team politics talking points.

[JohnRoberts]

This of course is complete and utter crap. The decisions of the past week aren't even consistent with one another, much less the "original" intent of the founding fathers (who, let it be noted, had their own disagreements about how all this should work.)

I am repeating myself but rather than mind reading, I suggest reading the "Federalist Papers" to gain some insight into what our founders "thought".

Besides, the entire notion of "originalism" is contrary to the intent of the founders. They understood the need to adapt as time rolled on; that's why they provided ways to amend the Constitution.

I would submit that the intent of the founders was not to change how we interpret the constitution over time, but to write amendments to legislate substantive changes. Amendments are not easy, maybe consider passing an amendment to enumerate abortion as a constitutional right... good luck with that.

"Originalism" is a buzzword used as cover for politically-driven conservative extremism in the judiciary. It does not honor the intent of the founders, nor does it hew to any internal logic, or even necessarily to the facts of a case (see the recent case about the praying football coach.) Maybe you can sell that "originalist" garbage somewhere else (obviously somebody sold you on it), but I certainly won't be buying into that weak nonsense.

We are pretty much finished here.

Good luck

JR

 

[hodad]

I would submit that the intent of the founders was not to change how we interpret the constitution over time

Mindread much?

 

[hodad]

We are pretty much finished here.

We were finished before we started.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Mindread much?

Provide references to back your ridiculous claim.

 

[living sounds]

I am repeating myself but rather than mind reading, I suggest reading the "Federalist Papers" to gain some insight into what our founders "thought".

I would submit that the intent of the founders was not to change how we interpret the constitution over time, but to write amendments to legislate substantive changes. Amendments are not easy, maybe consider passing an amendment to enumerate abortion as a constitutional right... good luck with that.

We are pretty much finished here.

Good luck

JR

We've got fringe groups here that argue the illegitimacy of the Federal Republik of Germany on pseudo-legal grounds about stuff that happened more than a century ago.

The founding of the US was about looking forward and being pragmatic. Measured by that standard, today's "Conservatism" is about the most anti-American ideology imaginable. Regressive, authoritarian, narrow-minded, zero-sum, fearful, unimaginative. The "Founders", were they alive today, would stomp all over you.

Is there a point to this "discussion"? No, sadly we won't convince you.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

We've got fringe groups here that argue the illegitimacy of the Federal Republik of Germany on pseudo-legal grounds about stuff that happened more than a century ago.

Old does not magically imply bad. Good decisions and good systems stand the test of time.

The founding of the US was about looking forward and being pragmatic.

Yes. Which us why the founders thoughtfully included mechanisms for rational, purposeful, peaceful, and legal modification within the system. Use that.

Measured by that standard, today's "Conservatism" is about the most anti-American ideology imaginable. Regressive, authoritarian, narrow-minded, zero-sum, fearful, unimaginative.

Lock downs, vaccine mandates, wasteful spending of the treasury, foreign entanglements, open borders are all things the founders would abhor. I would add the USA PATRIOT Act and other breaches of the 4th amendment to that list.

The "Founders", were they alive today, would stomp all over you.

Really? How much American History have you studied? Give us some real examples.

Is there a point to this "discussion"? No, sadly we won't convince you.

You haven't provided any rational arguments. I'm not convinced by emotional appeals and ad hominem.

 

[Matador]

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I don't disagree with that quote. Does it say anything about reinterpreting existing laws? Does it advocate for judicial activism? No, it does neither. Jefferson simply states that some laws will need to be changed as our understanding of the universe and ourselves improves. In many ways that has happened (abolishing slavery, voting rights for all, anti-trust legislation, etc.). Jefferson also advocated for small government and I'm sure he would be appalled at our current curcumstance in that respect.

 

[living sounds]

So.. Trump assaulted his secret service detail and grabbed the steering wheel?

LMFAO.. You believe that? hahahaha..

