Under "originalism", it was understood that no woman would serve on . What's the legal reasoning, applying the same strict textualism that conservatives use inconsistently, for why that has changed without a Constitutional amendment declaring it so?

@wjmaggos Because times change, and we abide by the rules the Left has made for us until we can restore Law and Order.


that's a copout. Conservative God Reagan appointed SDO in 1981. He even promised to appoint a woman during his campaign, in the same way that the right has given Biden shit (for sucking up to "the woke" instead of picking the most qualified person) during the primary for promising to pick a woman for VP.

@wjmaggos We will continue to play by the rules as they are until they are changed.


you won't do anything. they will do whatever the fuck they want while giving you excuses to parrot, telling yourself that you're part of the team, just as long as they can keep you hating "the left".

@wjmaggos I don't hate the Left. I voted for Obama. They've just gone off the deep end because they're not going to get their communist utopia in America.


some of they. but my point about "originalism" is to get away from the ideological thinking. if applied accurately, it wouldn't allow for women on , which is silly, so let's think/speak in a more nuanced way. sorry.

@wjmaggos How is Originalism "ideological thinking?"
And yes, if applied to women on the SCOTUS, it would not be allowed.
How will we protect the rights ensconced in the Constitution if not with Originalism?

@Orakel @valleyforge

I think there's a way to balance the intent vs original understanding. very generally, does the 4th protect the privacy of my info sitting on somebody else's server? I think the founders would say no, but looking more at intent, I would say yes.

@wjmaggos @valleyforge You aren't a supreme court judge though, and I doubt qualified to become one.
I understand both ways of interpreting the Constitution. I want my natural rights protected, and the Left has every intention of taking them away.
I think we roll back the clock. The Left loses again. Abortion is given to the states. Guns are allowed without the right being infringed. The ACA is dead, but Trump will replace it with something else more practical and less governmental.
I'm fine with all that.

@Orakel @wjmaggos @valleyforge there's also the issue of overemphasis on the judiciary. It is my unqualified opinion that the supreme court is simply too powerful for the lack of accountability. We hear of "checks and balances," but what checks are their on the SC, effectively, today? This is why we hear complaints about "legislating from the bench" and "judicial activism."

This springs largely from people who see it as a tool for change, rather than insurance for our inheritance.

@jeremiah @wjmaggos @valleyforge
I think most normal Americans are tired of being told we need to keep bleeding for past wrongs.
I'm not giving up everything my ancestors earned in this country because somebody's ancestor was a slave here (maybe.)
Pass. We'll just stop trying to be nice.
Again, I didn't even vote for Trump. I agree with everything he's doing.

Nobody else's kids are more important to me than mine. That's the way it's supposed to be.
I'm fine with gays marrying.
Men are men, women are women, and anything in between in a birth defect.
Blacks can abide by the rules or go to jail.
I'll die before my taxes pay reparations to anybody.
Cops have a right to defend themselves.

@Orakel @wjmaggos @valleyforge you can get out of most taxes easily enough by spending the money on deductible things, or giving it to your church or other NPOs you might support.

We've already been paying reparations for 50 years -- affirmative action, college grants, and that's before we get to the additional great society programs. All of it has lead to, well, the present.

The best thing is to nod, and submit a very, very small tax payment that is useless.

@jeremiah @wjmaggos @valleyforge
Again, normal people did not consider any of those things "reparations." They were attempts to right past wrongs by giving someone a leg up.
It's been decades, and things have gotten worse, not better, so we're done. We're not putting cash payments on top of that.
Trump is fair about stupid sentencing for non-crimes that incarcerated a bazillion blacks for smoking weed or not paying parking tickets, whatever.
The black guy that sells weed to dudes who smoke in the evening is not the same as the black woman who set her white girlfriend's baby on fire when they broke up. They don't deserve the same sentence.

@jeremiah @Orakel @valleyforge

it should definitely not be a tool for change but that's going to be up for interpretation. they can be impeached and removed. and somebody has to interpret the tough questions. maybe make it harder to have them rule on cases or after a number of cases in a similar area, pass clearer laws/amendments. maybe appeals courts are doing a shitty job. IDK.

@wjmaggos @Orakel @valleyforge i would concur that the appeals and most of the federal courts are an inexcuseable dumpsterfire. It really is a garbage-in, garbage-out situation... but I also think that at the bottom, judges need to be personally, criminally and civically liable / accountable for bad decisions (!) so that only people who are willing to put their own asses on the line are considered fit to judge others.

We also need to put the SC back in "check" in the current, modern context.

@wjmaggos @jeremiah @Orakel @valleyforge

The court plays the role it does primarily because the "tool for change" folks are too frustrated with the tools they are supposed to use. Why? Because you can't build broad consensus on damn near anything in America anymore. Divorce is the only option for peace.

