Page 227 of 238 FirstFirst ... 127177217222223224225226227228229230231232237 ... LastLast
Results 4,521 to 4,540 of 4748

Thread: Ongoing US GOP Debacle Thread: Embracing Trumpism/White Supremacy

  1. #4521
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    “Original intent” is not the touchstone of Originalism. “Original meaning” is.

    The notion that “we the people” is limited to landowning white males ignores the 14th Amendment, which provides that all persons have equal protection of the laws.

    People who criticize originalism as being racist refuse, either because of stupidity or for polemical reasons, to accept that originalism acknowledges that the 13-15th Amendments worked a fundamental change in constitutional structure.
    Originalism: Good in theory, but not practiced by the modern GOP, unless it can be used to argue for unlimited gun rights.

  2. #4522
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeForestRanger View Post
    I think he’s making a pretty explicit argument that democracies function best when groups stick to their own kind.
    It's rather hard to read his second paragraph in your post and not come to the clear conclusion that he doesn't think diversity is very healthy for a democracy, or for a happy and stable society:

    “Inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours, regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”

    That's not exactly a ringing defense of diverse communities of any kind, and seems to pretty clearly indicate that he thinks demographically homogeneous communities are superior to diverse ones in several areas, government and politics being one.

  3. #4523
    Originalism isn’t racist, it just has racist results due to its refusal to understand how law is supposed to work. “Only the words on the page matter” is a complete bastardization of common sense.
    Birds aren’t real

  4. #4524
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    103,924
    Are there any non-white people whose original intent we are supposed to consider?

  5. #4525
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    Are there any non-white people whose original intent we are supposed to consider?
    Jesus of Nazareth
    Birds aren’t real

  6. #4526
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    103,924
    GOP Jesus is white though.

  7. #4527
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    GOP Jesus is white though.
    It’s why they like Israel: to give Jesus a safe space to come back and rapture the evangelicals

  8. #4528
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Angus View Post
    When your burning and obsessive hatred of any and all things Trump causes you to blindly vote for any Dem on every ballot regardless of policy, you were never a conservative in the first place.

    That goes for you and double for your hack buddy, Tom Nichols.
    We must give a sound defeat to Trump and his allies to show that the American people will not stand for his antidemocratic, Treasonous actions.

  9. #4529

  10. #4530
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    103,924
    That’s a good thread. Dems need candidates who can hold a mirror to them and offer them a way out of the mess they’ve voted themselves into.

  11. #4531
    Ishmael Smith Junebug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Open to suggestions
    Posts
    4,776
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    Are there any non-white people whose original intent we are supposed to consider?
    No, but in fairness, there aren’t any white people whose original intent we should consider either.

  12. #4532
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    103,924
    Then whose original intent are you talking about?

  13. #4533
    Ishmael Smith Junebug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Open to suggestions
    Posts
    4,776
    The most popular branch of the theory focuses on original meaning, not original intent. I have explained this on multiple occasions.

  14. #4534
    Funny how original meaning is ignored whenever we discuss “arms.”

  15. #4535
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    103,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    The most popular branch of the theory focuses on original meaning, not original intent. I have explained this on multiple occasions.
    So whose original meaning?

  16. #4536
    Ishmael Smith Junebug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Open to suggestions
    Posts
    4,776
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    So whose original meaning?
    The words’.

  17. #4537
    Junebug you’re ignoring the obvious fact that words cannot operate on their own. Someone has to write them. And who writes them matters because who a person is and what a person believes when he writes words shapes how the words are used and what meaning they are supposed to have.
    Birds aren’t real

  18. #4538
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    103,924
    Obviously the people who wrote it matter. Otherwise there would be no distinction between the original meaning and current meaning.

  19. #4539
    Ishmael Smith Junebug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Open to suggestions
    Posts
    4,776
    Quote Originally Posted by AsesinoDeTortugas View Post
    Junebug you’re ignoring the obvious fact that words cannot operate on their own. Someone has to write them. And who writes them matters because who a person is and what a person believes when he writes words shapes how the words are used and what meaning they are supposed to have.
    You realize you are writing words on an anonymous message board, right?

    I don’t care what the writer’s intent was. The writer’s intent isn’t the law. The words are.

  20. #4540
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    You realize you are writing words on an anonymous message board, right?

    I don’t care what the writer’s intent was. The writer’s intent isn’t the law. The words are.
    I’m not arguing about intent. You say original meaning matters. I’m saying that who the writer is and what they believe in shapes what words are used and therefore what meaning a law has.

    But it’s beside the point, you’ll never back down from originalism. But at the end of the day, even Scalia dint apply originalism consistently. No court ever has. It’s a terrible interpretative philosophy that appeals to a certain subgroup of legal minds that don’t want to bother with critical thinking.
    Birds aren’t real

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •