• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

The flaw, error, compromise, original sin, whatever you want to call it, in the constitution that resulted in the civil war was overridden in the 1860s/70s. It’s gone. It’s not part of the law any longer. That’s how the amendment process is supposed to work. There is no reason to think that, because we had a civil war, other foundational concepts like separation of powers, enumerated powers, bicameralism, etc. are flawed. There just isn’t any link there.

And even if there were, even if the original sin of slavery infected all of our institutions, that would support a political argument to amend the the constitution to fix what was wrong (or get rid of it entirely) not a jurisprudential argument to interpret the bad things away. And, once that new constitution is enacted, it should be interpreted according to its original meaning until it is overridden by another one. Until then, however, this document is our constitution and should be interpreted as such. Any other view puts the will—not the judgment, but the will—of 5 lawyers as the meaning of the constitution, and not the constitution itself, which is what the states ratified.

Also, it’s original “meaning.” Not, as you say, original “intent.”

Original meaning and original intent both fall under the originalism umbrell, but they both share the fact that they are a silly sham (and still puts the will of 5 lawyers as the meaning of the constitution, as opposed to the constitution itself or the current will of the people). Everything you stated above is impractical and unrealistic and effectively useless. But, good job, otherwise.
 
that's fantastic. Only half of Trump's appointees properly discriminate.
 
col anus' boy trying not to sound like an a hole. Fails anyway.

"They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment," Kavanaugh wrote.

junebug approves this message.
 
Junebug probably updating his employment law practice pointers to let all his clients know they can’t fire people for sexual orientation reasons.
 
The flaw, error, compromise, original sin, whatever you want to call it, in the constitution that resulted in the civil war was overridden in the 1860s/70s. It’s gone. It’s not part of the law any longer. That’s how the amendment process is supposed to work. There is no reason to think that, because we had a civil war, other foundational concepts like separation of powers, enumerated powers, bicameralism, etc. are flawed. There just isn’t any link there.

And even if there were, even if the original sin of slavery infected all of our institutions, that would support a political argument to amend the the constitution to fix what was wrong (or get rid of it entirely) not a jurisprudential argument to interpret the bad things away. And, once that new constitution is enacted, it should be interpreted according to its original meaning until it is overridden by another one. Until then, however, this document is our constitution and should be interpreted as such. Any other view puts the will—not the judgment, but the will—of 5 lawyers as the meaning of the constitution, and not the constitution itself, which is what the states ratified.

Also, it’s original “meaning.” Not, as you say, original “intent.”

What in the actual fuck? Care to discuss Jim Crow and the 14th and 15th amendments? And what about the loopholes of the 13th amendment which allowed for slave labor of criminals?

I can't believe THIS is the actual "originalism" argument that you use. Because it is an absolute load of shit.

Also what about the original sin of widespread gender discrimination? Did the 19th amendment solve that completely? My god you are a dumb one.
 
He definitely agrees with Scalia and Kavanaugh. Hell to some extent I get it in theory, but the remaining problem that SCOTUS continues to ignore (at least directly) is that Congress isn’t even pretending to operate in good faith on any of these issues. Roberts and Gorsuch at least acknowledge indirectly that Congress doesn’t do shit.
 
"Gay people did not exist in 1787 because the Constitution does not acknowledge them. We should return to our original state of not acknowledging their existence, or we must pass an amendment saying they do exist" - Junebug, Esq.
 
Back
Top