Her feelings are irrelevant unless they violate law or ethics.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez obviously has very strongly held beliefs on environment, agreed?
They don’t influence her votes and opinions?
Illusions. How do you know it is an illusion?
If they don’t violate laws or ethics and the basis of findings are justified, it doesn’t matter.
What? They are making law.
Is it ethical for her to vote and write an opinion when she has strongly held beliefs on the topic?
Justified to whose satisfaction?
Could it be that Ginsberg is blending belief and policy?
Pompeo violated the law?
I can easily justify destroying Palestine in favor of the Jews. Easily. In fact there is only one reason not to.
“Ethics” is problematic. Whose?
How could you possibly know that?
They’re not making law. They’re interpreting existing law in the context of precedent and the Constitution. If those beliefs don’t violate the law or ethics then it is certainly appropriate. Are you saying judges should have no personal beliefs on a topic they rule on?
I’ve given you three groups several times in this thread. I’ll refer you back to those replies.
I didn’t say he did. Until he takes action in the form of policy, I might not agree with him and think his mouth could cause problems, but he can say whatever he wants.
Come on man. You know as well as everybody else they are making law. How can 9 people with access to a dictionary come to a 5-4 split on what “shall not be infringed means”? Of course they’re making law. It’s a tax.
Are you denying their strongly held beliefs are problematic? Why the litmus tests then?
And I believe I have addressed two. “Voting them out of office” is not worthy of addressing.
They did take action in the form of policy, didn’t they?
And no, you absolutely did not say he did.
Policy that is based on law and precedent and does not violate ethics is not being debated. At least by me. The only real policy discussed in your article is his agreement with Trump of not supporting foreign abortion groups financially. I may not agree but there is no change in the legality of abortion. If he enacts policy that limits or restricts the rights of people, or places the US in danger, that would be a different matter.
No I did not say he did? What does that even mean? Are you agreeing with me then?
He announced the moving of the US embassy to Jerusalem, did he not?
Yes, I am agreeing with you. No, you did not say Pompeo violated the law.
We have to wait until they violate the law?
That policy was initiated December of 2017. I didn’t agree with it then and I don’t now. Someone could argue it endangers US interests, but it would be difficult to probe and I believe the policy still passes muster. Not every policy decision I disagree with could or should be fought.
Hard to do anything until they do. They can say what they want, but until they act upon it, it’s rhetoric.
Did you ever explain this?
