What conduct do you feel is a deal breaker for SCOTUS nominees

[Jarhyn]

Is the poll about BK or not ? Rhetorical question, it clearly is.

Me because I felt the responses were ambiguous. Probably should have abstained.

More, my guess is you want to have abstained because you don't understand that the standard of evidence for elevation should mirror the standard of evidence for de-elevation: beyond a reasonable doubt. You just don't want to hold THIS guy to that standard because he is partisan and so are you. Correct me if I am wrong, or come and participate in the thread I just made about standards of evidence and decisional symmetry.

No, I didn't understand that what you set up was a test, with a right and wrong answer, not a poll. And since the poll is not about THIS guy (BK, obviously) I don't see how I can be partisan about it.

Anyway, what did you get out of this poll ?

The poll is about what real people actually care about with regards to qualifications to the SCOTUS, in order to actually get answers as to whether someone who lies, rapes, drinks, etc is an acceptable pick, and then to use that knowledge of what people find utterly disqualifying as behavior. Because for something to be utterly disqualified for a behavior, even a little bit of it, one must be just as sure it didn't happen to pass the deal-breaker test.

It's not hard to understand that if I give you an award, I should know beyond a reasonable doubt you qualify for it, same as when if giving you a punishment, I should be beyond a reasonable doubt there as well. This guy lied to the left and right of his claim of innocence; while we cannot test the claim directly, the claim is surrounded by lies, and poisoned by them: the poll indicates that the lies themselves were unnnecesary, and trivially so. This clearly doesn't meet the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" particularly for an award that is literally a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful positions in the country".

 

[Lion IRC]

Edit: oh, and if you are curious about how the hell to parse "getting my husband pregnant", lol. You can keep wondering about that one; it's not my fault if you're confused about the new realities of being a human being in the 21st century

Husband doesn't mean male.
Wife doesn't mean female.
Brothers can be girls and sisters can be boys.
Zhe is he and she is zhe.
Children (gay children) can give consent (come out of the closet) to their own sexual identity - their body their choice.
Atheists can be priests.
Sham marriages of convenience are still 'marriages'.
Suicide is bad. Euthanasia is good.
One persons baby is unconditionally loved. Another persons is an inconvenient "unwanted embryo".

Yeah. It's the 21st Century alright.

 

[Jarhyn]

Edit: oh, and if you are curious about how the hell to parse "getting my husband pregnant", lol. You can keep wondering about that one; it's not my fault if you're confused about the new realities of being a human being in the 21st century

Husband doesn't mean male.
Wife doesn't mean female.
Brothers can be girls and sisters can be boys.
Zhe is he and she is zhe.
Children (gay children) can give consent (come out of the closet) to their own sexual identity - their body their choice.
Atheists can be priests.
Sham marriages of convenience are still 'marriages'.
Suicide is bad. Euthanasia is good.
One persons baby is unconditionally loved. Another persons is an inconvenient "unwanted embryo".

Yeah. It's the 21st Century alright.

You're so far off that you're not EVEN wrong.

Now anything to say about anything else besides the one part that doesn't matter to the discussion?

 

[TSwizzle]

The poll is about what real people actually care about with regards to qualifications to the SCOTUS, in order to actually get answers as to whether someone who lies, rapes, drinks, etc is an acceptable pick, and then to use that knowledge of what people find utterly disqualifying as behavior. Because for something to be utterly disqualified for a behavior, even a little bit of it, one must be just as sure it didn't happen to pass the deal-breaker test.

Well I think we can all agree that real rapists should not sit on SCOTUS.

 

[Lion IRC]

Edit: oh, and if you are curious about how the hell to parse "getting my husband pregnant", lol. You can keep wondering about that one; it's not my fault if you're confused about the new realities of being a human being in the 21st century

Husband doesn't mean male.
Wife doesn't mean female.
Brothers can be girls and sisters can be boys.
Zhe is he and she is zhe.
Children (gay children) can give consent (come out of the closet) to their own sexual identity - their body their choice.
Atheists can be priests.
Sham marriages of convenience are still 'marriages'.
Suicide is bad. Euthanasia is good.
One persons baby is unconditionally loved. Another persons is an inconvenient "unwanted embryo".

Yeah. It's the 21st Century alright.

You're so far off that you're not EVEN wrong.

Now anything to say about anything else besides the one part that doesn't matter to the discussion?

Oh, I'm sorry.
I thought you wanted to talk about pregnant husbands.
Did you just derail your own thread?

I already stated my view about SCOTUS and the politics of "do whatever it takes"

 

[Jarhyn]

The poll is about what real people actually care about with regards to qualifications to the SCOTUS, in order to actually get answers as to whether someone who lies, rapes, drinks, etc is an acceptable pick, and then to use that knowledge of what people find utterly disqualifying as behavior. Because for something to be utterly disqualified for a behavior, even a little bit of it, one must be just as sure it didn't happen to pass the deal-breaker test.

Well I think we can all agree that real rapists should not sit on SCOTUS.

Now let's see if we can get you to "the standard of evidence for deserving a high award is as stringent (or should be) as the standard of evidence for a punishment."