Elementary School Shooting In Connecticut

[Bocefish]

I'm not against people keeping a weapon for home security...as long at they aren't nuts. The problem is, sometimes it's difficult to define "nuts." News today indicates that the killer's mother was a survivalist--and a bit paranoid about the future, and may even have taught her son how to use her may pieces of armament--knowing he was a disturbed child. Is that nuts? I think so, but many will disagree.

The news is probably wrong about that too, one of her friends that was interviewed said she was nothing of the sort. Even if she was, there's nothing wrong with being a survivalist within reason. Her kid was supposedly doing college level courses at 16, another very bright yet mentally ill kid. It's impossible to know if teaching him to shoot was the right thing to do or not since we have no concrete knowledge of his illness or what caused him to snap. Keeping all but one weapon locked up with a mentally ill teenager in the house would seem reasonable if he hasn't shown any reasons to do otherwise. The kid was probably smart enough to somehow figure out the combo or where her keys were anyway. As said before, a lot of unanswered questions.

 

[SoTxBob]

Oh, and I do not find Scalia to be a competent legal mind. Recently he affirmed his RIGHT to hate gay people.

First I will say I haven't seen, heard or read anything about this at all... don't care to... BUT.. he does have a 'right' to feel and think however he wants doesn't he? Hatred of gay or ethnicity isn't how I choose to live my life but I have no 'right' to, and can't dictate how someone else thinks or feels. When the 'thought police' appear, we might as well take the trip to the soylent green factory....

 

[LadyLuna]

I'd happily support amending the 2nd Amendment and making gun ownership similar to how we treat owning a car, a useful but deadly device, that require training license etc. But changing the amendment is the process that needs to happen, anything else just isn't going to matter much. Since rewriting the 2nd amendment isn't likely to happen any time soon (understandment) the focus should be on keep guns and other dangerous devices out of the hands of crazies.

Totally agree with everything in this paragraph.

But I figure this will happen the day Republicans give up Trickle-Down economics

 

[Nordling]

Oh, and I do not find Scalia to be a competent legal mind. Recently he affirmed his RIGHT to hate gay people.

First I will say I haven't seen, heard or read anything about this at all... don't care to... BUT.. he does have a 'right' to feel and think however he wants doesn't he? Hatred of gay or ethnicity isn't how I choose to live my life but I have no 'right' to, and can't dictate how someone else thinks or feels. When the 'thought police' appear, we might as well take the trip to the soylent green factory....

This is getting way off topic, but while I agree with you on dictating people's thoughts, it's a long journey beyond merely a thought when a Supreme Court justice who is about to sit in judgement over a particular group of people, publicly states his dislike for that same group. This is the type of thing where the justice should recuse himself from any case that includes the rights of any minority he publicly dislikes.

 

[Bocefish]

I've seen a few of Scalia's interviews and he loves to mess with people. Got a link for for your accusations?

 

[Nordling]

:lol: "Loves to mess with people." Yes, that could be one interpretation of that asshole. He's the Supreme Court's "class clown." Always cracking up the other justices. lol

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...states/121005/scalia-homosexual-sodomy-outlaw

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Oh, and I do not find Scalia to be a competent legal mind. Recently he affirmed his RIGHT to hate gay people.

See and this is where you lose all credibility with me. I challenge you to find a single constitutional law professor, who agreed that "Scalia is not a competent legal mind". What you'd hear a lot is I disagree with him but he is brilliant.

Scalia didn't say anything of the sort about gay people. Only narrow mind folks who news comes from the echo chambers like Huffington Post, and MSNBC, and the NY Times could misinterpret what Scalia actually said so badly.

 

[Bocefish]

Nordling hates everyone with authority that is not a democrat.

 

[Nordling]

Oh, and I do not find Scalia to be a competent legal mind. Recently he affirmed his RIGHT to hate gay people.

See and this is where you lose all credibility with me. I challenge you to find a single constitutional law professor, who agreed that "Scalia is not a competent legal mind". What you'd hear a lot is I disagree with him but he is brilliant.

