Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 23 of 23
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Test for the Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, this was quite some time ago, and the folks I heard this from were testees who weren't given much detail about the test and could only report to me what it was like for them taking it. My impression from their reported experience was that there was definitely quite a lot more going on than them just taking a test and then the testers having just their answers to the test questions.
    This is unsupported rumor and rejected, as you can’t even identify the test.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    To which I already replied: In any case, from what I understand, something like double-blind testing can be done in order to weed out such issues. They would do the test on random participants in a double-blind scenario to ensure that the test successfully identifies people whose right/left/religious/non-religious/whatever other undesirable biases would affect their ability to perform whatever function is being tested for. I would add that there may already be testing available for this which is developed and maintained by organizations which don't have any biases, but are motivated by creating tests which are successful. Further, even if a test was created with hidden biases, which are not detected before the test is implemented despite the verification process I noted above, it would be immediately suspect the moment a candidate who passed it showed signs of biases when performing their duties in office. The test, and its creation and verification process, could then be carefully checked to show where the issue is and how to resolve it. Let's say that the first time it happens is chalked up to a mistake by the test creation or verification process and minimal checking would be done. The next time it happens (again, despite the verification process) with the advantage for the same undesirable bias would clearly indicate that there is a definite issue and more rigorous checking would be done to weed out the issue. So your claim of the possibility of cheating when making or completing the test would result in, at most, only a few candidates with undesirable biases to reach office with each version of the test which is implemented.
    This fails to explain how you foolproof test the testers against their personal biases. And also protect against bias by those testeng the testers.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, you said "of course" in response to a statement that there is no issue with the public or its democratically elected representatives discussing and deciding together which biases are undesirable, or to which degree certain biases should be avoided. And then your next sentence was criticism of "the rest of what [I] propose". This is not a statement that you agree it is "the only logical approach", as you now claim. So you initially agreed that there is no issue with a democratic process being used to decide which biases are undesirable. And now you're saying that it is not possible. In any case, we have countless examples of a democratic approach being used to get agreement between a large group of people, so your new claim that it is impossible is unsupported.
    I know what I meant, and you’re just wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Not really. If we have a goal and there's no support for the claim that it won't succeed and numerous examples of the success of similar endeavours, then there's nothing wrong with attempting to achieve this goal and ignoring claims that it won't succeed.
    Lol. The burden is on others to prove it won’t succeed, so you’d just spend untold amounts of money on a pipe dream.

    I think I’m done with you on this moronic idea. You can have the last word.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  2. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    681
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Test for the Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    This is unsupported rumor and rejected, as you can’t even identify the test.
    You asked for experience, and I'm providing you with it. Are you claiming that I'm lying, or that the people I've spoken with are lying? For what purpose? Do you honestly doubt that there are tests which are considerably more complex and comprehensive than those you've given to your employees? On what basis do you doubt this?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    This fails to explain how you foolproof test the testers against their personal biases. And also protect against bias by those testeng the testers.
    Again, I explained how the any personal biases can be checked against by using double-blind tests to confirm that the test is capable of flagging each of the identified biases. Obviously, a test which isn't confirmed to be able to flag biases wouldn't be used - duh. Further, the test doesn't necessarily need to be administered by a tester. For example, the tests I mentioned from the NATO school were mostly written, but a few were also computer-based (which offers additional metrics of how long each question takes to answer). Your "those testing the testers" is not much more than a slippery slope.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I know what I meant, and you’re just wrong.
    Statements like these don't really get us anywhere. I clearly explained why your response didn't equate to a statement of "I agreed that would be the only logical approach". Further, this does nothing to address my rebuttal to your claim that it is impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Lol. The burden is on others to prove it won’t succeed, so you’d just spend untold amounts of money on a pipe dream.
    Again, I've supported that it's at least possible to do based on the countless other examples where agreement has been reached. Further, you yet again simply claim that it's a pipe dream. Until you support that, it's a bare assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I think I’m done with you on this moronic idea. You can have the last word.
    You call it moronic, and yet fail to support why. It's pretty clear that you just don't like the idea because it came from me, based on your general tone and earlier repeated and baseless assumptions that I was suggesting testing with a bias against religion even though I clearly expressed myself. Just because you don't like where an idea comes from doesn't mean you magically have a good reason to doubt it. That's pretty much the definition of ad hominem which is fallacious reasoning, but also which I know you're quite a fan of, so I can't really say I'm surprised.

  3. #23
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    594
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Religious Test for the Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Should there be a religious test for the Supreme Court?

    When judge Amy Coney Barrett, a devout Catholic and mother of seven, was nominated to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, Senator Diane Feinstein said during the confirmation hearing "“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country." This came some time after a point in the hearing when Barrett said “It is never appropriate for a judge to apply their personal convictions whether it derives from faith or personal conviction.”

    Should there be a (non)religious test for the nomination and confirmation of judges, especially for the Supreme Court?

    Judge Barrett is said to be on the very short list of judges being considered by President Trump for Justice Kennedy's replacement on the high court.

    My position is that religion or the lack of it should not be a factor in deciding whether to confirm the nominee.
    By the time some one is nominated for the SCOTUS they have been a judge for some time and the only criteria should be their Court decisions and written commentary of the same!
    Religious views should never enter the conversation and is against the Constitution for very good reasons.

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 88
    Last Post: April 6th, 2013, 08:56 PM
  2. Supreme Court Contempary Bais
    By Turtleflipper in forum Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 16th, 2007, 09:40 AM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 7th, 2005, 02:04 PM
  4. Supreme Court Nominee
    By Booger in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 6th, 2005, 02:20 PM
  5. CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages
    By Apokalupsis in forum Politics
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: August 18th, 2004, 09:02 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •