I had to reread your comments about the SC candidate several times because they did not make sense to me. I too think that justices should not impose their private opinions on their decisions. Being an “originalist”, in my view, is a somewhat sneaky way of doing just that. Barrett is opposed to abortion for religious, hence private, reas…
I had to reread your comments about the SC candidate several times because they did not make sense to me. I too think that justices should not impose their private opinions on their decisions. Being an “originalist”, in my view, is a somewhat sneaky way of doing just that. Barrett is opposed to abortion for religious, hence private, reasons.
The justices interpret the law; thus in trying to stay with what they think the founders would have meant, they are still imposing their own views. Interpretation ALWAYS involves subjective reasoning. Thus ALL SC justices cannot help but impose their “views of social mores on the American people”.
That’s why I was confused because it seems to me that originalism itself is bunk, orcas Biden would say, malarkey.
I think it would be better for change to come from laws rather than the SC. But the Congress doesn’t do it’s job anymore, thanks to people like McConnell and his ilk.
Complete bunk and delusion. How does one step outside of one's self and then decide? How does one understand what was intended 250 year's ago, other than by making their own judgements and interpretations, which judgements and interpretations can only be based upon what goes on inside that little black box between their own ears? A box that is filled with biases developed and nutured over the years. To say, "I know what was intended and this is what that was," is self idolatry in the extreme. Sounds very much like ultramontane, pre twentieth century catholicism to me.
I somewhat agree with you. That is exactly why the vetting process for these seats must be thorough. It is important to understand what the nominee's biases are. I agree that everyone has them. Once you understand those biases, you can review their record on the bench. Have they decided cases based on their biases? From that point, come the interviews and hearings where the nominee has to respond to questions about how they will rule on the bench. It is a good process, except for one thing: the hearings can become extremely heated and political. When that happens, the vote is along party lines. I expect that to happen this time.
To remove as much bias as possible and tend towards moving out of the "party line" we must follow the questions, not excluding or cutting off any. When we tacitly agree to an avoidance of a question, we adopt an easy nihilism, sinking to where we find ourselves.
If I understand correctly, Scalia and Barrett believe that the Constitution must be interpreted in the context of the society in which it was created. Since the document was created at a time when there were no federal civil rights for anyone other than propertied white men, only explicit amendments can change that. This claim becomes a vehicle for striking down any federal legislation that benefits the general welfare. It is why Barrett is against the ACA, even though as a religious person she would place value on healing the sick. In 2000, Scalia was one of the 5 justices who corruptly ruled against their own principles of states' rights that the state's right to run elections was pre-empted by the need to install a Republican as president. (They phrased it differently, of course.). Trump is openly in a hurry to confirm Barrett because he expects her to do the same.
OK, then, muskets only for all those militias. She does not belong on any court because she cannot separate her religious beliefs from the law. We are a secular state and the Founders intended that we be a secular state.
The Founders were reaching for the concept of a secular state, but it's not quite where they were. They all believed in a deity. They were also very aware of the harm done when the advocates of one religion controlled the state and imposed their beliefs and practices on everyone else. So they carefully designed the new government to prevent that - exactly the opposite of the claims of those who wish to impose their particular brand of Christianity through the government today.
I understand that they were Deists. They were not too far removed from awful religious wars in Europe and rightfully did not want that here. We have had plenty examples of theocracies in history and some now. I was thinking of a secular state vs. a theocracy, not that people did not believe in a deity.
I had to reread your comments about the SC candidate several times because they did not make sense to me. I too think that justices should not impose their private opinions on their decisions. Being an “originalist”, in my view, is a somewhat sneaky way of doing just that. Barrett is opposed to abortion for religious, hence private, reasons.
The justices interpret the law; thus in trying to stay with what they think the founders would have meant, they are still imposing their own views. Interpretation ALWAYS involves subjective reasoning. Thus ALL SC justices cannot help but impose their “views of social mores on the American people”.
That’s why I was confused because it seems to me that originalism itself is bunk, orcas Biden would say, malarkey.
I think it would be better for change to come from laws rather than the SC. But the Congress doesn’t do it’s job anymore, thanks to people like McConnell and his ilk.
Complete bunk and delusion. How does one step outside of one's self and then decide? How does one understand what was intended 250 year's ago, other than by making their own judgements and interpretations, which judgements and interpretations can only be based upon what goes on inside that little black box between their own ears? A box that is filled with biases developed and nutured over the years. To say, "I know what was intended and this is what that was," is self idolatry in the extreme. Sounds very much like ultramontane, pre twentieth century catholicism to me.
I somewhat agree with you. That is exactly why the vetting process for these seats must be thorough. It is important to understand what the nominee's biases are. I agree that everyone has them. Once you understand those biases, you can review their record on the bench. Have they decided cases based on their biases? From that point, come the interviews and hearings where the nominee has to respond to questions about how they will rule on the bench. It is a good process, except for one thing: the hearings can become extremely heated and political. When that happens, the vote is along party lines. I expect that to happen this time.
To remove as much bias as possible and tend towards moving out of the "party line" we must follow the questions, not excluding or cutting off any. When we tacitly agree to an avoidance of a question, we adopt an easy nihilism, sinking to where we find ourselves.
If I understand correctly, Scalia and Barrett believe that the Constitution must be interpreted in the context of the society in which it was created. Since the document was created at a time when there were no federal civil rights for anyone other than propertied white men, only explicit amendments can change that. This claim becomes a vehicle for striking down any federal legislation that benefits the general welfare. It is why Barrett is against the ACA, even though as a religious person she would place value on healing the sick. In 2000, Scalia was one of the 5 justices who corruptly ruled against their own principles of states' rights that the state's right to run elections was pre-empted by the need to install a Republican as president. (They phrased it differently, of course.). Trump is openly in a hurry to confirm Barrett because he expects her to do the same.
OK, then, muskets only for all those militias. She does not belong on any court because she cannot separate her religious beliefs from the law. We are a secular state and the Founders intended that we be a secular state.
The Founders were reaching for the concept of a secular state, but it's not quite where they were. They all believed in a deity. They were also very aware of the harm done when the advocates of one religion controlled the state and imposed their beliefs and practices on everyone else. So they carefully designed the new government to prevent that - exactly the opposite of the claims of those who wish to impose their particular brand of Christianity through the government today.
I understand that they were Deists. They were not too far removed from awful religious wars in Europe and rightfully did not want that here. We have had plenty examples of theocracies in history and some now. I was thinking of a secular state vs. a theocracy, not that people did not believe in a deity.