Scalia didn't say anything of the sort about gay people. Only narrow mind folks who news comes from the echo chambers like Huffington Post, and MSNBC, and the NY Times could misinterpret what Scalia actually said so badly.

True, that's why I didn't surround my comment in quotation marks. As SoTX said, we shouldn't try to force people's thinking, and I think that Scalia is a POS, and that he does hate gay folks. I will admit, that as a legal mind, Scalia is much better than Thomas...but then, what is that saying? Is he intelligent? Sure, but we're talking about people whose ability to think, and whose knowledge should be on a much higher plane than simply "bright."

 

[Bocefish]

Justice Scalia said that outlawing homosexual sodomy was a "no-brainer" based on a strict reading of the Constitution.

The Justice advocates that politicians, not judges, are responsible for changing laws about abortion and the death penalty, the AP reported. He also said that lawmakers and voters can also try to change the Constitution if they want to see these cases decided differently, something Scalia nonetheless acknowledges is difficult.

According to Constitutional law, 38 states must ratify an amendment for it to take effect.

Nordling interprets that as him hating gay people I guess.

 

[Nordling]

Nordling hates everyone with authority that is not a democrat.

Ha! I had to thank that for the absurdity of the day.

I like Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight David Eisenhower. Oh, and former Governor Tom McCall.

I hate Andrew Jackson, and any other democrat responsible for so much suffering.


Parties are unimportant. They evolve over time...they're only as good as their current leaders. At one time the Democratic party was almost synonymous with slavery and injustice; conversely, the Republican Party stood for freedom and justice. In many instances, IMHO, the two parties have replaced each other...with many many exceptions in both parties.

 

[Shaun__]

Oh, and I do not find Scalia to be a competent legal mind. Recently he affirmed his RIGHT to hate gay people.

See and this is where you lose all credibility with me. I challenge you to find a single constitutional law professor, who agreed that "Scalia is not a competent legal mind". What you'd hear a lot is I disagree with him but he is brilliant.

Scalia didn't say anything of the sort about gay people. Only narrow mind folks who news comes from the echo chambers like Huffington Post, and MSNBC, and the NY Times could misinterpret what Scalia actually said so badly.

According to the competent legal mind of Scalia the length of time something has been done helps decide the legality of it. I notice however he ignored heterosexual sodomy which has been outlawed just as long.

Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia said.

 

[Nordling]

Justice Scalia said that outlawing homosexual sodomy was a "no-brainer" based on a strict reading of the Constitution.

The Justice advocates that politicians, not judges, are responsible for changing laws about abortion and the death penalty, the AP reported. He also said that lawmakers and voters can also try to change the Constitution if they want to see these cases decided differently, something Scalia nonetheless acknowledges is difficult.

According to Constitutional law, 38 states must ratify an amendment for it to take effect.

Nordling interprets that as him hating gay people I guess.

Yups!

 

[Jupiter551]

According to the competent legal mind of Scalia the length of time something has been done helps decide the legality of it. I notice however he ignored heterosexual sodomy which has been outlawed just as long.

Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia said.

I would suggest it's been going on somewhere closer to 200,000 years

 

[Alana Cruise]

This thread needs to be relabeled gun control. I wanted a place to discuss the horror of what happend how that made me feel and how brave some of the teachers and even kids were. Instead its a bunch of hotheads arguing about guns. Makes me ill.

 

[Just Me]

Scalia might have a brilliant legal mind. Where he is an idiot and I include all the other justices of a like mind with him, is he is an originalist when interpreting the US Constitution. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but when you pick and choose what to be originalist about I call that hypocrisy.

Scalia describes himself as an originalist, meaning that he interprets the Constitution of the United States as it would have been understood when it was adopted. According to Scalia, "It's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution."

When the second amendment was ratified there were no auto or semi automatic firearms. As an originalist he should stipulate that you can only keep and bear arms of the period that the amendment was ratified. :roll: Any rational human being can also intimate what the people who wrote the amendment were trying to say, and why the anti gun control people always tend to leave out the militia part of the amendment. Arm the citizenry to keep the government in check in case they decided a dictatorship or monarchy would be better.

