Judge barrett, she calls herself an originalist.

[TurtleDude]

The rights of women(abortions and gender equality), as well as minorities such as black people, Hispanics, immigrants, and LGBT are under attack by Trump and his new SCOTUS handmaiden. Do you really think that Portman will be reelected after kissing the orange melon's keister for 4 years?

All societies are interdependent and will get more interdependent as the population grows and we get more advanced. The US Constitution was written as a way to organize an interdependent society, so unless you want to toss it out the window and go live in the woods that collectivism is here to stay. All societies are inherently collectivist because it is how a group of people are interdependent to increase the quality of life and survival.


What rights are you referring to? Are you suggesting that those rights are instead privileges for some people but not for all?

Portman is one of the smartest and well liked senators of the 100. what "rights" do blacks, gays, trans etc have that are being "attacked"

 

[Lisa]

I am asking you to support your claim that the Right uses the constitution as a weapon? what is idiotic is liberals can claim that the ninth amendment should be read to allow abortion-past the time of viability and gay marriage but there is no right expressed in the bill of rights for individuals to own firearms. They also pretend that the right of association , does not include a right to not to associate with those you don't want to associate with

Elective abortions stops at the point of fetal viability (22-24 weeks) except for medical emergency, rape, or incest.

LGBT marriage is no different than interracial marriage, so either your a racist or you aren't? How does it affect anyone else negatively if 2 consenting adults of either gender get married?

Who are you being forced to associate with?

Portman is one of the smartest and well liked senators of the 100. what "rights" do blacks, gays, trans etc have that are being "attacked"

If Trump loses Portman will not be reelected in 2 years because people will not forget what he did to embolden Trump.

Trump has attacked transgendered right for his whole term.

Trump Administration Erases Transgender Civil Rights Protections in Health Care (Published 2020)

A rule finalized on Friday by the Department of Health and Human Services means that the federal government no longer recognizes gender identity as an avenue for sex discrimination in health care.

www.nytimes.com

You seem to really be struggling with reading comprehension or you are deliberately imposing your own bias.

What reading comprehension or supposed bias are you referring to?

 

[TurtleDude]

Elective abortions stops at the point of fetal viability (22-24 weeks) except for medical emergency, rape, or incest.

LGBT marriage is no different than interracial marriage, so either your a racist or you aren't? How does it affect anyone else negatively if 2 consenting adults of either gender get married?

Who are you being forced to associate with?


If Trump loses Portman will not be reelected in 2 years because people will not forget what he did to embolden Trump.

Trump has attacked transgendered right for his whole term.

Trump Administration Erases Transgender Civil Rights Protections in Health Care (Published 2020)

A rule finalized on Friday by the Department of Health and Human Services means that the federal government no longer recognizes gender identity as an avenue for sex discrimination in health care.

www.nytimes.com

What reading comprehension or supposed bias are you referring to?

how is the right using the constitution as a weapon? by claiming that if a club wants to only admit men, under the right of association, that is a weapon? to claiming that people ought to be able to own the firearms police use, that is a "weapon" against criminals. what rights do you think Transgendered should get that others don't have? do you think men should be able to compete against girls in HS or collegiate sports?

 

[Razoo]

Face it Barret is a radical fundamentalist that will allow libertarians to push fascism = what a team

Secrets of the extreme religious right: Inside the frightening world of Christian Reconstructionism

The zealots pushing a horrifying vision of "religious freedom" really have in mind a new biblical slavery

www.salon.com

 

[Lisa]

how is the right using the constitution as a weapon? by claiming that if a club wants to only admit men, under the right of association, that is a weapon? to claim that people ought to be able to own the firearms police use, which is a "weapon" against criminals. what rights do you think Transgendered should get that others don't have? do you think men should be able to compete against girls in HS or collegiate sports?

This is the spam latter I just got from your "buddy" Rob,

Dear Lisa,




Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter and the opportunity to respond.


As the second woman in history confirmed to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg served our country in this important role for 27 years. Her death on September 18, 2020 created a vacancy on the Court. The U.S. Constitution provides that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint… Judges of the Supreme Court.” The Senate’s historical precedent demonstrates that when the same party controls the presidency and the Senate and a vacancy arises during a presidential election year, the Senate almost always confirms a nominee.


On September 26, 2020, President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve as the next Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Senate confirmed Judge Barrett on October 31, 2017 to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, on which she currently serves.


The job of a Supreme Court justice is to fairly and impartially apply the law and to protect our rights guaranteed by the Constitution, not to advance public policy goals by legislating from the bench. Judge Barrett has an impressive background and is highly regarded for her work as a judge and as a constitutional law professor at Notre Dame. Judge Barrett is well-respected for her work in the legal world by folks across the spectrum of political philosophies and legal philosophies. The American Bar Association also deemed her to be well-qualified during her last confirmation for the circuit court, the highest rating that the American Bar Association can give a judicial nominee.


However, more impressive than her qualifications is her personal story. Judge Barrett earned a full ride to Notre Dame Law School, graduating top in her class. She clerked for the Supreme Court. She built an extraordinary career in the private sector and law, and she also has raised seven children, two adopted from Haiti. She’s a great role model for working parents everywhere.
I look forward to considering the nomination of Judge Barrett to serve as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and I hope all of my Senate colleagues will give her a fair and thorough evaluation as a nominee.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. For more information, I encourage you to visit my website at portman.senate.gov. Thank you, and please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Rob Portman
U.S. Senator

What club are you referring to?

There is very little evidence that homeowners owning a gun is a real protection against crime. There are too many guns on the street and we must address that. I am very opposed to open carry and concealed carry unless you have a job that requires it, and then you must have 120 hours of training if you want to carry a weapon on you in public. If those GI cosplay buffoons like guns so much then join the Army or Marines.

Trans people are denied care, can be fired for being trans and they don't have access to care that they need because it can be denied as part of many insurance policies. Gender identity is not included in the protected class or hate crime designations, despite trans people being the target of many hate crimes. Conservatives need to have a minority to attack for them to feel special and for the last 5 years it has been trans people.

A trans woman isn't a man, despite your strawman.

 

[Torus34]

Does it say only well regulated militias have the right to keep and bear arms?

Hi! I believe, sir, that it says exactly what it says, and nothing more -- or less.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Torus34]

people should not have to worry about their rights disappearing based on an election

Hi! I totally agree, That includes settled law such as Roe v. Wade.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Razoo]

WE don't need racist militias and radical right wing militias in the USA!!!!!!

 

[newpublius]

Hi! I believe, sir, that it says exactly what it says, and nothing more -- or less.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Of course this clearly cannot be reconciled with the concept of the minuteman, an individual bringing his own weapon into the service of a militia.

 

[Torus34]

Of course this clearly cannot be reconciled with the concept of the minuteman, an individual bringing his own weapon into the service of a militia.

Hi!

I rather think, America being America, that it really doesn't matter. Enough of us are inured to the annual carnage wrought by gunshot to keep it going.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[newpublius]

Hi!

I rather think, America being America, that it really doesn't matter. Enough of us are inured to the annual carnage wrought by gunshot to keep it going.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Well you say that but DC v Heller and Chicago v McDonald both overturned handgun bans. Naturally they were localized, so other locales had not done so. The point of course is that they can not that they must.

 

[countryboy]

There are secular rights, tax benefits, and freedoms involved with marriage so the federal government has the right to regulate it.

What is your objection to LGBTI marriage equality? Do you also have an equal objection to interracial marriage as decided by the same idea of marriage equality in Loving v. Virginia, or maybe you don't want to admit to being a racist? Conservative states also voted to deny interracial couples the right to marry and the SCOTUS rightfully threw that vote out when they decided Loving'.

Conservative States? Hahaha! You mean Democrat States.

 

[countryboy]

Hi! I believe, sir, that it says exactly what it says, and nothing more -- or less.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Well, if that's what you believe, I suggest a remedial course in fifth grade English. Because that's not at all what it says. Can you possibly point out to me the verbiage that says only well regulated militias have the right to keep and bear arms? No, you cannot, because it's not in there. In fact, it says the right of the PEOPLE.

 

[Lisa]

Conservative States? Hahaha! You mean Democrat States.

Those bigoted Dixiecrats were socially conservtives. Those same Dixiecrats are now republicans than to Nixon and Reagan pandering to them.

In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.

 

[poweRob]

Meaning she takes the words of the founding fathers literally.

Is she going to declare the air force unconstitutional? Is it unconstitutional?

As we all know very well, it was the Founders' original intent to maintain slavery. It was the Founders' intent for Amy Coney Barrett to stay at home at focus being a homemaker only. "Originalists" is just a fraud term to make it seem like their interpretation is more solid than others when it isn't.

 

[99percenter]

"Originalist" is another way of saying conservative activist.

 

[Lisa]

"Originalist" is another way of saying conservative activist.

They claim to be an originalist until they have to throw out that idea to support their real agenda of Christian theocracy, racism or corporate worship and then they hope we don't notice their hypocrisy.

 

[Torus34]

Well you say that but DC v Heller and Chicago v McDonald both overturned handgun bans. Naturally they were localized, so other locales had not done so. The point of course is that they can not that they must.

Every hand gun restriction overturned can end up as a change in the statistics of suicides. The change is not in the direction I would prefer.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Torus34]

Well, if that's what you believe, I suggest a remedial course in fifth grade English. Because that's not at all what it says. Can you possibly point out to me the verbiage that says only well regulated militias have the right to keep and bear arms? No, you cannot, because it's not in there. In fact, it says the right of the PEOPLE.

Hi!