I guess if you're prone to believe the likes of Jussie Smollett and Blasey Ford it doesnt come as a surprise.

FWIW, I think the secret service already refuted this 'fact'.

Comical stuff. File under: Bullshit

Good catch fixating on the one point that seems far fetched. However:

"Hutchinson was recounting hearsay, not something she claimed to have seen herself. And the fact is that someone sitting the back of a limousine couldn't plausibly reach the steering wheel. Our suspicion is that Trump did make a move of some sort, and the details were garbled a bit in the retelling. And more importantly, the point of the story isn't really that the President grabbed at a steering wheel. It's that people around him regarded him as being out of control. And that fact remains uncontroverted."

(Source: Electoral-vote.com)

 

[living sounds]

I don't disagree with that quote. Does it sat anything about reinterpreting existing laws? Does it advocate for judicial activism? No, it does neither. Jefferson simply states that some laws will need to be changed as our understanding of the universe and ourselves improves. In many ways that has happened (abolishing slavery, voting rights for all, anti-trust legislation, etc.). Jefferson also advocated for small government and I'm sure he would be appalled at our current curcumstance in that respect.

If you want to see judicial activism look no further than Bush v Gore, Citizens United or the decisions last week.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

If you want to see judicial activism look no further than Bush v Gore, Citizens United or the decisions last week.

The 2000 election was a mess. I remember all of the Democrats vowing to fix our election infrastructure to avoid such problems happening again. Instead they now prefer fewer controls on voting and advocate for less-secure voting mechanisms.

I understand why Citizens United turned out the way it did, but I agree that one of our biggest root problems is money in politics. Dark money, Super PACs, foreign influence (money from globalists and others seeking to weaken us) have done much damage and both parties are participating.

The decisions last week were based on fundamental Constitutionality. You may not like it, but that is the reality. Argue away, but try to provide some evidence and reasoned arguments.

 

[fallout]

Hutchinson was recounting hearsay, not something she claimed to have seen herself.

LOOOOOL

I guess that's how it works now? The whole thing is silly.

 

[living sounds]

The 2000 election was a mess. I remember all of the Democrats vowing to fix our election infrastructure to avoid such problems happening again. Instead they now prefer fewer controls on voting and advocate for less-secure voting mechanisms.

I understand why Citizens United turned out the way it did, but I agree that one of our biggest root problems is money in politics. Dark money, Super PACs, foreign influence (money from globalists and others seeking to weaken us) have done much damage and both parties are participating.

The Democrats wanted to fix the election infrastructure, but the other side blocked that, of course.

The decisions last week were based on fundamental Constitutionality. You may not like it, but that is the reality. Argue away, but try to provide some evidence and reasoned arguments.

LOL! The decision was about minority rule and finally delivering red meat to the religous / authoritarian nutbase.

They just fronted a very specific narrow-minded interpretation to try to legitimize that ruling. BTW, "Originalism" was made up originally (pun intended) by segregationists because they didn't like Brown v Board of Education. From an international legal and societal perspective the whole idea is quite ridiculous.

 

[living sounds]

LOOOOOL

I guess that's how it works now? The whole thing is silly.

Read my post again.

 

[fallout]

"Hutchinson was recounting hearsay, not something she claimed to have seen herself. And the fact is that someone sitting the back of a limousine couldn't plausibly reach the steering wheel. Our suspicion is that Trump did make a move of some sort, and the details were garbled a bit in the retelling. And more importantly, the point of the story isn't really that the President grabbed at a steering wheel. It's that people around him regarded him as being out of control. And that fact remains uncontroverted."

Hearsay.. Our suspicion.. the point of the story isn't really... and that fact remains uncontroverted.. blah blah blah

I couldn't care less about hearsay or 'suspicions'..

 

[AnalogPackrat]

The Democrats wanted to fix the election infrastructure, but the other side blocked that, of course.

