You are trying to connect dots that don't exist.  Her belief on the second amendment has nothing to do with religion...All judges have personal opinions on laws.   That's literally every single judge.  But i feel those that have certain views because of a religion and can be influenced by a 3rd party (pope pastor etc) should be judged more thoroughly to be absolutely sure it does not affect their rulings on laws.

Interesting thing that I found when looking things up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Article_11

bingo!

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=38106.msg340169#msg340169

Unfortunately I have had no opportunity to have a say in who got picked, this is the first justice I have extensively looked at because her opinions can change a major law and swing the court.  I don't believe any religion should be  grounds of judgement, unless it induces marketable bias.   We can prove to some degree of factual bias on certain views because of her religion.  If she can prove they will not affect her decisions by recusing herself then she won't have bias. So far she has not.

How did you come to the conclusion that you will have any say in whether or not THIS judge "gets picked"? 

This is not American Idol.  You don't get to vote for your favorite nominees.

We have a Hawaii delegation in the Senate who will be voting "No" for confirmation.  If all you want is your "say", then wish granted!!  Without any particular reason (other than ORANGE MAN BAD and NOT MUH LIBTARD ACTIVIST PICK), our elected Senators will be fighting to prevent confirmation REGARDLESS of any religion, perception of bias, or fitness to serve on the court.

Nothing you say or do will change the predicted outcome.  She will get confirmed, and you will get your vote against her via our partisan Senators.

Enjoy!    

Technically, any decision that has a dissenting opinion is biased. Both in decision and dissent.
That’s why there are nine Justices.

Technically, any decision that has a dissenting opinion is biased. Both in decision and dissent.
That’s why there are nine Justices.

Why is a dissent technically biased? If one is ruling based on the law, why is it necessarily biased?

For me, there’s business/work and personal. Sure what’s personal can shape how I do business/work, but I often have to put my personal biases aside and do what is best for the work/business context. Am I fair? I’d like to think so, that I can do my job without personal bias.

Never mind that pesky clause that says, "being necessary to the security of a free State."  That's the part that says we need to be able to protect ourselves from tyranny, both foreign AND DOMESTIC.

Is that what it says?
Seems like your inflecting your opinion on it.
Seems like in the time it was written it could be that we would not be ruled by a King, particularly of any foreign country.
Aren’t term limits against a free state ? Why can’t we vote for whoever for forever if we wan’t?

“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Supreme Court did choose the version with the commas though in Heller v.
Thank goodness.

Why is a dissent technically biased? If one is ruling based on the law, why is it necessarily biased?

For me, there’s business/work and personal. Sure what’s personal can shape how I do business/work, but I often have to put my personal biases aside and do what is best for the work/business context. Am I fair? I’d like to think so, that I can do my job without personal bias.

2 sides read the same law and intent and precedence totally differently.
That’s dissent. (Hence dissenting opinion. )
What lenses are they looking through ? Bias ?

If it was totally unbiased, and fair, why would we care who the next Justice is or who selects them ?
But we do.

2 sides read the same law and intent and precedence totally differently.
That’s dissent. (Hence dissenting opinion. )
What lenses are they looking through ? Bias ?

Different interpretation of the law.  I often have to discuss code with other engineers and we often read the same words differently.  Why does that have to be bias?  Just different ways of reading, understanding, etc the same words. 

One would hope a lens of logic and common sense.  Not after a few "teas". . .

2 sides read the same law and intent and precedence totally differently.
That’s dissent. (Hence dissenting opinion. )
What lenses are they looking through ? Bias ?

If it was totally unbiased, and fair, why would we care who the next Justice is or who selects them ?
But we do.

Yeah, got it.  I'm not saying bias CAN'T influence the decision.  The whole point of the convo we've been having is that it doesn't HAVE to.  That IF there is someone of principle, they could rule without letting their personal bias impact their professional.  At least that's my point. 

Is that what it says?
Seems like your inflecting your opinion on it.
Seems like in the time it was written it could be that we would not be ruled by a King, particularly of any foreign country.
Aren’t term limits against a free state ? Why can’t we vote for whoever for forever if we wan’t?

