Alito jokes about foreign reaction to his Dobbs decision

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Context matters. Instead of simply reading the article go to the primary source.
Watch the speech. It was funny, self deprecating and intelligent regardless of one’s political views.
Understanding your adversary’s viewpoint and arguments is invaluable.
Such a lack of intellectual curiosity on DCUM.

+100
This is true of liberals in general today. Or, I should say, "leftists." Because these people are not at all liberal in the traditional sense of the word.
They protest, shout down, and cancel conservative speakers in law schools, med schools, and universities in general. The mere presence of an opposing view on issues is now viewed as harmful under the new rules that have taken hold of higher education.

+200
I watched the entire thing. What an intelligent - and brave - person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Context matters. Instead of simply reading the article go to the primary source.
Watch the speech. It was funny, self deprecating and intelligent regardless of one’s political views.
Understanding your adversary’s viewpoint and arguments is invaluable.
Such a lack of intellectual curiosity on DCUM.

Intellectual curiosity for this

"“It is hard to convince people that religious liberty is worth defending if they don’t think that religion is a good thing that deserves protection,” Alito told the audience. “The challenge for those who want to protect religious liberty in the United States, Europe, and other similar places is to convince people who are not religious that religious liberty is worth special protection. That will not be easy to do.”

SPECIAL PROTECTION. No, thats been done before. Christians, Muslims, etc. They can do their thing but no, I am not interested in giving religions special protection. That means that those with religion are protected more than those without. Religion needs less power not more and history has shown us time and time again that power combined with religion is a dangerous thing for most people.

Reading is fundamental.
He didn't say giving "religion" special protection.
He said give "religious liberty" special protection. And, that is exactly what this country was founded on. Remember the pilgrims?
People should be free to worship as they wish.

In what way does Dobbs advance religious liberty?

The “joke” was gross because he’s making fun of foreign leaders for being worried about reproductive rights and the health of American women of childbearing age. That’s only a “joke” if you’re a psychopath.

You are guilty of taking soundbites out of context.

His whole speech was about religious freedom. That was the topic. It was not in reference to Roe or any other decision.

Read more here:

https://law.nd.edu/news-events/news/2022-religious-liberty-summit-rome-justice-samuel-alito-keynote/

And, so you know.... he was mocking leaders of OTHER nations for getting their knickers in a bunch about decisions made in the US.

+1
As always, other countries' leaders seem to feel it's their right to tell the US what to do. It is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This just makes Court reform more and more palatable to the public.

I'd also watch for analysis of the "during good behavior" portion of Article III to start bubbling up from law reviews into the mainstream press.

Part of the unspoken "deal" of leaving the federal judiciary structure and functioning largely alone is that federal judges were supposed to adhere to a certain amount of decorum and norms such as the outward appearance of impartiality. If they aren't going to do that then we should find a way to structure things to enforce that.

You didn't seem to mind when RBG showed her partisan stripes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/07/13/scotus-ruth-bader-ginsburg-trump/87024248/

PP here. I am not a fan of RBG in her later years. She's almost a perfect example for Supreme Court reform, much as Alito is, or Rehnquist. People completely and totally out of touch and no longer truly competent with their dumb fancy collars or stupid gold stripes on their robes. They've all lost their judgement and sense of reality.

I don't like protests at Supreme Court justices homes. I don't like Supreme Court justices being protested at fancy steakhouses. But the reason people are doing these things is because there is literally no accountability.

I don't think this is the way the founders intended it to be and I KNOW that this is not the way that the American people want it to be today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day religious people are always going to feel strange having to cope with cognitive dissonance. They buy into weird stuff. Like Bronze Age stuff. A talking bush. A flood killing everyone and an arc with a bunch of animals. They have to lie to themselves to believe it. Or they get indoctrinated at birth and it’s easier to believe.

These people now control the Supreme Court.

It’s still irrational. They are not acting out of neutrality in these cases.

Please tell me you understand that 99% of religious people do not think any of the things you list are literal, especially Catholics and Episcopalians and Jews. If you are are basing your argument against an opposing point of view on a gross misunderstanding, you already lost. Please educate yourself so you can actually be a force for good in these debates. As soon as you say something ignorant like "ooh they believe a burning bush talked," you are dismissed as an ignoramus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Not to mention the speech was not about DOBBS either.
Some of you really need to put forth more effort

True. The only thing about Dobbs (which I abhor) here was the misleading re: line of the thread.

