All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[AnakinFlair]

I'd be curious to see who the judges are on that federal appeals court and who appointed them.

I read at least two of them in the decision were appointed by Trump.

[JCAll]

Democrats should punt on this hearing. It’s a no win. She comes off as intelligent and well spoken and their is too much precedent for her to evade questions on future rulings. She’s getting confirmed. Even CNN is talking about her being an easy confirmation vote in any other circumstance.

The attack strategy is Republican hypocrisy. Get out of this trap, move on to that.

Democrats are already catching hell from independants for not stopping the nomination, even though there's no real way to do so. They're damned whether they humor to the hearings or not, might as well just show up and ask her who she's going to screw once she gets on the court. Maybe they can use it in some campaign ads after she starts really pissing people off.

[Tami]

I found this online: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation

Give a summary or the pros and cons of the two theories, "Eight Reasons to be an Originalist" and "Eight Reasons to be a Non-Originalist" for anyone curious about t his considering the current hearings in the Senate.

[kidfresh512]

Democrats are already catching hell from independants for not stopping the nomination, even though there's no real way to do so. They're damned whether they humor to the hearings or not, might as well just show up and ask her who she's going to screw once she gets on the court. Maybe they can use it in some campaign ads after she starts really pissing people off.

Thats all you can do make her squirm put her on record then use the answers and the hypocrisy of having the nomination rammed through so fast when it comes time to packing court or future elections.

[worstblogever]

Everyone forgets Columbus was so brutal that when he returned to Spain he was imprisoned for it.

Just.....take a moment to let that sink in.

The monarchs who started the Spanish Inquisition had Christopher Columbus thrown into prison because of his excessive brutality towards the natives.

I found this online: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation

Give a summary or the pros and cons of the two theories, "Eight Reasons to be an Originalist" and "Eight Reasons to be a Non-Originalist" for anyone curious about t his considering the current hearings in the Senate.

Originalists are bulls***. They feel like the original Constitution was the true document. As in, the one that didn't outlaw slavery. Or, y'know, Allow women to vote. Just for a few examples.

[Mister Mets]

I found this online: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation

Give a summary or the pros and cons of the two theories, "Eight Reasons to be an Originalist" and "Eight Reasons to be a Non-Originalist" for anyone curious about t his considering the current hearings in the Senate.

That's very interesting. Thanks.

It's probably one of the best summaries I've seen of the alternative to the originalist position.

For all the criticisms of originalism, I rarely see discussion of the alternative. For some people, it seems to be the equivalent of what they accuse Republicans of doing. I posted some links on the question a few months ago, with further reading on an important rarely discussed issue (the legal rationale of many American judges.)

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...sm#post5056915

[Mister Mets]

Originalists are bulls***. They feel like the original Constitution was the true document. As in, the one that didn't outlaw slavery. Or, y'know, Allow women to vote. Just for a few examples.

That's absolutely untrue.

Originalists have nothing against constitutional amendments.

Looking at Tami's link, originalists explicitly support the amendment process. These were listed as reasons to be an originalist.
"5. Leaving it to the people to amend their Constitution when need be promotes serious public debate about government and its limitations."
"7. If a constitutional amendment passed today, we would expect a court five years from now to ask what we intended to adopt. [Can the same be said for a court 100 or 200 years from now?]"
"8. Originalism more often forces legislatures to reconsider and possibly repeal or amend their own bad laws, rather than to leave it to the courts to get rid of them."

Among the reasons to be a non-originalist was the difficulty of using the amendment process, which requires originalists to favor it.
"4. Non-originalism allows judges to head off the crises that could result from the inflexible interpretation of a provision in the Constitution that no longer serves its original purpose. (The amendment process is too difficult and cannot be relied upon to save us.)"

Even Posner's criticism of Bork acknowledges his support for constitutional amendments.

The bar association's discussion of this frames the question as "Is the Constitution a static document, the meaning of which is set in stone until the people chisel in an amendment?"

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/j...ginalists-now/

So the idea that originalists reject the 13th and 19th amendments is absurd.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That's very interesting. Thanks.

It's probably one of the best summaries I've seen of the alternative to the originalist position.

For all the criticisms of originalism, I rarely see discussion of the alternative.

The alternative is "The Living Constitution" as described and outlined most famously by Thurgood Marshall on the Bicentennial of the Constitution in 1987.
(http://thurgoodmarshall.com/the-bicentennial-speech/)

[babyblob]

Thats all you can do make her squirm put her on record then use the answers and the hypocrisy of having the nomination rammed through so fast when it comes time to packing court or future elections.

The thing is she is not really going on record for anything. They ask how she would vote on ROe vs Wade and ACA and she said she can not comment on cases until they happen or some ****. They ask if she would recuse herself on some cases and the same thing I have to look at what other justices did before me, I cant comment on cases until they happen etc..

Hard to hold her to the fire when she wont give a direct answer on anything.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Well Hirono did call her out and got her to apologize for using the term "sexual preference"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYfP..._channel=MSNBC

Her statement about Roe. v Wade not being a super-precedent is useful ammunition too.

[babyblob]

The Supreme Court Sided with Trump and is allowing him to end the Census effective immediately and not uphold a lower court ruling that extended the deadline.

[The Chou Lives]

Trump is now on a Twitting rampage talking about how crappy Democratic states are doing.

Like New York is going to hell.

Err I live in NY. My home state was a Republican state. SC is pretty much a American version of the Third world.

This **** is funny as hell.

[Tami]

I just donated $10 to Doug Jones. It's not much but I can't afford much and I feel bad that he might lose his seat to someone not worthy of it.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Trump is now on a Twitting rampage talking about how crappy Democratic states are doing.

Like New York is going to hell.

Err I live in NY. My home state was a Republican state. SC is pretty much a American version of the Third world.

This **** is funny as hell.

Even funnier that Trump calls Florida home, a state that’s been ravaged by COVID-19 thanks to its moronic Republican governor.

[ed2962]

Democrats are already catching hell from independants for not stopping the nomination, even though there's no real way to do so. They're damned whether they humor to the hearings or not, might as well just show up and ask her who she's going to screw once she gets on the court. Maybe they can use it in some campaign ads after she starts really pissing people off.

A lot of the Senators both Democrat and Republican were clearly just campaigning and speechifying.