So you posted this for a reason and I ask yet again what it means to you instead of posting and running off
Batter up
No, Erwin, it is dangerous to allow un-elected judges a blank check to interpret the Constitution to coincide with their personal beliefs and biases. That is a complete rejection of the separation of powers and of representative government. We might as well have a Tsar ruling by diktat.
I guess then that we can say the same about muskets and the 2nd amendment that leftists are always whining about.
The educated & sane mind has to be boggled by this communist garbage...
Anyone who supports such a view, as stated by the NYSlimes, is a cancer that needs radical treatments to be cured...
Better to live by the original intent of our Constitution than to delegate its interpretation to whoever runs the Democratic party.
Do you really want your Rights decided (or cancelled) by the fashion of the moment?
“But rights in the 21st century should not be determined by the understandings and views of centuries ago. This would lead to terrible results.”
Category error - the Court is not a policy making body and ought not concern itself with results.
Yes! If you don’t like how it was written, Amend it!!! That’s how it works.
Dear Erwin,
you should be disbarred, you filthy anti-Catholic scumbag.
Love,
ND76
Yes, yes we do. Those rights are not anchored to the past and the mores of the time. They are anchored to eternal truths about the dignity of the human person and government’s role in protecting and preserving that dignity for the betterment of society. They are no earned. They are not the largesse of our rulers. They are not mutable, (well, not counting really bad SCOTUS decisions). They are not irrelevant. They will be defended.
It sounds like Erwin has a war on women going. Poor little boy.
Naw, screw social norms of the last several thousand years. Let’s base things on social norms of the last few months.
What could possibly go wrong?
“Following originalism would mean that Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided in declaring laws requiring segregation of schools unconstitutional.”
It would mean no such thing. Brown vs Board of Education found that segregation of schools did not offer equal protection. Separate but equal was a rational offered to show segregation did not violate the 14th amendment. That rational failed.
I should also mention the decision to segregate D.C. schools was not a matter of a state denying equal protection to its citizens and I am not sure whether D.C. not being a state would have been in violation of the 14th amendment when it segregated the schools.
“Throughout American history, the Supreme Court has rejected originalism and protected countless rights that cannot possibly be justified under that theory. For example, the court has interpreted the word liberty in the Constitution to protect the right to marry, to procreate, to custody of ones children, to keep the family together,..”
Yeah we get it. The Supreme Court has screwed up a lot. Maybe not in the decisions referenced above but certainly in others.
Bill of rights guaranteeing this chick the right to opine in print - 1791 Centuries ago.
Let’s just MAKE the NYTimes shut the f*** up if that’s what they think.
YES! You’re damn right we do.
If we want to change that we can - its called the amending process. We can change the constitution any time we want. What it requires though is actually obtaining a political consensus. That means persuading your fellow citizens - not simply dictating by judicial fiat - aka the Leftist way - with an unelected black robed “super legislature” answerable to nobody.
IOW we do not a Constution at all. Just an ever changing vague set of rules established by SCOTUS with occassional help from Congress.
Under irwin’s theory, SCOTUS could dissolve the States tomorrow and that would be perfectly OK.
Now you know why this is such foolish drivel.
What kind of tripe is this?
Hey, I base my beliefs on the Bible and that was written a lot longer then two centuries ago. It’s still true for today.