Haha. Right. I was a voting adult in my mid-30s then. I tended to vote D in those days. You would be wrong. What they said and what they did are two different things. Multiple times since 2000 the Dems were the majority in both house and senate yet this was not addressed. Same in blue states.

And what do the current Democrats support? Ballot harvesting? No ID required to vote? Vote by mail with no security?

LOL! The decision was about minority rule and finally delivering red meat to the religous / authoritarian nutbase.

You are deluded. Where in the US Constitution is abortion addressed as a right? I've got my copy of the document handy. Go ahead. Now explain how you misinterpret the very simple Second Amendment. I'm ready.

They just fronted a very specific narrow-minded interpretation to try to legitimize that ruling. BTW, "Originalism" was made up originally (pun intended) by segregationists because they didn't like Brown v Board of Education. From an international legal and societal perspective the whole idea is quite ridiculous.

Congratulations on reading Wikipedia and regurgitating it here. What alternative is there to interpreting laws that are written? Recommend you mind Germany's business and stop pretending to be a US Constitutional scholar.

 

[living sounds]

Hearsay.. Our suspicion.. the point of the story isn't really... and that fact remains uncontroverted.. blah blah blah

I couldn't care less about hearsay or 'suspicions'..

As I said, you zoomed in on the least credible element of the entire testimony. Why? Because refuting the rest, which is much more damning, is so much harder.

 

[living sounds]

Haha. Right. I was a voting adult in my mid-30s then. I tended to vote D in those days. You would be wrong. What they said and what they did are two different things. Multiple times since 2000 the Dems were the majority in both house and senate yet this was not addressed. Same in blue states.

And what do the current Democrats support? Ballot harvesting? No ID required to vote? Vote by mail with no security?


You are deluded. Where in the US Constitution is abortion addressed as a right? I've got my copy of the document handy. Go ahead. Now explain how you misinterpret the very simple Second Amendment. I'm ready.


Congratulations on reading Wikipedia and regurgitating it here. What alternative is there to interpreting laws that are written? Recommend you mind Germany's business and stop pretending to be a US Constitutional scholar.

Sorry, I won't get down on your level anymore. Have a nice day.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Good catch fixating on the one point that seems far fetched. However:

"Hutchinson was recounting hearsay, not something she claimed to have seen herself. And the fact is that someone sitting the back of a limousine couldn't plausibly reach the steering wheel. Our suspicion is that Trump did make a move of some sort, and the details were garbled a bit in the retelling. And more importantly, the point of the story isn't really that the President grabbed at a steering wheel. It's that people around him regarded him as being out of control. And that fact remains uncontroverted."

(Source: Electoral-vote.com)

Hearsay under oath..? I wonder if it is still perjury of you couch your hearsay by saying "something to the effect of...." multiple times ( perhaps coached by a lawyer).

Several first hand actual sources are already contradicting her testimony and willing to come forward. We'll see how interested this committee really is at finding the actual truth.

This is why I don't watch this political theater.

JR

 

[Matador]

This of course is complete and utter crap. The decisions of the past week aren't even consistent with one another, much less the "original" intent of the founding fathers (who, let it be noted, had their own disagreements about how all this should work.)

It's far worse than this.

When striking down vaccine mandates, they cited to Mitchell v. Wisconsin, notably:

This Court has long emphasized, in a variety of contexts, that an individual’s right to bodily integrity and autonomy is sacrosanct. “No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.” Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891).

Note this cite is from 1891.

Now when it comes to women's bodily autonomy, Alito now argues that abortion rights aren't rooted in history and tradition (note this isn't a legal precedence, it's just his opinion). I guess 1891 isn't historical enough. Aside from Roe itself, Dobbs is bereft of citing any legal precedence. It' invented from whole cloth, nothing more.

Now the talking point is "just pass a bill". H.R. 3755 was brought to the Senate floor just last month, and was filibustered by all Republicans and Joe Manchin. So that's that.