• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This Court Has Revealed Conservative Originalism to Be a Hollow Shell

Blue Dog

Mugwump
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
5,190
Reaction score
4,912
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Alito’s account of “history and tradition” ignores the most salient aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment’s history: the horrific abuses that led the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment to push through changes to the Constitution to broadly guarantee the protection of substantive fundamental rights. The through line from the abolitionist critiques of slavery to the debates over the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments was the idea that slavery was built on the denial of bodily integrity, coerced reproduction and the rape of enslaved women, and the tearing apart of Black families. Alito’s sweeping condemnation of unenumerated fundamental rights ignores the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment sought to guarantee rights to bodily integrity and to marry and raise a family, and the right to decide for oneself whether, when, and with whom to form a family.

In short, reproductive freedom is in the Constitution. Alito simply refuses to grapple with the Constitution’s true history.

Instead, Alito relies heavily on state practice, insisting that because abortion was widely prohibited at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification in 1868, state bans on abortion are constitutionally permissible.


Alito’s state-practice argument is wrong and deeply dangerous: The fundamental rights of Americans do not rise or fall depending on a head count of state practice in 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment changed the Constitution to correct a long history of subordination and suppression of fundamental rights, not freeze into amber state practices of the day. But Alito’s majority opinion shows no interest in understanding the Fourteenth Amendment.




The author makes some salient points about the problems regarding “originalism”. If liberal justices are going to get execrated for judicial activism, it would behoove those conservative justices not to use ideology under the guise of originalism to get the outcome they seek…
 
Originalism is stupid and its just an excuse for asshole conservatives to get what they want, legal argument be damned. Words are all up for interpretation, and the constitution for a legal document is very short worded. And there was a judicial branch set up to interpret laws.

Of course, when it comes to 2nd amendment, no originalism. 2nd was clearly set up for militias as there was not a standing federal army at the time. So like everything conservatives attempt to argue, it s complete bullshit.
 
Of course it's a lie.

Nobody has sci-fi time travel or mind probes. There is no magic that can be used to read the framers minds and see what they would think of the question of whether it's a search under the 4th Amd. to aim an infrared scanner at a home to see heat inside (which then emanates, the effect of emanation being key to the final ruling in the case I obliquely refer to). No matter what they call themselves, all justices go digging in the historical record and prior caselaw for analogies, then try to apply whatever principles they divine that way to the question they're answering....

...which is almost always a question the framers either did not think about or could not have dreamed of.

Nevermind that all but two framers that hot Philly summer intended SCOTUS and any later federal courts created by congress to use English common law methods for resolving cases, and guess what: that means they intended the law to grow as it answers new questions, while remaining faithful to the most fundamental principles as best as can be done (or, sometimes, reasoning that something that was a fundamental principle hundreds of years ago not longer is one because of other intervening factors).



The idea that the framers intended that SCOTUS be unable to answer anything that the framers themselves did not answer, that they wanted jurisprudence to be frozen at the time of ratification, is one of the dumbest self-serving lies I've heard. It's idiocy does not defeat it for one simple reason: those pretending to believe in it are relying on might makes right.

The Federalist Society and their religion trained the current majority to consider abortion a sin. Indeed, throwing out Roe was the Federalist Society's #1 reason for existing. Hence they lied by telling hypertechnical truths in their confirmation hearings, knowing full well that they meant one thing and everyone else would take them to mean the opposite, and then did what they were trained to do.

It had nothing to do with legal interpretation, and quite frankly I've never questioned my continued participation in the legal system more strongly. What is the ****ing point?





What is the point? It's just words. They do what they want no matter what they say because they can. So what. is. the. point.
 
It’s priceless that items like judicial restraint and Stare Decisis are no longer useful for conservative jurisprudence….
 
The author makes some salient points about the problems regarding “originalism”. If liberal justices are going to get execrated for judicial activism, it would behoove those conservative justices not to use ideology under the guise of originalism to get the outcome they seek…
Somebody has been reading way too much into the 14th Amendment.

Here it the text of the Amendment:

Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

This Atlantic article is what happens when people with an agenda start making shit up.
 
Alito’s account of “history and tradition” ignores the most salient aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment’s history: the horrific abuses that led the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment to push through changes to the Constitution to broadly guarantee the protection of substantive fundamental rights. The through line from the abolitionist critiques of slavery to the debates over the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments was the idea that slavery was built on the denial of bodily integrity, coerced reproduction and the rape of enslaved women, and the tearing apart of Black families. Alito’s sweeping condemnation of unenumerated fundamental rights ignores the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment sought to guarantee rights to bodily integrity and to marry and raise a family, and the right to decide for oneself whether, when, and with whom to form a family.

In short, reproductive freedom is in the Constitution. Alito simply refuses to grapple with the Constitution’s true history.

Instead, Alito relies heavily on state practice, insisting that because abortion was widely prohibited at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification in 1868, state bans on abortion are constitutionally permissible.


Alito’s state-practice argument is wrong and deeply dangerous: The fundamental rights of Americans do not rise or fall depending on a head count of state practice in 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment changed the Constitution to correct a long history of subordination and suppression of fundamental rights, not freeze into amber state practices of the day. But Alito’s majority opinion shows no interest in understanding the Fourteenth Amendment.




