• 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!

Another racist democrat

Junebug said:
Early-mid aughts. Why?

Clerkships, by the way.
Click to expand...

I was wondering if it lined up with you shift away from the donkeys to the con-men rather than the Lewinski affair. Much of your conservative philosophy is based around constitutional principles which could greatly change over the course of a constitutional law class and a federal clerkship or two.
 
Junebug said:
Also, not to derail the thread too much, I am an originalist, but an originalist’s view of the correct hermeneutical approach to the constitution does not, necessarily anyway, have anything to do with political outcomes. I have posted many times that I think the political process is important, by constitutional design and policy, and that rights not explicit in the constitution should not be created from whole cloth because the constitution reserves those issues for the people. There are scores of issues where I think the constitution does not create rights but the legislature should, including homosexual activity, homosexual unions and the attendant rights, abortion rights, various areas of criminal procedure, etc. Rights creation is a one-way ratchet. A holding that the constitution creates rights grants them, and they can’t be undone until the decision is overruled. But a holding that the constitution doesn’t create a right can always be practically overruled by the legislature simply enacting a law creating the right at issue. Originalism is thus an exercise in democracy, whereas activism is an exercise in oligarchy.
Click to expand...

LOL. At best, originalism is by its very nature a judicial philosophy that preserves the status quo and yields conservative outcomes. In reality, it was created and spread for exactly that purpose. It’s a perversion of the constitution and the founders intent with a purpose of thwarting attempts, both legislative and judicial, to improve the lives of marginalized peoples while protecting the privileged from attempts, both legislative and judicial, to strip them of their unearned advantages.
 
Are there any originalists that are non-religious, atheist, agnostic, etc... and of originalists what percentage are Bible literalists?
 
Junebug said:
No, I left the donkey party before Con Law. In any event, as I stated, constitutional hermeneutics have nothing to do with politics.
Click to expand...

In it's purest form, sure. But it's never executed in it purest form. And don't pretend like you are some sort of originalism purist (or that anyone on any court in the US is). ANy time a supposed originalist says "this is something that should be handled legislatively"; know that for the next case in their docket they will strike down progressive legislation as being unconstitutional on some BS originalist grounds -- that's still activism and it is purely political.
 
It’s ok you think the earth was formed only 4200 years prior to your secondary lord and savior Madison’s birth.
 
The rise in originalism in the 1980’s was the worst thing to happen to American jurisprudence since Plessy.
 
what is the point of staying original to a document that was written 300 years ago when various technologies and societal advances have since taken shape?
 
BarcaDeac said:
what is the point of staying original to a document that was written 300 years ago when various technologies and societal advances have since taken shape?
Click to expand...

preserving white supremacy, duh
 
Junebug said:
What’s the point in having a written constitution if you aren’t going to adhere to it? And to address MHB’s point, that includes the 13th - 15th amendments.
Click to expand...

if that's your argument then amendments make no sense
 
The framers included the power to make amendments but they never imagined a time amendments would be considered near impossible unless one party rigged the system enough to get the right numbers.
 
The issue isn't adherence or not (in this context), it's how you're reading the text to determine adherence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top