Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'supreme court'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Objectivist Living Corner Office
    • Purpose of Objectivist Living and Legal Stuff (please read)
    • Announcements
    • Tech Support / IPB Help Desk
    • Links
    • Web Stuff and Other Tech Issues (not OL specific)
  • Objectivist Philosophy
    • About Objectivism
    • 1 - Metaphysics
    • 2 - Epistemology
    • 3 - Ethics
    • 4 - Politics
    • 5 - Aesthetics
  • Objectivist Living
    • Meet and Greet
    • Objectivist Living Room
    • Art Gallery
    • Articles
    • Creative Writing
    • Writing Techniques
    • Persuasion Techniques
    • Psychology
    • Parenting
    • Humor - OL LOLOLOLOL
    • The Library
    • Quotes
    • Romance Room
    • Movies and Entertainment
    • Music
    • News and Interesting Articles
    • Events and Happenings
    • Tips for Everyday Living
    • Inky's Room
    • The Kitchen
    • Science & Mathematics
    • Sports and Recreation
    • Stumping in the Backyard
    • Objectivist Living Room Copy
  • Objectivist Living Den
    • The Objectivist Living Den
    • Offers from OL Members
    • The Culture of Reason Center Corner
    • The Objectivist Living Boutique
  • Corners of Insight
    • Barbara Branden Corner
    • Nathaniel Branden Corner
    • Ed Hudgins Corner
    • David Kelley Corner
    • Chris Sciabarra Corner
    • George H. Smith Corner
    • Corners of Further Insight
    • TAS Corner
    • ARI Corner
  • Outer Limits
    • Rants
    • For The Children...
    • The Horror File Cabinet
    • Conservative News
    • Chewing on Ideas
    • Addiction
    • Objectivism in Dark Places
    • Mideast
    • PARC
    • The Garbage Pile


  • Objectivist Living Community Calendar
  • Self-Esteem Every Day


  • Kat's Blog
  • wanderlustig
  • Hussein El-Gohary's Blog
  • CLASSical Liberalism
  • Ted Keer' Blog
  • RaviKissoon's Blog
  • hbar24's Blog
  • brucemajors' Blog
  • Ross Barlow's Blog
  • James Heaps-Nelson's Blog
  • Matus1976's Blog
  • X
  • Tee-Jay's Blog
  • Jeff Kremer's Blog
  • Mark Weiss' Blog
  • Etisoppa's Blog
  • Friends and Foes
  • neale's Blog
  • Better Living Thru Blogging!
  • Chris Grieb's Blog
  • Gay TOC
  • Sandra Rice's Blog
  • novus-vir's Blog
  • Neil Parille's Blog
  • Jody Gomez's Blog
  • George Donnelly
  • plnchannel
  • F L Light's Blog
  • Donovan A's Blog
  • Julian's Writings
  • Aspberger's World
  • The Naturalist
  • Broader than Measurement Omission
  • The Melinda's Blog
  • Benevolist Ponderings
  • Shane's Blog
  • On Creative Writing (Chrys Jordan)
  • Think's Blog
  • Kate Herrick's Blog
  • Rich Engle's Blog
  • thelema's Blog
  • cyber bullying
  • Shane's Blog
  • x
  • Mary Lee Harsha's Blog
  • Mary Lee Harsha's Blog
  • George H. Smith's Blog
  • Jim Henderson's Blog
  • Mike Hansen's Blog
  • Bruce's Blogations
  • Prometheus Fire
  • equality72521's Blog
  • Sum Ergo Cogitabo's Blog
  • Robert Bumbalough's Blog
  • Troll reads Atlas
  • dustt's Blog
  • dustt's Blog
  • Closed
  • Tim Hopkins' Blog
  • Objectivism 401
  • PDS' Blog
  • PDS' Blog
  • Rich Engle's Beyond Even Bat Country
  • Negative Meat Popsicle's Blog
  • politics and education
  • J.S. McGowan's Blog
  • Aeternitas
  • Shrinkiatrist
  • AnarchObjectivist
  • Brant Gaede's Blog

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Full Name



Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.

