USA Politics (redux)

Started by bhodges, November 10, 2020, 01:09:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

fbjim

Of course court appointments are political, however the ideological drift of the court system, effectively exploiting non-democratic aspects of the US political system, and mainstreaming a once-radical idea of "originalism" has been a long-term project that is now bearing fruit for the right wing.

Much like how the right wing attempted to exploit the badly-written Electoral Count Act, this is the sort of thing that erodes government legitimacy. People do not like it when significant rights are removed based on extremely arbitrary factors like who happened to be in charge when certain SC justices passed away.

The reality is that the concept of the Courts as a disinterested entity who only "interprets" the Constitution is out of date because the very idea of interpreting the constitution is now divided on ideological lines. "Originalism" was once a fringe right-wing legal concept and now it is the law of the land.

Fëanor

#3641
Quote from: fbjim on June 26, 2022, 08:56:53 AM
Of course court appointments are political, however the ideological drift of the court system, effectively exploiting non-democratic aspects of the US political system, and mainstreaming a once-radical idea of "originalism" has been a long-term project that is now bearing fruit for the right wing.

Much like how the right wing attempted to exploit the badly-written Electoral Count Act, this is the sort of thing that erodes government legitimacy. People do not like it when significant rights are removed based on extremely arbitrary factors like who happened to be in charge when certain SC justices passed away.

The reality is that the concept of the Courts as a disinterested entity who only "interprets" the Constitution is out of date because the very idea of interpreting the constitution is now divided on ideological lines. "Originalism" was once a fringe right-wing legal concept and now it is the law of the land.

From Wikipedia:
"The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Antonin Scalia was a proponent of this view, as are Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett."

Justice Scalia quoted by Wikipedia:
"The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words."

And yet Scalia, the hypocrite conservative, apparently ignored original meaning when he interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that bearing arms mean for personal self-defense rather than just security of the nation.  The best thing about Scalia is that he is dead.  Unfortunately Clarence and Barrett carry on his tradition.

The US Constitution is a very short document and often vague.  It was also written in a very different time and circumstance than what Americans have today.   I have argued many times the Constitution is tragically flawed as it pertains either to the circumstances of the time it was written or, of course, to the circumstance of today.

Given the extreme bi-polarism today, Constitutional change is effectively impossible -- which means that the USA is domed to perpetual dysfunction.

fbjim

I mean, one of the biggest problems I have with originalism, apart from it being a terrible way to run a country effectively, is that it drapes a veneer of objective disinterest on explicitly politically motivated decisions. It's a disingenuous way to deflect responsibility by saying "Well, hey this is what the document says, don't shoot the messenger".

greg

Gotta love the calls for violence on Twitter. That'll surely make things better.  :P

QuoteCarlos Maza
@gaywonk
·
Jun 24
Fascists literally do not care how hard you vote. They are not trying to win elections. Violence is the only language they understand, and it's time we start speaking it.
Carlos Maza
@gaywonk
·
Jun 24
Violence is a legitimate and appropriate response to oppression.
Carlos Maza
@gaywonk
·
Jun 24
The suffragettes planted bombs. Queer people threw bricks. Violence has always been a necessary and important part of social justice.
Carlos Maza
@gaywonk
·
Jun 24
The whole point of democratic governance is to create an alternative to violence.

When the government is no longer democratic, you're supposed to go back to Plan A.
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

Herman

You are aware, right, that the most significant and massive case of antigovernment violence happened on Jan 6 2021, and those Trump-fans attempt-staging an insurrection were not gay wonks.

Gurn Blanston

Quote from: Herman on June 27, 2022, 01:11:18 AM
You are aware, right, that the most significant and massive case of antigovernment violence happened on Jan 6 2021, and those Trump-fans attempt-staging an insurrection were not gay wonks.

