• 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!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

Wakelaw2006 said:
Not that it really matters, but unless ACB or KBJ surprise us, this one will be 5-4 with Roberts in the minority. He's already tipped his hand on this issue.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Roberts wants to practically eliminate the voting rights act, but not sure he's ready to go full bore into open Jim Crow.
 
290329637_10106994156102155_1190442459730717936_n.jpg
 
ConnorEl said:
Byron Williams: 'Originalism’ elevates an 18th century elite
Click to expand...

"The doctrines of originalism and strict constructionism, to which the six conservative justices adhere to varying degrees, are at odds with a nation committed to the civic virtue of liberty and equality. Can America remain dynamic when jurisprudence at the highest level seems conveniently wedded to a stilted 18th century interpretation? Over the decades, a portion of the public discourse has bemoaned so-called “legislating from the bench,” a term that defines a type of judicial activism whereby the judge exceeds his or her prescribed authority by making decisions that theoretically are the domain of the legislative branch.

Consider when the Roberts Court gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. Chief Justice Roberts, in his majority opinion, did not cite the 14th or 15th Amendments to the Constitution as the rationale, but rather offered a sociological explanation that times had changed. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller v. DC, which effectively made the Second Amendment about individual gun rights, did not offer an “originalist” perspective, but literally offered Scalia’s own rewording of the original text to reach his conclusion...How is this not “legislating from the bench,” if that is indeed a thing? Moreover, isn’t originalism an unrealistic orthodoxy that interprets the Constitution by surmising the intent of an 18th century gentry class that applied full citizenship to roughly 16% of the population?

Because of the dynamic nature of the American narrative, nothing is deeply rooted until it is. Alito’s supposition suggests that only the worldview of the framers of the Constitution is deeply held in American history — only the rights of the original vaunted 16% would be deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions."

A good critique of originalism, and of just how hypocritical conservatives who complained about "judicial activism" are when it comes to this court.
 
I think this portion is pretty spot on…

The court’s conservative application of originalism, which is a judicial interpretation of the Constitution that aims to follow how words were understood or intended at the time it was written — or strict constructionism — a form of judicial interpretation that offers the Constitution should be applied as it was written — are incongruent with the realities of the 21st century. It is, in my view, an intellectual farce that attempts to conceal its philosophical opposition to a changing America.
Click to expand...
 
They don't really need to keep up the farce for much longer. It's almost served it's usefulness.
 
Anyone still trying to argue against originalism is an unserious person and a relic. We’re well past that eternally obvious BS, let’s start figuring out how to actually pass laws. Stop playing the victim.
 
Oh, but conservative legal principles are a farce…and have sadly become the guiding “principles” of our highest court. And need to be called out and resisted in multiple ways. Yes, including by the legislative branch of our federal government.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Click to expand...

These five hard-right justices are a joke - all of them. And as they have already made very clear, they are just getting started, and the five of them can actually do more in many ways to implement the GOP's far-right agenda than GOP congressional majorities could ever do. Eliminating the power of government agencies to do their jobs, completing erasing any separation of church and state, wrecking American public education, destroying the ability of labor unions to function, overturning Obamacare, overturning generations of progressive court rulings on privacy rights, environmental activism - the damage they could do just goes on and on. And unless Democrats elect a good many more Senators than seems likely, and grow a spine, they are powerless to do much about it.
 
Last edited:
Balls and strikes ! !

What we didn't know is that these strikes are directly to the balls. And ovaries even harder.
 
I wonder what Junebug's favorite obscure albums are.

Why religion is the worst, Exhibit no. 886266883883. Get out of your churches.
 
Lololol. PitWashing is so good and should be our pejorative slur for Chatwashing
 
jhmd must be forced to post on The Tunnels till he dies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top