Rand FB (regarding SCOTUS): I Plan to Lead

[Son_of_Liberty90]

How did this thread devolve into what science is and is not? Weren't we discussing SCOTUS?

Take your thread hijacking asses out and start your own thread. Stop ruining the op and subsequent discussion.

People stopped commenting so thats where the thread went. Calm down

 

[Occam's Banana]

A majority of people used to think the world was flat.

No, they didn't: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/07/thomas-woods/the-flat-earth-myth/

 

[Occam's Banana]

Our physics does proceed on majority vote. We decide science by consensus.

No, it doesn't - and no, we don't.

In science, "consensus" manifests as a consequent, not as an antecedent.

Scientific "consensus" is supposed to be the effect of greater dispositivity (e.g., withstanding falsification attempts), not the source or cause of it.

In politics, however, "consensus" manifests as an antecedent, not as a consequent.

Political "consensus" is alleged to be the source or cause of greater dispositivity (e.g., "majority rules"), not the effect of it.

In other words, the operation of "consensus" in (democratic) politics is contrariwise to its operation in science - and thus, any attempt to defend the former by reference to the latter is a fallacious equivocation.

To be fair, you did at least indirectly indicate that you may be aware of this:

Equating politics, which is subjective by it's very nature, to science is pretty silly.

But what seems to have been the ultimate source of this whole digression on the subject of science and consensus are the following statements:

Believe it or not, over half the country holds an entirely different opinion than you do on this topic.

So you're fine with holding up what 95% of the country wants just because you want something else?

Given these statements, in conjunction with your acknowledgement that politics "is subjective by its very nature," it is not clear why you seem to expect that invocations of what opinion "over half the country holds" (or of "what 95% of the country wants") should be taken as an effective counter against those who do not regard politcial "consensus" to be dispositive. And what is more, it is especially strange for you to invoke such simplistic majoritarianism while also citing Constitutional intent in order to criticize and denounce those who would seek to thwart an Obama SCOTUS nomination - the Constitution, after all, was intended to be a bulwark against just that kind of simplistic majoritarianism ...)

 

[nikcers]

More than 200 Republican senators and House representatives on Tuesday filed a legal brief asking a DC court to overturn the Clean Power Plan, saying Congress has not authorised the EPA to reform the nation’s electricity sector.
Led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, 34 senators and 171 House members filed a so-called Amicus brief in support of the lawsuits against President Barack Obama’s and the EPA’s plan to cut carbon emissions in the power sector.

Sounds to me more like he's trying to convince his constituents, rather than doing the will of his constituents. But what do I know?

apparently you don't know what people of Kentucky want?

 

[Smitty]

You can't say that you want the government to more closely follow the Constitution and then support this action which is them openly defying it .

Allowing Obama to stick another Communist on the Supreme Court does nothing to uphold the Constitution.

 

[UtahApocalypse]

This has nothing to do with political statements. Under Article II, it is the President's job to nominate a justice, and it is the Senate's job to provide advice and consent. Rand isn't talking about leadership, he's talking obstruction and rendering an entire branch of government crippled. Any 4-4 decision would be like the Court never even heard the case.

Senators vowing to block any appointment before one is even made are being derelict in their duties and putting important cases in jeopardy.

Agreed. Unfortunately, but it is the job and the Constitutional thing to do.

You can't say that you want the government to more closely follow the Constitution and then support this action which is them openly defying it and doing the exact opposite. No amount of mental gymnastics can hold those two beliefs at the same time. Regardless of who Obama may nominate, that is his duty as defined by Article II. In the same article, it defines the Senate's duty to advise and consent. For the Senate to say "we are going to hold up any nominations for an entire year in the unlikely chance that a Republican gets in the White House" is absolutely politicizing it. It's complete hypocrisy, and if you can't see that, then there's honestly no hope for you.

^^^^ This

I am absolutely with Rand on this. Since when has Obama ever cared about the Constitution? The fact of the matter, is Obama's legacy is getting creamed right now. All his Executive Orders have been shot down by the lower courts. And with Scalia, all his Executive Orders would be shot down by the Supreme Court. Thus, the reason Obama had Scalia assassinated. Remember, last year President Obama reportedly told his aides that he's 'Really Good At Killing People'. Scalia is one man who would stood between Obama and the legacy he wishes recorded in history.

So we can throw out the Constitution and wipe pur asses with it too if it fits our needs? I don't think so.

 

[nikcers]

Agreed. Unfortunately, but it is the job and the Constitutional thing to do.



^^^^ This



So we can throw out the Constitution and wipe pur asses with it too if it fits our needs? I don't think so.

WTF does consent mean? We have a disagreement here on what the meaning of is, is.

 

[hells_unicorn]

WTF does consent mean? We have a disagreement here on what the meaning of is, is.

ShaneEnochs was trolling this thread for Obama, because that's who he likely supported. Thus, he and his ally here are only logical in that they are defending Obama's right to ruin the country, beyond that you shouldn't expect anything they say to make sense.