The author makes some salient points about the problems regarding “originalism”. If liberal justices are going to get execrated for judicial activism, it would behoove those conservative justices not to use ideology under the guise of originalism to get the outcome they seek…
Originalism? Are we still living in 1776? Next we'll be living in caves again, that was originalism.
 
Alito’s account of “history and tradition” ignores the most salient aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment’s history: the horrific abuses that led the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment to push through changes to the Constitution to broadly guarantee the protection of substantive fundamental rights. The through line from the abolitionist critiques of slavery to the debates over the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments was the idea that slavery was built on the denial of bodily integrity, coerced reproduction and the rape of enslaved women, and the tearing apart of Black families. Alito’s sweeping condemnation of unenumerated fundamental rights ignores the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment sought to guarantee rights to bodily integrity and to marry and raise a family, and the right to decide for oneself whether, when, and with whom to form a family.

In short, reproductive freedom is in the Constitution. Alito simply refuses to grapple with the Constitution’s true history.

Instead, Alito relies heavily on state practice, insisting that because abortion was widely prohibited at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification in 1868, state bans on abortion are constitutionally permissible.


Alito’s state-practice argument is wrong and deeply dangerous: The fundamental rights of Americans do not rise or fall depending on a head count of state practice in 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment changed the Constitution to correct a long history of subordination and suppression of fundamental rights, not freeze into amber state practices of the day. But Alito’s majority opinion shows no interest in understanding the Fourteenth Amendment.




The author makes some salient points about the problems regarding “originalism”. If liberal justices are going to get execrated for judicial activism, it would behoove those conservative justices not to use ideology under the guise of originalism to get the outcome they seek…
The last people who should be talking about the Fourteenth Amendment are Democrat filth, since not a single one of them voted to pass the amendment and have always demonstrated their utter most contempt towards the Fourteenth Amendment. This imaginary "reproductive freedom" is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution, and to claim otherwise is truly delusional behavior. The US was founded on the principles of preserving our "unalienable right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Democrat filth would make the US into a nation that preserves death, particularly of its own citizens. Which is truly sick and twisted, and that should tell you volumes about the leftist filth that support the death of millions.
 
What, for the love of god, is conservative originalism ?
It is the concept of deciding cases based on what the constitution actually says rather than on their interpretation of what those words mean. The left doesn't like originalism because it limits the power of government. So they call it conservative originalism to separate themselves from it.
 
SCOTUS is politically biased. Accordingly, each justice on it, needs to face mandatory re-selection every 4 or 5 years.
 
The last people who should be talking about the Fourteenth Amendment are Democrat filth,
Yea, such serious topic should be left to Republican filth, or the so called and self proclaimed conservatives.
since not a single one of them voted to pass the amendment
You mean there is enough Republican filth to pass a Constitutional Amendment?
and have always demonstrated their utter most contempt towards the Fourteenth Amendment.
Can you give an example?
This imaginary "reproductive freedom" is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution
You, should read it again, or have it explained to you.
The US was founded on the principles of preserving our "unalienable right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
No, it was founded on self determination.
What is the right to life anyway?
Democrat filth would make the US into a nation that preserves death,
Yet you are still alive...
 
Yea, such serious topic should be left to Republican filth, or the so called and self proclaimed conservatives.

You mean there is enough Republican filth to pass a Constitutional Amendment?

Can you give an example?

You, should read it again, or have it explained to you.

No, it was founded on self determination.
What is the right to life anyway?

Yet you are still alive...
As if a Canadian could possibly have a clue. :ROFLMAO:

Go back to supporting your fascist Trudeau and reciting your government compelled speech. Let those who know that they are talking about discuss the subject, because you clearly are completely clueless like all Canadians.
 
As if a Canadian could possibly have a clue.
Clearly anyone with with an IQ above their shoe size will have a better clue than you and no, I am not from Canada, I am here on business.
Go back to supporting your fascist Trudeau
At this point one would reply that you should go back and do some unsavory thing to yourself while wallowing in your ignorance, but that would be against the rules
Let those who know that they are talking about discuss the subject,
I always do and you clearly are not one of those by a very, very long shot.
because you clearly are completely clueless like all Canadians
I find that Canadians are far more clued in that Trump ass kissing morons.
 
I didn't know that Trudeau was a "fascist"

Has he tried to overturn the results of a legitimate election ?
Stolen secret documents ?
Cheated on his taxes ?

Or enacted a ban on certain types of gun following a sickening massacre....that many Americans are seemingly immune to.
 
I didn't know that Trudeau was a "fascist"

Has he tried to overturn the results of a legitimate election ?
Stolen secret documents ?
Cheated on his taxes ?

Or enacted a ban on certain types of gun following a sickening massacre....that many Americans are seemingly immune to.

Yeah, that was rather silly.
 
You are probably right, but they too can have their moments. Remember the truckers?

Yeah, but Canadians don't like that kind of physical (not to mention illegal) protest
And the truckers were allowed to continue it for several weeks, before the Canadian government's patience wore thin and they decided to act

Not to mention that what they were "protesting" about (COVID vaccinations) was pretty stupid in the first place.
 
Especially as there's no right to a wife.
Or two wives, in Utah. Or your sister, in any state.

More revisionism. Senator Howard did not say that either.
 
Last edited:
Or two wives, in Utah. Or your sister, in any state.

More revisionism. Senator Howard did not say that either.

Yes, I understand that Utah had to outlaw/ban polygamy as a condition for statehood.
 
Back
Top Bottom