Thank you for your learned suggestion that I take a course in remedial English. Your interest in my education almost brings me to tears of gratitude.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[OscarLevant]

I cannot help it if you cannot figure out that the first part of the second amendment was stating one of many reasons. Can you find any power for the federal government to prevent private citizens from owning arms in Article One Section 8?

My issue isn't with gun ownership. My issue with with many on the right who wrongfully interpret the meaning of the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

the infringement aspect is limited to the right itself, but not the scope of the right, that's subject to regulation.

 

[Yakshi]

My issue isn't with gun ownership. My issue with with many on the right who wrongfully interpret the meaning of the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

the infringement aspect is limited to the right itself, but not the scope of the right, that's subject to regulation.

Sure, none of our rights are absolute. They are all subject to limitation.

For example, the First Amendment says: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And yet, despite how "absolute" that right appears to be, we cannot shout "Fire" in a movie theater, we cannot slander others, we cannot use words to incite illegal action, and we have other restrictions on our free speech to prevent fraud, obscenity, and child pornography.

If our First Amendment rights aren't absolute, then our Second Amendment rights aren't absolute either.

 

[OscarLevant]

There is a long history that suggests otherwise. With a couple of exceptions firearms are regulated at the state level with some states being fairly permissive and some being burdensome well beyond any legitimate government interest. With the 2A - more accurately when the 2A was incorporated against the states - states are no longer free to regulate firearms as they see fit. McDonald v Chicago, the case that incorporated the 2A was about exactly that point. If places like DC and Chicago and NYC weren't so draconian regarding firearms legislation it probably would never have been a issue. I have no sympathy for them.

But they do just that. California did. Anyone suing them?

 

[bongsaway]

As we all know very well, it was the Founders' original intent to maintain slavery. It was the Founders' intent for Amy Coney Barrett to stay at home at focus being a homemaker only. "Originalists" is just a fraud term to make it seem like their interpretation is more solid than others when it isn't.

Very well said.

 

[newpublius]

As we all know very well, it was the Founders' original intent to maintain slavery. It was the Founders' intent for Amy Coney Barrett to stay at home at focus being a homemaker only. "Originalists" is just a fraud term to make it seem like their interpretation is more solid than others when it isn't.

* Sigh *

The Founder's original intent with respect to slavery isn't relevant because of the XIII Amendment. So now we look to the original intent of the framers of the XIII Amendment.

 

[OscarLevant]

Then you should have no problem citing in the Constitution which specific gun rights ARE allowed to be infringed.

You are taking a leap of logic.There is only one right regarding guns, i.e., the right to bear arms. The infringement aspect is limited to the right, not the scope of the right, which is subject to regulation.

The same goes with freedom of speech, You are free to speak freely, but the scope of that freedom is subject to regulation, such as not being allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre if there is no fire.

And since you believe the states have a right to restrict federally protected Constitutional rights SPECIFICALLY enumerated in the Constitution, then do you also agree states can bar other individual rights, including rights NOT specifically addressed int eh Constitution?

Moot, per above.

I assume you disagree with the decision to force gay marriage on states even after they voted to ban gay marriage?

You are assuming an attitude which I do not hold.

With that logic/attitude, I suppose one could say the 14th Amendment 'forced' the granting of citizenship for blacks on states even after Dred Scott v Sandford ruled that it was okay.

If granting of equality to humans whose only crime is to be born black, which you consider 'forced on states', then so be it.

Same goes with gays.

See, society evolves, and the constitution should evolve right along with society, given that being gay is no longer considered a 'lifestyle choice' nor a 'pathos' per psychiatry/psychology. This change in public attitude even affected dialogue in TV shows, such as Seinfeld, the oft quipped 'although there is nothing wrong that'.
.
Eleanor Roosevelt wrote a letter to the D.A.R. of which she was a member, resigning her membership, because that group, when presented the opportunity to show they were enlightened on treating blacks with equality, they failed.

She was instrumental, with certain very public acts of defiance, in advancing the enlightenment of public attitude towards blacks, which I believe, though indirect, ultimately led to Brown v the Board of Education, and finally, the civil rights act of 1964

She could have done the same for her long time friend, Lorena Hickok, regarding advancing public attitude towards gay people, as Hickok whom just about everyone knew was a lesbian, but I'm sure she understood that that at that time would be a bridge too far. It took until recently for the public enlightenment to advanced far enough that they got the right to be treated equally as heterosexuals. Even though Franklin R, himself, was in a wheelchair, society didn't force businesses and public areas, such as sidewalks, to have ease of access ramps until the early seventies.

That one Franklin could have done something about, but changing attitudes takes time, and not every little thing is in the constitution. Would regulations that force businesses, including public sidewalks and areas, to provide ease of access ramps be handicapped, be 'unconstitutional'?

How about just going along with a concept called 'justice' for justice sakes? Does every little damn thing have to be in the constitution before we make it the right thing to do?

Have a cup of enlightenment, if only a sip, and maybe one day you won't choose words like 'forced on states' when referring to gay people.