Alito jokes about foreign reaction to his Dobbs decision

[Anonymous]

Ask the Uvalde, or Sandy Hook kids if we sacrifice children.
Alito’s ruling and interpretation of the constitution hurts actual kids.

[Anonymous]

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

Who criticized the US overseas in this discussion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ask the Uvalde, or Sandy Hook kids if we sacrifice children.

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ask the Uvalde, or Sandy Hook kids if we sacrifice children.
Alito’s ruling and interpretation of the constitution hurts actual kids.

+2
The GOP is a death cult at this point.

[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.

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.

So many terrible things have been done in the name of religion. Look at ISIS, people get stoned or killed because they violated somebody else's religious view in Pakistan, India,... just like US long ago. It is great that people are less fanatic here.

[Anonymous]

Justice A-hole is nothing more than a cultural warrior disguised as a Justice. His arguments on abortion are intellectually dishonest, and his tone was outrageous. His arguments on religious freedom are equally dishonest. Religious freedom is not under attach in the US, except by the Court. Permitting a football coach in a small southern town to pray at 50-yard line along with players and parents directly interferes with the religious freedom of non-Evangelicals in that town.

[Anonymous]

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.

+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.

I am unaware of any liberal effort to dictate the teaching of certain topics, or to ban and remove books from public libraries.

[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.

Oh, okay. That makes sense. For a second I thought they might believe in some fantastical sht, but your anecdotal evidence, 99% statistic, and assuming I am “grossly misunderstanding” everything clears it all up.

So you don’t believe Jesus is the son of God who died for our sins? Was there a flood? Or is that a story? Did Cane kill able? Was water tuned into wine?

What sensible part of it all am I grossly misunderstanding? That’s always the argument when someone says anything critical about religion; “you have no idea! You can’t begin to image what it’s about as a non-believer. You’re not qualified to talk about it!!!!”

Actually, we all are. Your Christian beliefs, and those of the ones on the Supreme Court, have clearly been shown to affect agnostics, non-believers and even the believers of other religions. Like Jewish people, who don’t believe abortion is a sin, but that the mothers life takes precedence.

Studies have shown that many atheists understand the Bible better than Christians.

At the end of the day, this impetus to blur or end line between church and state is only exacerbating a widening chasm. Religious folks are simply scared of losing power and have packed the court, or fallen for Christian nationalism, or are generally much more active in their attempts these days to foist their particular religion upon everyone else. Look at abortion. This is a religiously motivated thing they have done. Now women can’t get proper health care. Little girls like that 10 year old who had to feel Indiana are in jeopardy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But the other 1% of it makes total sense. Right?

[Anonymous]

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

That’s great. No one said that.

The speech seemed like a sort of paranoid victory lap for Alito. He could both decry religious persecution, which is kind of ironic as a religious person abusing his role on the judiciary to further it, while spurning world leaders for criticizing his great decision to end reproductive health so casually.

[Anonymous]

I'm a Christian, have never felt persecuted in the US at all, and think Alito is delusional.

All these justices think pregnant not by choice women are going to run out and give up their babies to conservative Catholics and Evangelicals. It's not going to work that way.

I'm just afraid that in 20 years, Christians will be the most hated religious group in our country, thanks to Alito and gang.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes, dummy. It would help if you read the linked article where the author calls guns "Our Moloch." The piece was written after Sandy Hook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please don't transfer the fact of your own ignorance onto me. I am happy that you enjoyed the Ginsburg documentary. But despite her great contributions to American jurisprudence, especially in gender equity/equal rights it doesn't negate the fact that when she passed she was an 87 year old woman who had had several bouts with the cancer that eventually killed her. She should have stepped down years before and they fact that she didn't calls into question her competence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please don't transfer the fact of your own ignorance onto me. I am happy that you enjoyed the Ginsburg documentary. But despite her great contributions to American jurisprudence, especially in gender equity/equal rights it doesn't negate the fact that when she passed she was an 87 year old woman who had had several bouts with the cancer that eventually killed her. She should have stepped down years before and they fact that she didn't calls into question her competence.

As has been posted previously, RBG probably thought Clinton would appoint her successor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except he referenced it so it's fair game. And alitos writing is so full of holes it's swiss cheese and the only reason he would contort himself so handily is because of his personal beliefs and those of Catholics and evangelicals