Jump to content
  • Playwire Ad Area

Biden wants to secure a one party state


Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

the party at a 6-3 disadvantage has the larger political influence? lol

conservatives have an entire political group funded by billions of dollars primarily devoted towards developing conservative judges and getting court seats. it’s called the federalist society. look it up lol

it’s hilarious how little americans know about how other countries work.

You are conflating conservative with originalist/textualist, which is okay in a way.  Judgment based on limited government and original intent is a lot less political than the newfound, unenumerated, or implied rights the three ‘liberal’ justices employ. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mspart said:

Remember, Republic is a form of government where the people elect leaders and the leaders do the government's business. 

I don't consider legislators "leaders".  They are representatives.  Additionally, much more important than how we determine our representatives (i.e. democratically on a local basis) is that the representatives have very little authority and the government has very little business.  This concept of limited government is the most important aspect of our government and it is one which we seem to have forgotten - or simply chose to ignore at an ever more egregious rate - over a century ago.

  • Fire 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Offthemat said:

You are conflating conservative with originalist/textualist, which is okay in a way.  Judgment based on limited government and original intent is a lot less political than the newfound, unenumerated, or implied rights the three ‘liberal’ justices employ. 

“originalism” isn’t an unbiased way of reading the text. it’s its own ideological viewpoint. they are originalists of convenience. when it supports the answer they want to arrive at, they use it. when it doesn’t, they ignore it. 

furthermore, originalism is a modern innovation by conservatives in response to the civil rights decisions of the 1960s. nobody in the first 150 years of our nation’s history believed the constitution was meant to be a fixed document with fixed meaning (as if it’s even possible to know all of the exact fixed meanings of all the various founders who contributed to it). 

if we were to strictly adhere to it, things like segregation, public whippings, etc…couldn’t be outlawed. The constitution doesn’t say abortion should be legal. It also doesn’t say abortion should be illegal. It doesn’t say whether a state can ban contraception or not (the original inspiration for originalism came when Bork was mad the court struck down a ban on contraception for married couples in Connecticut).

It has broad phrases that we have to interpret and apply to our modern context. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jross said:

People actually want a big government and want it bigger yet.🤮 

Does this mean you support full drug legalization? No drinking age? Drunk driving? What about dumping chemicals in water sources? Child labor? Roads? Open borders? Abolishing the police? The military?

I can keep going forever. “Big Government” is a meaningless term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

“originalism” isn’t an unbiased way of reading the text. it’s its own ideological viewpoint. they are originalists of convenience. when it supports the answer they want to arrive at, they use it. when it doesn’t, they ignore it. 

furthermore, originalism is a modern innovation by conservatives in response to the civil rights decisions of the 1960s. nobody in the first 150 years of our nation’s history believed the constitution was meant to be a fixed document with fixed meaning (as if it’s even possible to know all of the exact fixed meanings of all the various founders who contributed to it). 

if we were to strictly adhere to it, things like segregation, public whippings, etc…couldn’t be outlawed. The constitution doesn’t say abortion should be legal. It also doesn’t say abortion should be illegal. It doesn’t say whether a state can ban contraception or not (the original inspiration for originalism came when Bork was mad the court struck down a ban on contraception for married couples in Connecticut).

It has broad phrases that we have to interpret and apply to our modern context. 

Now you’re just making stuff up. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Does this mean you support full drug legalization? No drinking age? Drunk driving? What about dumping chemicals in water sources? Child labor? Roads? Open borders? Abolishing the police? The military?

I can keep going forever. “Big Government” is a meaningless term. 

Bullshit. Anything it touches is inefficient and/or ineffective. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

you’re allowed to learn about our nation’s history. i promise you it isn’t as scary as you think!

