[MosesKnows]

Do you sense that “Social Justice” will achieve better justice than “Due Process?

[Steve_Seattle]

When the Dems made their little speeches during the "impeachment" hearings, I noticed that they had all been coached to make it personal, i.e., to emphasize their personal and family struggles, their ethnicity, their gender (if a woman), etc., in an effort to gain sympathy and make it seem that the impeachment had something to do with Trump's alleged rejection or denial of those stories and struggles.

An undercurrent of identity politics - rather than pertinent facts or evidence of the President's culpability - was central to the Dems' strategy

[Jacquerie]

Let one generation after another be taught, in opposition to the Declaration of Independence, that reason is incapable of discovering universal truths or standards by which to determine whether a Scotus opinion conforms to Natural Law, then the ability of the people to defend civil society from social justice perversions will vanish. Justice will be no more, and with it, the republic.

Justice v. Social Justice.

[mjp]

social justice: its your duty to serve others and to sacrifice for others, and if you refuse the giverment can force you to.

[budj]

Don't but any BS

"Justice" simply means "You get what you you've earned." Point, Period, End.

The only way the word can be modified is with "not".

eg: Social Justice = Not Justice.

[Rurudyne]

“Social justice”, like social injustice, has as focus entities that are abstractions of persons. These do something to or for people because of some fact about them. The objects for attention for either social justice or injustice have no say or contribution to make, nothing voluntary they have done or agreed to, that determines how they are treated.

By contrast simple justice is concerned with what individuals are due because of what they’ve done or some particular contract or obligation that they’ve willingly entered into.

When it comes to the Citizens, our Constitution was written not for abstractions of persons but for persons.

It is easy to see how opposing social injustice works with a government of relative few powers, for all one need do to effectively oppose social injustice is to restrain the government from exercising the police powers it has to treat once bunch of persons worse than other groups of persons.

IOW you can oppose social injustice without growing government. All the latter day subversive BS about incorporation aside the actual intended function of the 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause was to enumerate a Power to Congress to respect in ordinary statute federal civil rights that the several States (which is to say State Actors, and not any private person or privately held undertaking) could not disparage.

In this one level of government is restraining the police powers of another level, how the latter uses its police powers, and is not a basis for increasing police powers over the private Citizens.

By contrast one cannot through government chase after social justice without growing government, the wealth and the potency of government to decide outcomes for its Subjects.

So where the 14th’s poi clause is in harmony with the Constitution that it was added to all this Social Justice nonsense is only in harmony with Arbitrary government that we became a nation in the first place to avoid.

Even the earliest so-called “progressives” were at odds with the Republic. They wanted something more in keeping with the French Revolution, a constitution that merely defined the various departments of government and rather than delegating certain Powers leaving all means to achieve the purposes of government up to ordinary political processes.

[Delta 21]

“Social Justice” is nothing more than “Vigilante Justice”.

The rule of law is thrown out and right or wrong, the majority rules.