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

[excalibur]

The Founding Fathers did not apply natural rights to all people in the US.

In the DOI they did. Anyway, that has ZERO to do with the OP. ZERO.

 

[excalibur]

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.

Never happens, leftoid nominees always stick to their leftoid script. And this woman is the most radical person ever nominated.

 

[BS Filter]

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

Much more than mere complaints.

Natural Law and the Declaration of Independence

To those who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence, political liberty and natural law went together: Nature summons man, individually and collectively, to self-government and guides him in the exercise of his power of choice.

www.thepublicdiscourse.com

 

[BackAgain]

Yes, the Declaration of Independence is law.

Actually, there is some doubt about that. Although I believe it is law (for a few reasons), I understand that there is some question:

Although the Declaration of Independence stands with the Constitution as a founding document of the United States of America, its position in U.S. law is much less certain than that of the Constitution. The Declaration has been recognized as the founding act of law establishing the United States as a sovereign and independent nation, and Congress has placed it at the beginning of the U.S. Code, under the heading "The Organic Laws of the United States of America." The Supreme Court, however, has generally not considered it a part of the organic law of the country. For example, although the Declaration mentions a right to rebellion, this right, particularly with regard to violent rebellion, has not been recognized by the Supreme Court and other branches of the federal government. The most notable failure to uphold this right occurred when the Union put down the rebellion by the Southern Confederacy in the Civil War.

— Declaration of Independence

It is a very interesting article.

 

[BS Filter]

Actually, there is some doubt about that. Although I believe it is law (for a few reasons), I understand that there is some question:


— Declaration of Independence

It is a very interesting article.

Yes. Here's another.

Natural Law and the Declaration of Independence

To those who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence, political liberty and natural law went together: Nature summons man, individually and collectively, to self-government and guides him in the exercise of his power of choice.

www.thepublicdiscourse.com

 

[excalibur]

Are you going to tell that to the slave owners?

Are they still alive? Derp.

And slave owners of the time would applaud the stance of Brown Jackson and use it as an argument for continuing slavery. Derp.

 

[BackAgain]

Never happens, leftoid nominees always stick to their leftoid script. And this woman is the most radical person ever nominated.

I dunno. When Kennedy nominated Justice Whizzer White, it was assumed he would be a solid “liberal” vote.

He disappointed Kennedy.

Certainly some Jurists nominated by more conservative Presidents have disappointed those on the right, too, with certain decisions.

Some people end up taking the position very seriously. Some people do rise to the occasion.

 

[BS Filter]

I dunno. When Kennedy nominated Justice Whizzer White, it was assumed he would be a solid “liberal” vote.

He disappointed Kennedy.

Certainly some Jurists nominated by more conservative Presidents have disappointed those on the right, too, with certain decisions.

Some people end up taking the position very seriously. Some people do rise to the occasion.

Justice Roberts sure has disappointed many Americans. Still scratching our heads on voting for same-sex marriage.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

To be legally enforceable they need to be tied to our laws or Constitution

 

[rightwinger]

Justice Roberts sure has disappointed many Americans. Still scratching our heads on voting for same-sex marriage.

History will thank him

 

[excalibur]

The Founding Fathers did not apply natural rights to all people in the US.

This is now, derp. And she refuses to say if individuals possess natural rights, Capiche? Try thinking about what that means for a minute.

​

​

16. Do you hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights, yes or no?​

​

RESPONSE: I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.​

​

​

 

[BackAgain]

Justice Roberts sure has disappointed many Americans. Still scratching our heads on voting for same-sex marriage.

And his ObamaCare decision.

 

[excalibur]

History will thank him

Yeah, Sodom and Gomorrah will.

 

[rightwinger]

This is now, derp.

​

​

16. Do you hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights, yes or no?​

​

RESPONSE: I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.​

I don’t have a problem with that

She supports the Constitution and the Constitution has no mention of Natural Rights…real or implied

 

[excalibur]

I dunno. When Kennedy nominated Justice Whizzer White, it was assumed he would be a solid “liberal” vote.

He disappointed Kennedy.

Certainly some Jurists nominated by more conservative Presidents have disappointed those on the right, too, with certain decisions.

Some people end up taking the position very seriously. Some people do rise to the occasion.

That was the last time. Period. And his liberalism was classic liberalism, not the neo-Marxist insanity of the "liberals" of today.

 

[BS Filter]

History will thank him

Queers will, not Americans who respect the Constitution. Marriage laws are a states issue, but hey, doesn't matter to people who view the Constitution as something that can be twisted and bent to fit the society's fads.

 

[excalibur]

What I find ironic is that a decedent of slaves shares a similarly myopic view as that held by the Dixiecrats who enslaved her ancestors.

Zoom

Right over your head.

Nailed it.

 

[BS Filter]

To be legally enforceable they need to be tied to our laws or Constitution

Where does the Constitution mention abortion and marriage?

 

[occupied]

Much more than mere complaints.

Natural Law and the Declaration of Independence

To those who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence, political liberty and natural law went together: Nature summons man, individually and collectively, to self-government and guides him in the exercise of his power of choice.

www.thepublicdiscourse.com

The constitution is the wellspring of US law. It has it's basis in other documents but none of them can be considered law.

 

[BackAgain]

To be legally enforceable they need to be tied to our laws or Constitution

I’m not quibbling with you. I’m just stating that the Constitution (for the most part) doesn’t provide rights. It only guarantees the rights. (And there may be some exceptions to that.)

But the guarantee of freedom of speech (for example), as we understand it, was considered and is considered to pre-exist the Constitution.