Scalia recused himself in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a claim brought by atheist Michael Newdow alleging the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (including the words "under God") in school classrooms, violated the rights of his daughter, who he said was also an atheist. Shortly after the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Newdow's favor, Scalia, speaking at a Knights of Columbus event in Fredericksburg, Virginia, stated that the Ninth Circuit decision was an example of how the courts were trying to excise God from public life. The school district requested that the Supreme Court review the case, and Newdow asked that Scalia recuse himself, which he did without comment.

He doesn't like "separation of church and state" but here he chooses not to be an originalist, but at least had the good sense to recuse himself after being asked. We have Thomas Jefferson's own words to see exactly what was meant by a writer of the establishment clause.

Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Personally, I do not think Scalia is a terrible supreme court justice, I disagree with a lot of his ideas and decisions but that is bound to happen when SCOTUS has become more of a political appointment than an unbiased judiciary appointment. So, to put him up as the be all end all of the gun debate is just showing where you stand politically.

Gun control laws do work. I know I am putting up the example of Australia again but there are some very good studies listed in the article.
In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

 

[Nordling]

Buy the way, a few pages back, someone used Switzerland and Israel as examples of countries where guns are widespread and even encouraged by the government. Turns out that never was completely true and is even less true now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...l-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

 

[Just Me]

There is a common denominator to all these spree murders and killings that I have rarely if ever heard discussed. Can you guess what it is?

men?

Yep http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/would_the_u_s_government_profile_white_men/

 

[Just Me]

http://elitedaily.com/elite/2012/morgan-freeman-shares-thoughts-tragic-shooting-sandy-hook/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=morgan-freeman-shares-thoughts-tragic-shooting-sandy-hook

Especially liked the last paragraph:

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man’s name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news.”
-Morgan Freeman

Except Morgan Freeman never said any of this, not that it is not still a good sentiment. Why do people give more credence to it because a celebrity supposedly said it? http://www.clarionledger.com/articl...atement-about-Newtown-shooting-spokesman-says

 

[Just Me]

Not going to quote all the anecdotes about guns being for protection at home. I tend to like facts and studies better, maybe it is just me.

For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

 

[Just Me]

Sorry double post

 

[Nordling]

Thanks, Just Me. Snopes also has some debunking of a few of the recent events:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp

 

[UncleThursday]

It's sad that they didnt realize up front that the ban laws would only effect the law abiding citizens. IMO, the major diff here is that no matter the laws, firearms are so ingrained in this country and heritage that not many would actually turn them in unless they needed the cash from a buyback. Take into account the volume of guns sold and traded before paperwork was required for every sale and you have staggering numbers of untraceable weaponry the govt will never get. whats the term.. ....oh yeah..... 'civil disobedience.'

Which is the problem with any and all "gun buyback" style laws intended to get the guns off the street. ONLY the law abiding citizens, who wish to retain their law abiding status, will turn them in. NOT the criminals. Therefore, the very people the laws are trying to protect end up being the very people the laws hurt. Because criminals already don't care about the laws they break, so breaking a new one isn't going to be a big deal to them. And now the people who turned in their guns are defenseless if they are to be attacked in their homes.

So, these laws end up making new 'criminals' of the otherwise law abiding citizens who refuse to give up their guns.

So, the saying holds true, anyway. When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Even if these new 'outlaws' otherwise are normal, law abiding citizens who simply refuse to give up their guns. The outlaws who already had guns, and use(d) them in crimes, will still be outlaws and still have their guns, because there is no way in fuck they are going to go and turn them in because the government said to.

This isn't to say the intentions of the ban all guns movement people are bad. Just misguided, in an ever rose tinted glasses world where when guns are banned, even the criminals will give them up. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, after all. They firmly believe that removing the law abiding guns will somehow remove the illegal guns, too. Which it won't. Ever. Instead, it just gives the criminals with guns an even easier target on the law abiding citizenry of the countries.

You never hear of the guy walking around Texas, or Arizona (two states I know with open carry laws) with his gun on his hip getting mugged. The mugger doesn't want to have to deal with the potential of getting shot, himself. Instead he'll look for the unarmed target, and mug that person, instead.