[Anonymous]

They all thought the US was great until the Dobbs decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day religious people are always going to feel strange having to cope with cognitive dissonance. They buy into weird stuff. Like Bronze Age stuff. A talking bush. A flood killing everyone and an arc with a bunch of animals. They have to lie to themselves to believe it. Or they get indoctrinated at birth and it’s easier to believe.

These people now control the Supreme Court.

It’s still irrational. They are not acting out of neutrality in these cases.

Please tell me you understand that 99% of religious people do not think any of the things you list are literal, especially Catholics and Episcopalians and Jews. If you are are basing your argument against an opposing point of view on a gross misunderstanding, you already lost. Please educate yourself so you can actually be a force for good in these debates. As soon as you say something ignorant like "ooh they believe a burning bush talked," you are dismissed as an ignoramus.

Spot on. SO ignorant.

[Anonymous]

I am listening to the whole speech.

I am stunned at 23:00 when he makes a reference to Moloch and say that no society today would tolerate the sacrifice of its children. When we do that all the time. Unbelievable.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2012/12/15/our-moloch/

Can we please stop pretending that these people are better than us. Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Context matters. Instead of simply reading the article go to the primary source.
Watch the speech. It was funny, self deprecating and intelligent regardless of one’s political views.
Understanding your adversary’s viewpoint and arguments is invaluable.
Such a lack of intellectual curiosity on DCUM.

Intellectual curiosity for this

"“It is hard to convince people that religious liberty is worth defending if they don’t think that religion is a good thing that deserves protection,” Alito told the audience. “The challenge for those who want to protect religious liberty in the United States, Europe, and other similar places is to convince people who are not religious that religious liberty is worth special protection. That will not be easy to do.”

SPECIAL PROTECTION. No, thats been done before. Christians, Muslims, etc. They can do their thing but no, I am not interested in giving religions special protection. That means that those with religion are protected more than those without. Religion needs less power not more and history has shown us time and time again that power combined with religion is a dangerous thing for most people.

Reading is fundamental.
He didn't say giving "religion" special protection.
He said give "religious liberty" special protection. And, that is exactly what this country was founded on. Remember the pilgrims?
People should be free to worship as they wish.

It doesnt need further protection. They only people whose rights are being infringed on are non-religious people. You can worship whenever and wherever you like but other people dont have to made to do it, or abide by your definition of moral, nor should government property or those working on behalf of the government use the federal, state, or local owned spaces to worship. You carry your religion inside you- keep it there.

He is not wrong. He was speaking about religious freedom around the world.
From his speech:

“If we look around the world today, we see that people of many different faiths face persecution because of religion,” Alito said, noting that religious liberty is a life-or-death matter in many parts of the globe. He cited examples of groups such as the Yazidis in northern Iraq, Christians in Nigeria, Coptic Christians in Egypt, and Uyghurs in China that have been victims of horrific violence.

Alito also talked about the challenges that lie ahead for religious liberty around the world.

“Religious liberty is under attack in many places because it is dangerous to those who want to hold complete power,” he said. “It also probably grows out of something dark and deep in the human DNA — the tendency to distrust and dislike people who are not like ourselves.”

Another test is the growing number of people who reject religion or don’t think religion is important.

Honestly, so what? Kids are growing up indoors and there is fear they are rejecting nature or losing interest in it which could lead to more environmental degradation as millions of kids, ambivalent to the importance of the natural world grow up.

You know what I mean? Things lose power.

What if belief in repressive, dogmatic religiom is not around? So what. People can be moral without religion. Your attempts to codify religiosity into the public law won’t stop people from growing up.

You are being stupid. The issue is not religion's decrease in popularity, but persecution. Protection of religious beliefs is a fundamental characteristic of a stable liberal society. There can be no personal individual freedom without religious freedom. How can you have freedom of speech if you are not allowed to discuss the Bible and pray, for example? I say this as an atheist. Of course, religious freedom stops at the threshold of other people's fundamental rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Context matters. Instead of simply reading the article go to the primary source.
Watch the speech. It was funny, self deprecating and intelligent regardless of one’s political views.
Understanding your adversary’s viewpoint and arguments is invaluable.
Such a lack of intellectual curiosity on DCUM.