“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Supreme Court did choose the version with the commas though in Heller v.
Thank goodness.

Do you disagree with "my opinion?"  If so, you should just say so instead of trolling my post.

"INFLECTING YOUR OWN OPINION?"

LOL!  I was typing in monotone.  No inflection at all.   


This is "my opinion:"

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government;
still it would not be going too far to say, that the state governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The
highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth
part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the
United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million
of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and
conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could
ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country
against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess
over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the
militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government
of any form can admit of.  Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public
resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to
shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the
national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia,
it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which
surround it.

-- James Madison
The Federalist, No. 46
January 29, 1788

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp

In short, this is not MY opinion.  I simply agree with the person who wrote this.  Coincidentally, he was also one of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

So what makes the court Conservative or Liberal?

How people read the same words differently?
Why one way or the other?
What leans them?

What leans engineers to it is It to code or not?
Legal or we can get away with it and have a plausible argument?
(Code is pretty specific but hard to decipher)

One would hope a lens of logic and common sense.  Not after a few "teas". . .

Unfortunately that’s not the case here on either side. Even without “tea”.
I hope I’ve applied both.

Is she 2A or not 2A, that is the question.

against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess
over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the
militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government
of any form can admit of.  Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public
resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to
shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the
national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia,
it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which
surround it.

-- James Madison
The Federalist, No. 46
January 29, 1788

That’s funny.
Federalist Papers and just proved my point.
Thank you. 

America already took away our right bear arms in that context when we couldn’t acquire Apache helicopters, tanks, killer drones, automatic weapons, RPGs .........

So what makes the court Conservative or Liberal?

1) How people read the same words differently?
Why one way or the other?
What leans them?

2) What leans engineers to it is It to code or not?
Legal or we can get away with it and have a plausible argument?
(Code is pretty specific but hard to decipher)

Unfortunately that’s not the case here on either side. Even without “tea”.
I hope I’ve applied both.

3) Is she 2A or not 2A, that is the question.

1) How do people read the same words differently?  I mean they read the same words, but the meaning they take away from the same words can be very different.  I can tell you 100% in my heart that religion does NOT lean my professional decisions.  Can others?  I would think so.  I just am not so quick to judge and dismiss based on my feewings. . .

2) The code I am referring to often times is legal language.  Some codes become legal requirements, some remain recommendations.  Not sure what you are getting at WRT plausible argument.  My point was that engineers often apply judgement to words in code and how to interpret.  It's not an issue if it's to code or not.  The issue usually is how a designer goes about trying to meet the code.  See, stuff like building code and such intentionally leaves certain areas up to interpretation and the expectation is that licensed engineers have the discipline to apply proper judgement.  While not lofty status, I don't consider SCOTUS that different. 

3) Now that, is important.   

So what makes the court Conservative or Liberal?

How people read the same words differently?
Why one way or the other?
What leans them?

What leans engineers to it is It to code or not?
Legal or we can get away with it and have a plausible argument?
(Code is pretty specific but hard to decipher)

Unfortunately that’s not the case here on either side. Even without “tea”.
I hope I’ve applied both.

Is she 2A or not 2A, that is the question.

If you have to ask, you're already part of the Liberal low-information sheep-force.

The Legislature creates laws.  The Constitution is where the laws derive their validity.

The court is to decide cases in which laws are made in opposition of the Constitution, where a question of Constitutionality in enforcement needs settling, and where appeals from lower court rulings need a hearing.

You are calling the judges/the court "Liberal" or "Conservative."  That's inaccurate.

The court is not a person, and therefore is not partisan.  The individual justices who seek to interpret laws in order to push an activist agenda, especially in areas where the Congress has failed to pass laws regarding these very issues, are the issue.

To that point, it's more often the case that the Liberals are unable to get their Social Justice, Progressive, Socialist agenda passed in Congress.  They therefore turned to the SCOTUS to rule in ways that give them what they wanted.  There's a reason there was no federal law making abortion legal in all states ahead of Roe v Wade.  The Congress members knew that was an issue the individual states must decide for themselves because there's no legal basis for putting the issue in federal jurisdiction.