@Johnny_of_the_swamp @wjmaggos @Orakel @valleyforge our system was designed to be inefficient to, basically, provide shock absorbers against the passions of democracy and historical events.

It somewhat works against major impulses, but the acids and rusting of sustained efforts will warp it, and that's where we are now.

As to the consensus issue: move the power back to the local sphere, and the consensus becomes more possible. I'm glad national consensus is virtually impossible.

@jeremiah @wjmaggos @Orakel @valleyforge

National consensus has been, at times, somewhat available. I mean, the whole "Old enough to die, old enough to vote" amendment was a thing, right? (mistake IMO)

That said, localization is absolutely my preference but it seems impossible because of the way Federal money is tied up in *everything*. This is the teeth behind the "Biden Plan to Kill the suburbs". And make no mistake, the self-righteous little shits are not content to allow self-rule.

@Johnny_of_the_swamp @wjmaggos @Orakel @valleyforge As to enfranchisement, I would say that only landowners should be allowed to vote, which was the original program. It was literally the 18th century equivalent of "service guarantees citizenship", or, "if you don't have a dog in the fight, you don't have a seat at the table, either."

As to the federal purse... that's exactly where I think principled fiscal conservatives need to focus their fire, denial-of-space style, from every angle.

@jeremiah @Johnny_of_the_swamp @Orakel @valleyforge

localization would be great if one locality didn't affect another. same with landowners not being able to fuck up the lives of those who don't. lefties, like myself, tend to overemphasize how much we affect each other. righties underplay it.

@wjmaggos @jeremiah @Orakel @valleyforge IMO this is a misconception; it is not that it is underplayed. It is more like "It is not my responsibility to solve your problem."

@Johnny_of_the_swamp @wjmaggos @Orakel @valleyforge localities don't tend to come into conflict over principles. That's why we have the Great Lakes water compact (which is actually international,) but we do not have the Wisconsin-Minnesota Human Rights Agency.

Cooperation among localities does not usually require a top-down hierarchical authority -- sometimes just reasonable people can agree to something without invoking the mercurial wisdom of our congress.

@Johnny_of_the_swamp @jeremiah @Orakel @valleyforge

of course you'd say that:) pollution? Indiana selling guns to Chicago gang members?

@wjmaggos @jeremiah @Orakel @valleyforge

I was actually thinking of bringing up that exact point with regards to Lightfoot's nonsense but I was curious to see if you'd go there. You don't disappoint.

Show more
Show more

@wjmaggos @Johnny_of_the_swamp @Orakel @valleyforge Illinois gang members have a right to buy guns in Indiana. I would encourage everyone in Chicago to visit Indiana and purchase as many guns as they like.

Pollution is one of those things where you're going to have to come to the table with something other than a complaint, or shall we move on to regulating farts in elevators as violence, too?

Show more

>originalism, woman justice >for why that has changed without a Constitutional amendment declaring it so ? 14/19

@wjmaggos @jeremiah @Orakel @valleyforge

@Orakel @valleyforge

there's a concept called "conservative activism". I think you're much less concerned about "originalism" than how it would achieve your policy goals. I think we should all oppose that in anyone we'd support for SCOTUS, interpreting the law in a way to get what we want. that's different than going strictly by how they saw the world and must have meant, or what they intended and might say if brought to our times.

@wjmaggos @valleyforge I don't care what you "think" I'm concerned about.
I care that we all play by the same rules.

I voted for Obama, twice. I didn't vote for Trump.
The Left went off the deep end because they lost.
I support putting them in a time out for a few decades. Maybe they'll learn something.

@wjmaggos I don't see anything in the constitution that says or even insinuates that a woman cannot be on the supreme court

@wjmaggos The wikipedia page you link says "all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted"" Nothing in the constitution was originally meant to mean that women cannot serve on the court. The whole of article 3 is like one page. It's easy to read.

@wjmaggos because we allowed our society to be subverted by filthy parasitical Jews. Women shouldn't even be allowed to vote, let alone sit on the highest court in the land.

You can obfuscate all you like with your word salad and rampant faggotry, but the reality is women are not cut out for the kind of rational thinking required for such a role. Under "originalism" (leftist drivel for tradition which existed for good reasons) women instinctively knew this, then feminism fucked their heads up with delusions of grandeur and (((empowerment))) and now when they're not taking more cocks in them than I've had hot dinners they're being nominated for jobs they don't deserve and aren't suitable for because muh equality.

Not allowing women in the supreme court is silly? ROFL fuck off retard. Your ideas are that weak they're getting put down by a woman who was stupid enough to vote for a homosexual nigger from Kenya - twice.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Liberal City

a place on the #fediverse for people who advocate liberal values