Originalism is Fake News

[IM2]

The right leaning SCOTUS is literally winging it with their claims of originalism.

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[MaryL]

The moon landing or electricity or silicon chips is something whites made up. Yet here we are.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The moon landing or electricity or silicon chips is something whites made up. Yet here we are.

Blacks are salivating over the idea of the disarmed. Look at what they have done to New York.

 

[White 6]

The right leaning SCOTUS is literally winging it with their claims of originalism.

MSN

www.msn.com

That's a good article, you found. I was particularly attracted to the paragraph:
"And what about all of our nation's current problems, ones the founders could not possibly have anticipated? The simple algorithm for textualists and originalists appears to be: 1) If the founders didn't write explicitly about it, then we don't need to know about it, because the Founders were godlike and are still totally pertinent; 2) If the founders did write about it but were vague in their expression, we'll consult English common law or our fave-rave philosophers (e.g., Plato, Edmund Burke) for answers, because, well, everyone knows the founders were in a big hurry and often imbibed too much cider."

While not a talented writer, many times, I always have an appreciation for others that write well, expressing what I might express poor. But maybe, that is my on confirmation bias.

 

[White 6]

Blacks are salivating over the idea of the disarmed. Look at what they have done to New York.

I doubt that. BLM may not care unless it there is a cop involved, still, the good work a day people (and I have worked with many while in supervision and early years factory line work) in the hood, know it is a dangerous world in the hood, even if they often fear to speak out against criminal pack animals in their midst, out of fear, intimidation or distant relationship. Nixon (the asshole) like the phrase "the silent majority" referring to an unspecified or quantifiable group, rarely heard from. I submit there is a silent majority present in minority communities, that recognize the internal dangers in their community. Many lump them in with lawless radicals and outspoken assholes. I have found most generalization are just lazy shortcuts, often not addressing or useful in changing reality.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I doubt that. BLM may not care unless it there is a cop involved, still, the good work a day people (and I have worked with many while in supervision and early years factory line work) in the hood, know it is a dangerous world in the hood, even if they often fear to speak out against criminal pack animals in their midst, out of fear, intimidation or distant relationship. Nixon (the asshole) like the phrase "the silent majority" referring to an unspecified or quantifiable group, rarely heard from. I submit there is a silent majority present in minority communities, that recognize the internal dangers in their community. Many lump them in with lawless radicals and outspoken assholes. I have found most generalization are just lazy shortcuts, often not addressing or useful in changing reality.

I used to agree with you. I wish I still could. I can't.

 

[IM2]

The moon landing or electricity or silicon chips is something whites made up. Yet here we are.

What the fuck does this have to do with originalism you ignorant bitch?

 

[IM2]

Blacks are salivating over the idea of the disarmed. Look at what they have done to New York.

And what the fuck does THIS have to do with originalism?

 

[IM2]

I doubt that. BLM may not care unless it there is a cop involved, still, the good work a day people (and I have worked with many while in supervision and early years factory line work) in the hood, know it is a dangerous world in the hood, even if they often fear to speak out against criminal pack animals in their midst, out of fear, intimidation or distant relationship. Nixon (the asshole) like the phrase "the silent majority" referring to an unspecified or quantifiable group, rarely heard from. I submit there is a silent majority present in minority communities, that recognize the internal dangers in their community. Many lump them in with lawless radicals and outspoken assholes. I have found most generalization are just lazy shortcuts, often not addressing or useful in changing reality.

You are a moderator, stay on topic. This thread is not about BLM, what BLM cares about, the hood or any other white opinion of black people. This is about the originalist interpretation of some of the supreme court justices.

 

[IM2]

I used to agree with you. I wish I still could. I can't.

The thread is not about your motherfucking racist opinion about anything black. It is about originalism.

 

[White 6]

You are a moderator, stay on topic. This thread is not about BLM, what BLM cares about, the hood or any other white opinion of black people. This is about the originalist interpretation of some of the supreme court justices.

OK

 

[Disir]

The right leaning SCOTUS is literally winging it with their claims of originalism.

MSN

www.msn.com

I disagree with the opinion and it sounds like a child whining. Originalism is real and someone just doesn't like it. It's at Salon and I don't expect much in the way of actual debate.

 

[White 6]

Members advised to stay on topic, on this thread, Including Moderation Staff. White 6/Out...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The right leaning SCOTUS is literally winging it with their claims of originalism.

MSN

www.msn.com

Correct.

‘Originalism’ is a rightwing judicial contrivance completely devoid of legal, Constitutional merit.

It’s a façade behind which conservatives attempt to hide their agenda hostile to settled, accepted case law, used to ‘justify’ overturning that case law because it’s at odds with failed, wrongheaded conservative dogma.

There was no consent among the Framers as to ‘original intent’; nor was there consent among the American people as to their understanding of the Constitution at its ratification.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I disagree with the opinion and it sounds like a child whining. Originalism is real and someone just doesn't like it. It's at Salon and I don't expect much in the way of actual debate.

This fails as a kill the messenger fallacy.

Originalism is a false, bad-faith rightwing partisan contrivance.

As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

 

[Ringtone]

That's a good article, you found. I was particularly attracted to the paragraph:
"And what about all of our nation's current problems, ones the founders could not possibly have anticipated? The simple algorithm for textualists and originalists appears to be: 1) If the founders didn't write explicitly about it, then we don't need to know about it, because the Founders were godlike and are still totally pertinent; 2) If the founders did write about it but were vague in their expression, we'll consult English common law or our fave-rave philosophers (e.g., Plato, Edmund Burke) for answers, because, well, everyone knows the founders were in a big hurry and often imbibed too much cider."

While not a talented writer, many times, I always have an appreciation for others that write well, expressing what I might express poor. But maybe, that is my on confirmation bias.

Yeah, I saw this subversive, demagogic swill earlier today. I'm sorry to see how easily you're persuaded to embrace the irrationality of philosophical relativism as if the ever-constant outcomes of natural law didn't prevail under changing circumstances.

 

[Ringtone]

Correct.

‘Originalism’ is a rightwing judicial contrivance completely devoid of legal, Constitutional merit.

It’s a façade behind which conservatives attempt to hide their agenda hostile to settled, accepted case law, used to ‘justify’ overturning that case law because it’s at odds with failed, wrongheaded conservative dogma.

There was no consent among the Framers as to ‘original intent’; nor was there consent among the American people as to their understanding of the Constitution at its ratification.

Subversive, Marxist filth and nonsense!

A synthesis of textualism and originalism as premised on the Anglo-American tradition of natural law will produce judicial outcomes that are the very essence of liberty and justice.

 

[IM2]

Yeah, I saw this subversive, demagogic swill earlier today. I'm sorry to see how easily you're persuaded to embrace the irrationality of philosophical relativism as if the ever-constant outcomes of natural law didn't prevail under changing circumstances.

There was nothing subversive or demagogic about it.

 

[IM2]

Subversive, Marxist filth and nonsense!

A synthesis of textualism and originalism as premised on the Anglo-American tradition of natural law will produce judicial outcomes that are the very essence of liberty and justice.

 

[IM2]

I disagree with the opinion and it sounds like a child whining. Originalism is real and someone just doesn't like it. It's at Salon and I don't expect much in the way of actual debate.

Wrong.