Biden wants to secure a one party state

[JimmyBT]

Just now, uncle bernard said:

you can’t even tell when i’m making fun of you lol

Because you can’t 

[Offthemat]

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. 

[Lipdrag]

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.

[jross]

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

[uncle bernard]

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. 

[uncle bernard]

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. 

[uncle bernard]

Do people really watch this stuff and not realize they’re acting like brown shirts?

[Offthemat]

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. 

[uncle bernard]

8 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Now you’re just making stuff up. 

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

[JimmyBT]

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. 

[JimmyBT]

38 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Do people really watch this stuff and not realize they’re acting like brown shirts?

In order to be brown shirts they need to take your guns away 

[Offthemat]

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.  

[Bigbrog]

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??

[uncle bernard]

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.

[Offthemat]

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.  

[uncle bernard]

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?

[Offthemat]

2 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

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

In some cases -statute, when a statute conflicts with the Constitution - amendment.  

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, Offthemat said:

In some cases -statute, when a statute conflicts with the Constitution - amendment.  

Can you give an example where the “leftist” judges did something illegitimately?

[Offthemat]

3 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Can you give an example where the “leftist” judges did something illegitimately?

Roe v Wade 

[uncle bernard]

6 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Roe v Wade 

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. 

[uncle bernard]

nobody knows less about american history than conservatives lol

[Offthemat]

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. 

[uncle bernard]

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.

[red viking]

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 

[uncle bernard]

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.