You’re judging “lack of intellectual curiosity” while defending the guy who wants to control women with a storybook about a magical sky man and his zombie “son?”

When you post childish things like this you lose credibility. Do better. Raise the debate to an intellectual level. If you don't actually understand a religion, learn about it before you debate it. Don't make something ridiculous up to mock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This just makes Court reform more and more palatable to the public.

I'd also watch for analysis of the "during good behavior" portion of Article III to start bubbling up from law reviews into the mainstream press.

Part of the unspoken "deal" of leaving the federal judiciary structure and functioning largely alone is that federal judges were supposed to adhere to a certain amount of decorum and norms such as the outward appearance of impartiality. If they aren't going to do that then we should find a way to structure things to enforce that.

You didn't seem to mind when RBG showed her partisan stripes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/07/13/scotus-ruth-bader-ginsburg-trump/87024248/

PP here. I am not a fan of RBG in her later years. She's almost a perfect example for Supreme Court reform, much as Alito is, or Rehnquist. People completely and totally out of touch and no longer truly competent with their dumb fancy collars or stupid gold stripes on their robes. They've all lost their judgement and sense of reality.

I don't like protests at Supreme Court justices homes. I don't like Supreme Court justices being protested at fancy steakhouses. But the reason people are doing these things is because there is literally no accountability.

I don't think this is the way the founders intended it to be and I KNOW that this is not the way that the American people want it to be today.

You appear to know very little about the justices because they are much less visible than other government figures of similar importance. There is a good documentary about RBG that was a very good watch for me as someone who was/is not a fan of hers. Even I have to admit that her presence advanced the quality of the court, even if I do not agree with her decisions.

[Anonymous]

I’m old enough to remember that it was anathema for American political figures to go overseas and criticize the United States.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day religious people are always going to feel strange having to cope with cognitive dissonance. They buy into weird stuff. Like Bronze Age stuff. A talking bush. A flood killing everyone and an arc with a bunch of animals. They have to lie to themselves to believe it. Or they get indoctrinated at birth and it’s easier to believe.

These people now control the Supreme Court.

It’s still irrational. They are not acting out of neutrality in these cases.

Please tell me you understand that 99% of religious people do not think any of the things you list are literal, especially Catholics and Episcopalians and Jews. If you are are basing your argument against an opposing point of view on a gross misunderstanding, you already lost. Please educate yourself so you can actually be a force for good in these debates. As soon as you say something ignorant like "ooh they believe a burning bush talked," you are dismissed as an ignoramus.

Six religious nut jobs have taken away women’s bodily autonomy for their religious beliefs. At least some of those whack jobs believe literally, but all six believe in the main tenet of patriarchal religion and that’s misogyny.

You attempting to change the subject makes you look as stupid and arrogant as the six religious activists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day religious people are always going to feel strange having to cope with cognitive dissonance. They buy into weird stuff. Like Bronze Age stuff. A talking bush. A flood killing everyone and an arc with a bunch of animals. They have to lie to themselves to believe it. Or they get indoctrinated at birth and it’s easier to believe.

These people now control the Supreme Court.

It’s still irrational. They are not acting out of neutrality in these cases.

Please tell me you understand that 99% of religious people do not think any of the things you list are literal, especially Catholics and Episcopalians and Jews. If you are are basing your argument against an opposing point of view on a gross misunderstanding, you already lost. Please educate yourself so you can actually be a force for good in these debates. As soon as you say something ignorant like "ooh they believe a burning bush talked," you are dismissed as an ignoramus.

I am a NP but I honestly just don’t care what is in your bible or what it says or what you believe and have zero desire to learn. You worship whatever you want and do whatever you want just don’t make it the basis of oppressing other people. The whole Noah’s ark thing one of the standard thing that non Christians hear about all the time. If you don’t believe it, fine, but it is not my job to educate myself on whether or not Christians do or do not believe this because I do not care. If you want people to think Christians don’t believe that kind of stuff then that is on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am listening to the whole speech.

I am stunned at 23:00 when he makes a reference to Moloch and say that no society today would tolerate the sacrifice of its children. When we do that all the time. Unbelievable.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2012/12/15/our-moloch/

Can we please stop pretending that these people are better than us. Please.

Some societies literally used to sacrifice children