Anti-Trump Christians, Would You Prefer a President Who Supports Secular Social Agend

[Cow Poke]

I generally agree. But there could conceivably be a problem in the case of impeachment of a jurist. Since the Judicial branch is normally the "tie-breaker," so to speak, who takes on that role when they are one of the actual parties in the dispute?

That would only happen in the case of the Supreme Court, not Federal Judges, because, obviously, SCOTUS outranks federal judges.

As far as SCOTUS is concerned, they are far more disciplined, and I really can't foresee a problem they would not be able to resolve internally.

[demi-conservative]

The deterrent effect is real but miniscule in comparison. Abortion is far worse.

The only relevant comparison is to what change in abortion can be made by outlawing it.

Outlawing works. If outlawing abortion did not work, it would not make sense for Christians to argue for the outlawing of it.

In a non-fantasy world, it was outlawed before Roe and many abortions still were carried out.

A reduction even of ten percent, would reduce the number of deaths far below what gun right save.

There is no guarantee of 10% or anything close because of sanctuary states and the rest.

Edit: 10% is 100 thousand, which is a reasonable ballpark of gun deterrence.

https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-rights...defense-721344

[demi-conservative]

I don't think I could vote Republican, if I was American. If I vote Republican, I'd be voting against all my core values

You criticise conservatives for valuing gun rights over abortion. What are your sine qua non issues that are as important as abortion?

[Leonhard]

There is no guarantee of 10% or anything close because of sanctuary states and the rest.

If pro-life laws have no prospect of actually changing the number of abortions, then there is no reason to ban abortion.

Edit: 10% is 100 thousand, which is a reasonable ballpark of gun deterrence.

There is zero good evidence that deterrence is actually a thing. Studies I find are all over the place, from guns actually increasing violence to deterrence also happening. Most of the studies are based on indirect self-reporting by convicts.

[Leonhard]

You criticise conservatives for valuing gun rights over abortion.

It still came as quite a shock that gun rights are a more important issue to Conservative Christians on TheologyWeb than pro-life issues.

What are your sine qua non issues that are as important as abortion?

Science and evidence should drive politics.
Climate change is something we need to acknowledge and deal with.
Education should be considered a public good.
Welfare is good for those who need and should be developed instead of abolished, charities cannot lift the task.
Taxation should be progressive.
It is right and proper for the government to regulate the market to protect consumers.
The death penalty should be abolished.
Conservatives focus too much on individualism, instead of considering communities.
Homosexuality is not a medical illness, and should not be treated as one. (thankfullythis is only a minor problem now)

[demi-conservative]

If pro-life laws have no prospect of actually changing the number of abortions, then there is no reason to ban abortion.

It's a first step.

There is zero good evidence that deterrence is actually a thing. Studies I find are all over the place, from guns actually increasing violence to deterrence also happening. Most of the studies are based on indirect self-reporting by convicts.

It's clear that a lot of deterrence happens, even Kleck's critics acknowledge at least around 500 thousand a year. You're just in denial.

[demi-conservative]

It still came as quite a shock that gun rights are a more important issue to Conservative Christians on TheologyWeb than pro-life issues.

You have a preconceived idea about guns, and refuse to accept that to them, gun rights is also an equally important issues of life and death and with good reason. Then you heap condemnation because of that.

[Watermelon]

I'm still trying to figure you out. Would you say that the House deserves to have a say in how the Senate runs its part of the impeachment process, given that they ran theirs in a completely partisan manner with no input from the Senate?

[Sam]

SCOTUS doesn't have a say here and would not get involved with an intra-Congress dispute. There's no "harm" done to the Senate if the House doesn't pass on articles of impeachment -- they just "die" at the end of the term. The House, theoretically, would suffer popular harm if it treated articles of impeachment this way but there's no actual requirement in the Constitution to deliver them promptly or without assurances.

Articles of impeachment should be delivered promptly, of course, but the Senate also should hold a fair and impartial trial.

--Sam

[Watermelon]

[Watermelon]

SCOTUS doesn't have a say here and would not get involved with an intra-Congress dispute. There's no "harm" done to the Senate if the House doesn't pass on articles of impeachment -- they just "die" at the end of the term. The House, theoretically, would suffer popular harm if it treated articles of impeachment this way but there's no actual requirement in the Constitution to deliver them promptly or without assurances.

Articles of impeachment should be delivered promptly, of course, but the Senate also should hold a fair and impartial trial.

--Sam

[Leonhard]

It's clear that a lot of deterrence happens, even Kleck's critics...

I have no idea who "Kleck" is, I have looked up the statistical resources, and how they were drawn. They're all based on indirect methodology, and largely relies on self-reporting. There is not consistent result, or even direction to the studies. I would have accepted it if earlier studies were more scattered, but that they coalesced towards a result eventually.

Then you heap condemnation because of that.

You bet I do, pro-life should be more important to them. Gun-rights should be a minor, secondary issue in comparison. They've lost any right to complain about me not voting against my party's interests on the ground that they chose this political issue, over the great moral issue.

[demi-conservative]

Pathetic. You try to ignore that guns have been used to prevent hundreds of thousands of crimes, and deter many more, for what? As justification for choosing other political issues over the great moral issue, 'you conservatives do it too' BS.

[Sam]

Yes; the House can hold articles of impeachment indefinitely if there is no constitutional or statutory requirement to send them to the Senate. I very much doubt that was ever considered during the drafting of the Constitution, and would have to check again for any "shalls" relating to that, but the Senate doesn't suffer a harm if the House sits on the articles or negotiates their transfer for arrangements the Senate is not at all bound to respect once the articles arrive.

The House and the Senate have wide discretion concerning impeachment and trial and SCOTUS doesn't have a role in disputes between the processes and rules between the two houses that aren't in the Constitution.

Perhaps "Stupid but constitutional!" as Scalia used to say.

--Sam

[Starlight]

It's clear that a lot of deterrence happens, even Kleck's critics acknowledge at least around 500 thousand a year. You're just in denial.

If you're going to make up absurdly high numbers why not just claim guns prevent a million billion deaths a year while you're at it?

If you compare US crime and murder rates to the rates of other similar countries who don't have guns, that tells you the guns are doing nothing useful to reduce crime.