The same will happen with home invasions. In houses known to not hold any guns, home invasions are not only more likely, but more successful. In neighborhoods where it is known that home invaders have been shot (and face it, it gets on the news, so even the criminals will know the neighborhoods)? Home invasions decrease, radically. If one family in a neighborhood owns a gun, then there is a chance more homes in that same neighborhood will, too. Home invaders are like muggers, they don't want to invade homes where there is a likelihood of them getting injured, or killed. They go after easy targets. Often attacking the same homes time and again. It's one of the reasons the elderly are often targeted for home invasions, they are less likely to be able to defend themselves.

 

[UncleThursday]

Oh, and I do not find Scalia to be a competent legal mind. Recently he affirmed his RIGHT to hate gay people.

He has that right, though. However, his right to hate homosexuals and the law are two entirely different things.

I can say I hate bad fake boobs (I do). However, I have no legal recourse to force every woman who has completely messed up her tits to the point of them being abominations of nature to go and have their implants removed. Similarly, if I tried to have a law passed banning fake tits, simply because I hate them, it would be struck down, because "I hate them" is not a good legal reason to pass said law.

So long as his personal beliefs are not what makes a decision regarding the law, then he is fine. Unfortunately, many people do bring their own biases up when it comes to interpreting the law.

 

[UncleThursday]

Oh, and I do not find Scalia to be a competent legal mind. Recently he affirmed his RIGHT to hate gay people.

See and this is where you lose all credibility with me. I challenge you to find a single constitutional law professor, who agreed that "Scalia is not a competent legal mind". What you'd hear a lot is I disagree with him but he is brilliant.

Scalia didn't say anything of the sort about gay people. Only narrow mind folks who news comes from the echo chambers like Huffington Post, and MSNBC, and the NY Times could misinterpret what Scalia actually said so badly.

According to the competent legal mind of Scalia the length of time something has been done helps decide the legality of it. I notice however he ignored heterosexual sodomy which has been outlawed just as long.

Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia said.

Sodomy, in general, has been outlawed in most states because it is considered an "immoral sexual act", the definition of the morality is religious, though. As much as we like to say there is a separation of church and state, many of our laws involving anything sexual are based solely in the morality force fed to people by the Judeo-Christian believing law makers in this country since its inception. Today, many of the laws are simply used for potential income.

As an example, there is an extra tax on hotel rooms in many states in the Bible Belt; I know when I go to DragonCon, there is an extra tax between 6%-8% added to my room cost. The idea behind these "bed taxes" was to make it more expensive for unmarried couples to find an inn to fuck for the night. Of course, now they're just used for extra income to the state, even though in most cases the state doesn't give a rat's ass if you're married or not and sharing a hotel room.

Even today, laws are proposed based on religious values over social values. The whole 'gay marriage banning' thing proposed by GOP representatives, and supported by W. when he was in office are based solely around the religious thought that homosexuality is a sin before God. The GOP is generally thought of to be part of the Christian Right in the US and stand for its values. They even recently passed through the House, in secret, allowing them to add even more money to the defense of their attempted laws banning gay marriage, by voting without the Democratic minority. And get this, they're going to use tax payer dollars to fund this defense. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/12/1 ... ality-law/

 

[Nordling]

Oh, and I do not find Scalia to be a competent legal mind. Recently he affirmed his RIGHT to hate gay people.

He has that right, though. However, his right to hate homosexuals and the law are two entirely different things.

I can say I hate bad fake boobs (I do). However, I have no legal recourse to force every woman who has completely messed up her tits to the point of them being abominations of nature to go and have their implants removed. Similarly, if I tried to have a law passed banning fake tits, simply because I hate them, it would be struck down, because "I hate them" is not a good legal reason to pass said law.

So long as his personal beliefs are not what makes a decision regarding the law, then he is fine. Unfortunately, many people do bring their own biases up when it comes to interpreting the law.

Supreme Court justices do not pass laws, however, they are the final say in the interpretation of laws and the Constitution. He has every right to believe in infanticide if he so chooses--but if he acts on that belief...

But really, my point is, if a justice is biased on a topic, the right thing to do is recuse himself on any case that pertains to that bias. SCOTUS members cannot be forced to do this, in fact short of impeachment, there's very little they can be held accountable for... which is why who we elect President is as important as it is... Presidents are who choose SCOTUS members.

As far as the fake boob analogy, if a law was passed that made breast implants illegal, and if the Supreme Court did NOT strike it down, it would have no recourse since SCOTUS has the final say. Of course if the court really got silly enough, Congress and the President might start ignoring them--since they have no way to enforce their judgements if the Executive refuses to agree.

 

[UncleThursday]

Oh, and I do not find Scalia to be a competent legal mind. Recently he affirmed his RIGHT to hate gay people.

He has that right, though. However, his right to hate homosexuals and the law are two entirely different things.

I can say I hate bad fake boobs (I do). However, I have no legal recourse to force every woman who has completely messed up her tits to the point of them being abominations of nature to go and have their implants removed. Similarly, if I tried to have a law passed banning fake tits, simply because I hate them, it would be struck down, because "I hate them" is not a good legal reason to pass said law.

So long as his personal beliefs are not what makes a decision regarding the law, then he is fine. Unfortunately, many people do bring their own biases up when it comes to interpreting the law.

Supreme Court justices do not pass laws, however, they are the final say in the interpretation of laws and the Constitution. He has every right to believe in infanticide if he so chooses--but if he acts on that belief...

But really, my point is, if a justice is biased on a topic, the right thing to do is recuse himself on any case that pertains to that bias. SCOTUS members cannot be forced to do this, in fact short of impeachment, there's very little they can be held accountable for... which is why who we elect President is as important as it is... Presidents are who choose SCOTUS members.

As far as the fake boob analogy, if a law was passed that made breast implants illegal, and if the Supreme Court did NOT strike it down, it would have no recourse since SCOTUS has the final say. Of course if the court really got silly enough, Congress and the President might start ignoring them--since they have no way to enforce their judgements if the Executive refuses to agree.

Unfortunately, EVERYONE is biased towards or against something in some way. The only way to get a completely unbiased opinion would be to have the law inputted into a computer, word for word, subtext by subtext, then have the case and any and all evidence also inputted with the terms being the computer had to justify a verdict based solely on the law.

But, then there would be all sorts of problems based on spirit of the law vs wording of the law, which a computer could not adequately differentiate between.

 

[Jupiter551]

It's sad that they didnt realize up front that the ban laws would only effect the law abiding citizens. IMO, the major diff here is that no matter the laws, firearms are so ingrained in this country and heritage that not many would actually turn them in unless they needed the cash from a buyback. Take into account the volume of guns sold and traded before paperwork was required for every sale and you have staggering numbers of untraceable weaponry the govt will never get. whats the term.. ....oh yeah..... 'civil disobedience.'

Which is the problem with any and all "gun buyback" style laws intended to get the guns off the street. ONLY the law abiding citizens, who wish to retain their law abiding status, will turn them in. NOT the criminals. Therefore, the very people the laws are trying to protect end up being the very people the laws hurt. Because criminals already don't care about the laws they break, so breaking a new one isn't going to be a big deal to them. And now the people who turned in their guns are defenseless if they are to be attacked in their homes.

So, these laws end up making new 'criminals' of the otherwise law abiding citizens who refuse to give up their guns.

So, the saying holds true, anyway. When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Even if these new 'outlaws' otherwise are normal, law abiding citizens who simply refuse to give up their guns. The outlaws who already had guns, and use(d) them in crimes, will still be outlaws and still have their guns, because there is no way in fuck they are going to go and turn them in because the government said to.

This isn't to say the intentions of the ban all guns movement people are bad. Just misguided, in an ever rose tinted glasses world where when guns are banned, even the criminals will give them up. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, after all. They firmly believe that removing the law abiding guns will somehow remove the illegal guns, too. Which it won't. Ever. Instead, it just gives the criminals with guns an even easier target on the law abiding citizenry of the countries.

You never hear of the guy walking around Texas, or Arizona (two states I know with open carry laws) with his gun on his hip getting mugged. The mugger doesn't want to have to deal with the potential of getting shot, himself. Instead he'll look for the unarmed target, and mug that person, instead.