The Liberal Activist Judges then hammered the issue of abortion into the Constitution using very flimsy and loose interpretations of what "privacy" meant according the the Bill of Rights.

Non-Activist judges, Conservative or Liberal, would have maintained the issue as a state's right to regulate.

That’s funny.
Federalist Papers and just proved my point.
Thank you. 

America already took away our right bear arms in that context when we couldn’t acquire Apache helicopters, tanks, killer drones, automatic weapons, RPGs .........

Explain that conclusion ....

If you can.

Who said civilians can't own those weapons systems?

If you have to ask, you're already part of the Liberal low-information sheep-force.

You are calling the judges/the court "Liberal" or "Conservative."  That's inaccurate.

The court is not a person, and therefore is not partisan.

The Liberal Activist Judges then hammered the issue of abortion into the Constitution using very flimsy and loose interpretations of what "privacy" meant according the the Bill of Rights.

Non-Activist judges, Conservative or Liberal, would have maintained the issue as a state's right to regulate.

OK Biden.
The Green energy bill will fund fund itself but I am not for it.

The court is not partisan but activist judges are, so not activist judges then ...but ......But the Supreme Court passed it....but they are not partisan.....

How many sides of your mouth can you talk out of ?

Explain that conclusion ....

If you can.

Who said civilians can't own those weapons systems?

Full auto. Can if you can cash in a free state.

Does Arnold’s shoot live rounds? (I don’t know)
What about all the other weapons systems you neglect to mention along with fighter jets and ordnance.

OK Biden.
The Green energy bill will fund fund itself but I am not for it.

The court is not partisan but activist judges are, so not activist judges then ...but ......But the Supreme Court passed it....but they are not partisan.....

How many sides of your mouth can you talk out of ?

Did you not notice the difference between  "partisan" and "Liberal Activist Judges?"

I can't teach you English and reading comprehension, but I can call you out when you fail.  Maybe you'll start trying harder.

Explain that conclusion ....

If you can.

Who said civilians can't own those weapons systems?

Ah, the hoary old "tanks and bazookas" routine, right out of the decades ole Handgun Control "how to debate gun nuts" handbook.

I hope no one has any lingering illusions what the several liberal trolls are about.  It is not a common commitment to defending the 2A and rejecting government overreach.

Ah, the hoary old "tanks and bazookas" routine, right out of the decades ole Handgun Control "how to debate gun nuts" handbook.

I hope no one has any lingering illusions what the several liberal trolls are about.  It is not a common commitment to defending the 2A and rejecting government overreach.

I think it's pure ignorance.  He likes guns for himself, but he never bothered to learn why the right is important, nor what the right actually protects.

He's been in Hawaii too long, believing whatever the state and Democrats told him.  Hopefully we're getting through to him.  The 2A is about tyranny.  It's not about hunting or target practice, or even concealed carry.  Every gun control law that requires a citizen or legal resident to ask permission to exercise their rights gives the government more power and control should a need to fight tyranny at home ever manifest itself.

Did you not notice the difference between  "partisan" and "Liberal Activist Judges?"

I can't teach you English and reading comprehension, but I can call you out when you fail.  Maybe you'll start trying harder.

So how did Roe v.Wade get passed ?
Liberal Activist Judges on the Supreme Court? ( Totally different from Partisan.)
You still on technical discombobulation do distract people ?
You must have been an English major ( if you went to college) as you’re always on this grammar and comprehension crap.

I think it's pure ignorance.  He likes guns for himself, but he never bothered to learn why the right is important, nor what the right actually protects.

He's been in Hawaii too long, believing whatever the state and Democrats told him.  Hopefully we're getting through to him.  The 2A is about tyranny.  It's not about hunting or target practice, or even concealed carry.  Every gun control law that requires a citizen or legal resident to ask permission to exercise their rights gives the government more power and control should a need to fight tyranny at home ever manifest itself.

I totally get what the 2A is about.
And my posts support that.
As have my actions. (More than I can say for you Flapp.)
But you keep posting stuff that pokes holes In it.
I’m just reluctantly pointing that out.

You say stupid stuff and have no reply’s to rebuttals and that’s dangerous for our 2A community

P.S. RobDmc unfortunately can’t see this because he censored me.