I’m aware of enough of our history to know that scholars have gone to great lengths to discern the intent of the founders.  This effort has gone on since before Marbury v. Madison.  Whether by the qualifying term of originalist or not.  There are libraries of their contemporaneous writings, laws, and negotiations, as well as progressive records of subsequent studies.  Enough so that it is rare to read a Court decision without finding references to the intent of the writer’s referenced provision.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, uncle bernard said:

you’re allowed to learn about our nation’s history. i promise you it isn’t as scary as you think!

What book did you read again that makes you think you know more than everyone else??

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

What book did you read again that makes you think you know more than everyone else??

This is public history. You can find it yourself anywhere my friend. Let me know what you think of the quotes below

39 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

I’m aware of enough of our history to know that scholars have gone to great lengths to discern the intent of the founders.  This effort has gone on since before Marbury v. Madison.  Whether by the qualifying term of originalist or not.  There are libraries of their contemporaneous writings, laws, and negotiations, as well as progressive records of subsequent studies.  Enough so that it is rare to read a Court decision without finding references to the intent of the writer’s referenced provision.  

No, scholars have gone to great lengths to discern the meaning of the constitution. That is not the same thing.

Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): "This provision is made in a constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. To have prescribed the means by which government should, in all future time, execute its powers, would have been to change, entirely, the character of the instrument, and give it the properties of a legal code. It would have been an unwise attempt to provide, by immutable rules, for exigencies which, if foreseen at all, must have been seen dimly, and which can be best provided for as they occur."

Antonin Scalia - the most famous originalist: "I'm an originalist, but I'm not a nut." 

and

"I'm a fainthearted originalist...in its undiluted form, at least, it is medicine that seems too strong to swallow." 

and

(in reference to public flogging and branding as an example) "Even if it could be demonstrated unequivocally that these were not cruel and unusual measures in 1791, and even though no prior Supreme Court decision has specifically disapproved them, I doubt whether any federal judge — even among the many who consider themselves originalists — would sustain them against an Eighth Amendment challenge."

I could spend all day finding more for you if I cared that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Yes, a beauty of the thing is that it has proven adaptable, but the necessity is to prevent its modification sans the legitimate process, as the leftist justices are wont to do.  

What do you consider a legitimate process? Which decisions do you have in mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

The Roe v Wade decision was written by a Republican and joined by the Republican Chief Justice of the court and another judge appointed by a Republican president as part of its 7-2 majority. 

I disagree with the qualifications of Republican, and they certainly were not originalist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

I disagree with the qualifications of Republican, and they certainly were not originalist. 

Members of the Republican party appointed by Republican presidents weren't Republicans???

"and they certainly were not originalist"

YES THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TELLING YOU LMAO

Originalism is a modern phenomenon that has no basis in our nation's history or founding. There is no line in the Constitution that says "This document is to be taken strictly according to its meaning at the time of its writing" or "Anything not explicitly mentioned in this document is unconstitutional."

Originalism inserts a modern ideology back into a founding document that, by its very structure, is meant to be a living document, continually updated as needed. Why? Because obviously a document written PRE-INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION is not going to adequately address the issues of modernity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

News flash. We cant go back to 1776. No way it can work in a modern and integrated society. Founding fathers are probably turning in their graves in response to the people that fail to apply the constitution to modern circumstances 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, red viking said:

News flash. We cant go back to 1776. No way it can work in a modern and integrated society. Founding fathers are probably turning in their graves in response to the people that fail to apply the constitution to modern circumstances 

Exactly! If that was actually what they believed or wanted, they would have put it in the document!

The fact they didn't is how we know we shouldn't be using an "originalist" framework.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Playwire Ad Area



  • Playwire Ad Area
  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Adam Mattin

    Delta, Ohio
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Stanford
    Projected Weight: 125, 133

    Grant Stromberg

    Mukwonago, Wisconsin
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Northern Iowa
    Projected Weight: 285

    Hudson Ward

    Canton, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 165

    Alex Reed

    Shikellamy, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125

    Darren Florance

    Harpursville, New York
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125
  • Playwire Ad Area
×
×
  • Create New...