Under "originalism", it was understood that no woman would serve on #SCOTUS. 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?
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.
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".
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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?
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 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.
a place on the #fediverse for people who advocate liberal values