Found 3 results

  1. From RBG to Amy Coney Barrett Today, President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to join the Supreme Court due to the vacancy created by Ruth Bader Ginsberg's passing. This is a knife wound in the gut to the left since they believe RBG should be replaced by a liberal. And that totally misrepresents what the Supreme Court is all about. Also, the left never would have applied that standard when RBG entered the vacancy created by Justice Byron White's retirement. Justice White was a dissenting voice in Roe versus Wade, for example. Nobody ever talks about that. I wonder why, I wonder?... And he was all about football, of all things. Rather than look at the nomination of Barrett through political agendas, or the lens of the left-dominate fake news mainstream press, or the right dominated shows like Rush Limbaugh and some of Fox News, or even the alt media, I decided to hear from Judge Amy Coney Barrett herself. I mean, that's the most rational way, right? I invite you to do so, also. Judge Amy Coney Barrett in 2016 I chose a lecture she gave in 2016 at the Public Policy Institute at Jacksonville University a few days before the Presidential election when the issue of who would fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia was still in the air. I wanted to see what she thought when it looked to most people following the news, and maybe even her (but not me back then ) that Hillary Clinton would win the presidency. (btw - She simply didn't know what to think of Trump with any certainty, so she said things could go either way with him, although she thought he would lean toward Justice Scalia's textualism. She liked his list but was unsure if he would keep to it if elected.) Rather than just learn about her views, though, I learned some things I was never clear on with respect to the Supreme Court. Things like the difference between Justice Scalia's textualism versus the strict constructionist view and the living document view. And she speaks in clear easy to understand language. What an unexpected pleasure. The people who fear her religiosity are listening to pundits and thinking in caricatures. And I expect the formal Objectivist leaders to bash Judge Barrett over her Catholicism by default in a stimulus-response manner. But her love of the Supreme Court and law are pure and separate and reality-centered. She certainly convinced me. Listening to her speak was like stepping into a bright sunlit room in a beautiful mansion after a long period in a dark damp moldy basement. And you? See for yourself. Back to now Senate confirmation hearings are set for October 12 and should last 4 days. After that, they will wait a week, then it will be up to Mitch McConnell to set the date for the Senate confirmation vote. As of now, that date is expected to be October 26 or a day or two after that. The upcoming disgrace I expect the left to go nuts during all this time, especially during the hearings and the week off. This thread is a good place to discuss the abominations that will unfold in addition to the pushback. The poor and gross behavior of the Democrats during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings was so icky, with so many smear fictions presented as fact, and with the press piling on in such a disgusting manner, I believe, as many do, that this resulted in helping the Republicans gain a few seats in the Senate during the midterm elections. They didn't fool anybody. They turned people off. If that is true, what the Democrats are about to unleash on Amy Coney Barrett will help President Trump's 2020 election considerably, not so much his own reelection, but in electing and reelecting Republicans down ballot in both the House and Senate. Do the Dems know that? I think they do, so I think they are promising themselves to be disciplined. But if the recent past is any indication, once they cut loose, a tipping point will soon hit and they won't be able to help themselves. And straight into the gutter will go they. Some people are saying what the Dems are about to do will make the Kavanaugh hearings look like a fellowship meeting at a church. I agree and that's what I predict. But let's hope not... Michael
  2. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission is at it again. Unwilling to abide by the Supreme Court ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the commission has issued another ruling targeting the same baker for essentially the same "crime" again -- the crime of having his own opinion. COLORADO IS GOING AFTER JACK PHILLIPS OF MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP AGAIN Darrell
  3. I'm the sort of person who approaches politics from a legal perspective. The Constitution is a swell document and the Bill of Rights is an icon of America. Most people are surprised to learn that the Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government. Now, I usually get into tussles with some conservatives over the role of the Supreme Court. My largest problem that I have with these particular ones is over the incorporation doctrine. When the subject comes up I often get bizarre remarks about it being a usurpation of "the people" (hello, Jean-Jacques Rousseau), the separation of church and state being a curb on religious freedom, that I'm saying that "the people" don't retain any rights, or a bunch of unrelated crap. I was even called a statist once for agreeing with it (snarl word, ahoy). One of the people opposed to it was someone who supported slave labor for illegal immigrants (I then made a snarky reference to North Korea), so I think you can get a sense of what these people have seemed like to me. (They covet the Tenth Amendment, but the Ninth Amendment? **** it.) Can I get any of your opinions on it?