Ketanji Brown Jackson Won’t Embrace Declaration of Independence on Natural Rights

[BackAgain]

Are you going to tell that to the slave owners?

I don’t believe anyone in the US is currently holding slaves. At least not legally. So, who would you suggest I speak to???

 

[rightwinger]

False!

The Bill of Rights enumerates the most significant rights of natural law, and the whole point of the Tenth Amendment is to make it clear that these rights are indeed predicated on the natural law of the Anglo-American tradition of republicanism per the Declaration of Independence and, accordingly, are not exhaustively enumerated in the Constitution.

​

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

Which says nothing about Natural Rights

They are rights because they are specifically stated in the Constitution

 

[BackAgain]

Any constitutional "originalist" has to square their wish to return to the original intent of the founders with the way the founders wrote themselves a lot of rights few actually enjoyed.

Nope. In their day, some of them didn’t square their espoused beliefs with their actions. Thankfully, times have changed. And guess what? Our Constitutional precepts NOW have indeed evolved. And they have done so in the Constitutional manner (Amendments) after a war which was (at its core) concerned with eliminating slavery.

I am very much an originalist. And I agree that slavery is wrong. Denying people a vote on the basis of sex or race is wrong.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Are you going to tell that to the slave owners?

They are all dead. Like your brain

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Which says nothing about Natural Rights

They are rights because they are specifically stated in the Constitution

You mean doesn’t say anything? I am smarter than rightwinger

 

[rightwinger]

You mean doesn’t say anything? I am smarter than rightwinger

You need to brush up on your language skills

 

[Colin norris]

Good grief! She keeps showing us who and what she is. ANd what she is isn't inside the judicial norm in any sense.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson: “I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.” (See p. 79 of her response to written questions.)​

​

Jackson’s answer comes immediately after this Q&A:​

​

Natural rights do not include accepting god as the creator. The constitution was formed with the specific exclusion of any god and she is bound by that.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Thus, by her own account, Jackson doesn’t embrace the basic American creed set forth in that passage from the Declaration.​

​

As one friend commented to me, since Jackson can’t say what a woman is, it’s not surprising that she doesn’t believe that human beings have natural rights.​

You can make all the pathetic excuses you idiots want. Nothing will change her appointment nor will she ever act outside the law like Thomas and his ratbag wife have.

Get them to leave before you start to judge someone else you fucking hypocrites.

​

​

KBJ Won’t Embrace Declaration of Independence on Natural Rights | National Review

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson: ‘I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.’

www.nationalreview.com

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You need to brush up on your language skills

You mean, YOU need to. Yeah.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Natural rights do not include accepting god as the creator. The constitution was formed with the specific exclusion of any god and she is bound by that.


You can make all the pathetic excuses you idiots want. Nothing will change her appointment nor will she ever act outside the law like Thomas and his ratbag wife have.

Get them to leave before you start to judge someone else you fucking hypocrites.

Correct. Elections have consequences.

 

[JGalt]

Are you going to tell that to the slave owners?

They were mostly Democrats. So when are you going to apologize for them? Let's face it: You're what's called an "American apologist." Your whole dog and pony show is based on your belief that America is basically a bad country which has done a lot of people wrong. That's pretty obvious by the responses you always tend to give.

So put your money where your mouth is, nut up like a real man, and give the country an apology for your Democrats and their institution of slavery.

Or aren't you man enough?

 

[scruffy]

~~~~~~
What you failed to show is the following:
"Three men were sentenced to federal prison on Thursday for their connection to forced labor at south Georgia farms, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Their names are Javier Sanchez Mendoza Jr. (24), Aurelio Medina (42) and Yordon Velzquez Victoria (45)".
"Their cases were part of an investigation called Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, Operation Blooming Onion.
This investigation looked into a conspiracy that citizens of Central America were being brought into the United States to be underpaid farmworkers kept in substandard conditions".
~~ By Briana Ross-Williams

Illegal alien wet backs enslaving other wetbacks. Betcha, the three are connected to a Narco Drug Cartel.

Drug Cartels: Where Human Trafficking and Human Smuggling Meet Today

Much is said about the difficulties undocumented immigrants face due to the recent security measures taken in the Mexico-U.S border, but little attention is devoted to the role that Mexican drug cartels have played in reshaping the human smuggling dynamics in the last few years.

www.huffpost.com

So?

Close the border, problem solved.

 

[occupied]

Nope. In their day, some of them didn’t square their espoused beliefs with their actions. Thankfully, times have changed. And guess what? Our Constitutional precepts NOW have indeed evolved. And they have done so in the Constitutional manner (Amendments) after a war which was (at its core) concerned with eliminating slavery.

I am very much an originalist. And I agree that slavery is wrong. Denying people a vote on the basis of sex or race is wrong.

As we have often seen just saying someone has a right is no guarantee they can practice them in peace.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

Racist post.

Guards!

Seize Him!

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Are you going to tell that to the slave owners?

You can tell the democrats. They’re your people.

 

[BackAgain]

As we have often seen just saying someone has a right is no guarantee they can practice them in peace.

Which has nothing to do with the proposition you articulated before.

 

[JGalt]

As we have often seen just saying someone has a right is no guarantee they can practice them in peace.

Then what business does Jackson have being on the Supreme Court if she's unwilling to defend those rights?

 

[BackAgain]

Which says nothing about Natural Rights

They are rights because they are specifically stated in the Constitution

Not quite correct. Rights are rights. Constitutionally referenced rights are the ones that are guaranteed by the Constitution. They aren’t rights just because the Constitution references them. They are rights which pre-existed the Constitution.

 

[BS Filter]

Do you think the declaration of independence is law? Even the founders seemed to regard the concept of natural rights as a mere suggestion when it came to anyone not a white protestant land-owner.

Yes, the Declaration of Independence is law.

 

[BackAgain]

Whether Judge Jackson “gets” it or not, I am quite confident that she is about to be confirmed as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. My hope is that she grows in the position and disappoints the leftwing here in America.

 

[occupied]

Yes, the Declaration of Independence is law.

The Declaration of independence is a series of complaints that seek to justify breaking away from the colonizers. Nothing more.