lochner itself," the Supreme Court "was standing in the way of reforms for workers that legislatures were enacting." Say a federal judge "had a preference for free trade, or if one had a preference for having no minimum wage," she said. "To hold such a statute that did the opposite of your policy preference unconstitutional because it didn't comport with your idea of the best economic policy would be to thwart the will of the people without warrant in the Constitution."

Amy Coney Barrett on Lochner and the 14th Amendment

Based on the quote you posted alone it just sounds like she's saying that judges shouldn't rule based on personal preference. The quote doesn't suggest any view on economic liberty.

 

[n_huffhines]

Please stay in your element. They pull down information from narrow pools of studies that they themselves select from a narrow and biased pool, interpret them in their own way, and come up with their own generally non-testable conclusions based on their own assumptions and very loose math, not necessarily real testing and observation. They've had many people show where they selectively pick what data they want to use and share to get the conclusion that sells and have openly admitted the goal is getting popular.

To say they merely present "other people's science" is wildly misleading and ignorant, but I wouldn't expect too much else from you.

Not every opinion expressed on Freakonomics is scientific, but you're trying to deflect from real science they shared and pointing out that not everything is science. Cool. The thing they said that you don't like is science, tho.

 

[n_huffhines]

Based on the quote you posted alone it just sounds like she's saying that judges shouldn't rule based on personal preference. The quote doesn't suggest any view on economic liberty.

But they struck it down for constitutional reasons, not the reasons she said. Maybe she's ignorant on the topic. Maybe she's choosing to frame it this way because she doesn't like the implications of the 14th amendment in this regard. Maybe she knows they cited the 14th amendment thing but thinks the judges are misusing it in their activism. Any of these scenarios are problematic.

 

[ButchPlz]

Not every opinion expressed on Freakonomics is scientific, but you're trying to deflect from real science they shared and pointing out that not everything is science. Cool. The thing they said that you don't like is science, tho.

I'm not trying to deflect from any specific 'real science'. I said they're popular culture and 'barely scientific', which is blatantly true. To make matters worse there are frequent instances where they haven't delineated between their assumptions and the actual peer-reviewed data.

Again, out of your element.

 

[Y9 Vol]

How about we take cases as they come in front of the SC instead of all this projecting shat?

 

[volinbham]

But they struck it down for constitutional reasons, not the reasons she said. Maybe she's ignorant on the topic. Maybe she's choosing to frame it this way because she doesn't like the implications of the 14th amendment in this regard. Maybe she knows they cited the 14th amendment thing but thinks the judges are misusing it in their activism. Any of these scenarios are problematic.

Kinda the point - we don't know her reasoning other than the quote. Hard to label her as something based on assumptions of what she really means.

 

[volinbham]

 

[golfballs]

 

[happy-go_vol]

Murdering unborn babies? That's quite the paradox you've created there.

No. They're humans whether in the womb or not