The same will happen with home invasions. In houses known to not hold any guns, home invasions are not only more likely, but more successful. In neighborhoods where it is known that home invaders have been shot (and face it, it gets on the news, so even the criminals will know the neighborhoods)? Home invasions decrease, radically. If one family in a neighborhood owns a gun, then there is a chance more homes in that same neighborhood will, too. Home invaders are like muggers, they don't want to invade homes where there is a likelihood of them getting injured, or killed. They go after easy targets. Often attacking the same homes time and again. It's one of the reasons the elderly are often targeted for home invasions, they are less likely to be able to defend themselves.

this hasn't really happened in Australia though, gun homocides are down significantly in every state, as Red and I (I think the only aussies in the thread) have said several times lol. Criminals use their guns to shoot other criminals mainly. Bikies for example don't generally bother shooting civilians because it's just dumb, there's no profit in it and it brings heat down on them.

 

[Nordling]

Oh, and I do not find Scalia to be a competent legal mind. Recently he affirmed his RIGHT to hate gay people.

He has that right, though. However, his right to hate homosexuals and the law are two entirely different things.

I can say I hate bad fake boobs (I do). However, I have no legal recourse to force every woman who has completely messed up her tits to the point of them being abominations of nature to go and have their implants removed. Similarly, if I tried to have a law passed banning fake tits, simply because I hate them, it would be struck down, because "I hate them" is not a good legal reason to pass said law.

So long as his personal beliefs are not what makes a decision regarding the law, then he is fine. Unfortunately, many people do bring their own biases up when it comes to interpreting the law.

Supreme Court justices do not pass laws, however, they are the final say in the interpretation of laws and the Constitution. He has every right to believe in infanticide if he so chooses--but if he acts on that belief...

But really, my point is, if a justice is biased on a topic, the right thing to do is recuse himself on any case that pertains to that bias. SCOTUS members cannot be forced to do this, in fact short of impeachment, there's very little they can be held accountable for... which is why who we elect President is as important as it is... Presidents are who choose SCOTUS members.

As far as the fake boob analogy, if a law was passed that made breast implants illegal, and if the Supreme Court did NOT strike it down, it would have no recourse since SCOTUS has the final say. Of course if the court really got silly enough, Congress and the President might start ignoring them--since they have no way to enforce their judgements if the Executive refuses to agree.

Unfortunately, EVERYONE is biased towards or against something in some way. The only way to get a completely unbiased opinion would be to have the law inputted into a computer, word for word, subtext by subtext, then have the case and any and all evidence also inputted with the terms being the computer had to justify a verdict based solely on the law.

But, then there would be all sorts of problems based on spirit of the law vs wording of the law, which a computer could not adequately differentiate between.

That's getting a bit silly, don't you think? When we talk about biases, we're not talking about peoples' normal affinities, we're talking about blatant disregard for human rights, e.g. That's not just a simple bias, to me that should eliminate you from being allowed on the Supreme Court...a position you hold for life.

If a person publicly admits he hates blondes, e.g., for whatever reason, he is showing himself to not be of the stature that we as a people desire for that high office.

Dog catcher? Sure...maybe even a city councilman. But certainly not someone who makes life and death decisions for the entire country.

By the logic of your post, no one should be refused a seat on SCOTUS. I can't believe that's what you really mean.

 

[Jupiter551]

That's getting a bit silly, don't you think? When we talk about biases, we're not talking about peoples' normal affinities, we're talking about blatant disregard for human rights, e.g. That's not just a simple bias, to me that should eliminate you from being allowed on the Supreme Court...a position you hold for life.

If a person publicly admits he hates blondes, e.g., for whatever reason, he is showing himself to not be of the stature that we as a people desire for that high office.

Dog catcher? Sure...maybe even a city councilman. But certainly not someone who makes life and death decisions for the entire country.

By the logic of your post, no one should be refused a seat on SCOTUS. I can't believe that's what you really mean.

I have to agree, if a person with prejudices can be removed from a jury then surely they shouldn't qualify to be the judge lol