You are aware,  right,  that you are talking to Greg?  Gay wonks complaining are far more interesting and anti-American than White supremacist Trump supporters looking to hang the VP and Speaker of the House.  They were just rambunctious tourists,  after after all.    ::)

🤠😎
Visit my Haydn blog: HaydnSeek

Haydn: that genius of vulgar music who induces an inordinate thirst for beer - Mily Balakirev (1860)

DavidW

Supreme court keeps up their theocratic agenda, by supporting a coach's decision to force his team to pray with him:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-coach-public-school-prayer-case-rcna31662

Karl Henning

Quote from: DavidW on June 27, 2022, 08:08:07 AM
Supreme court keeps up their theocratic agenda, by supporting a coach's decision to force his team to pray with him:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-coach-public-school-prayer-case-rcna31662

Compulsory prayer, just as Jesus taught ....
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Que

Quote from: DavidW on June 27, 2022, 08:08:07 AM
Supreme court keeps up their theocratic agenda, by supporting a coach's decision to force his team to pray with him:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-coach-public-school-prayer-case-rcna31662

A reactionary minority has taken over the US.... Courtesy of an opportunist named Donald Trump, who has no moral values whatsoever...

Gurn Blanston

Quote from: Que on June 27, 2022, 10:30:48 AM
A reactionary minority has taken over the US.... Courtesy of an opportunist named Donald Trump, who has no moral values whatsoever...

I know, right?  In the distant future there will doubtless be fantasy tales about the giant group of (they believe) True Believers, totally bamboozled and led astray by one of the least likely candidates for sainthood one is likely to meet. I think the underlying story there has to do with the rot which permeates the belief system, turning into something 180° different from where they began. No one is immune, apparently. :(

8)
Visit my Haydn blog: HaydnSeek

Haydn: that genius of vulgar music who induces an inordinate thirst for beer - Mily Balakirev (1860)

André

The SC's decision will likely have the unintended effect of accelerating the so-called browning of America.

Karl Henning

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 27, 2022, 11:03:45 AM
I know, right?  In the distant future there will doubtless be fantasy tales about the giant group of (they believe) True Believers, totally bamboozled and led astray by one of the least likely candidates for sainthood one is likely to meet.

Quote from: Frank ZappaThat's right: You asked for it. Remember: there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over!
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Gurn Blanston

Quote from: André on June 27, 2022, 01:49:50 PM
The SC's decision will likely have the unintended effect of accelerating the so-called browning of America.

Another addition to the list of things that they hadn't quite thought through. ::)

8)
Visit my Haydn blog: HaydnSeek

Haydn: that genius of vulgar music who induces an inordinate thirst for beer - Mily Balakirev (1860)

greg

Quote from: Herman on June 27, 2022, 01:11:18 AM
You are aware, right, that the most significant and massive case of antigovernment violence happened on Jan 6 2021, and those Trump-fans attempt-staging an insurrection were not gay wonks.
Oh, ok. So because of Jan.6, it's okay if people burn down the Supreme Court or the Justice's homes. So it's not a problem then.



Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 27, 2022, 06:28:38 AM
You are aware,  right,  that you are talking to Greg?  Gay wonks complaining are far more interesting and anti-American than White supremacist Trump supporters looking to hang the VP and Speaker of the House.  They were just rambunctious tourists,  after after all.    ::)

🤠😎
Why are bringing up "gay wonk?" I don't think anything about "gay wonk" (i don't even know what a "wonk" is).
More interesting because if it weren't for me, you wouldn't even know about the calls for violence, because the media and websites you visit don't report on it.
In the r/antiwork and r/antinatalism subreddits, also, for example, I've seen plenty of calls for violence in the last two days.
But we'll see.
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

Gurn Blanston

Quote from: greg on June 27, 2022, 02:42:16 PM
Oh, ok. So because of Jan.6, it's okay if people burn down the Supreme Court or the Justice's homes. So it's not a problem then.


Why are bringing up "gay wonk?" I don't think anything about "gay wonk" (i don't even know what a "wonk" is).
More interesting because if it weren't for me, you wouldn't even know about the calls for violence, because the media and websites you visit don't report on it.
In the r/antiwork and r/antinatalism subreddits, also, for example, I've seen plenty of calls for violence in the last two days.
But we'll see.

You have no idea what websites I visit, so are in no position to adopt a supercilious attitude with me. I'm also not overly convinced that subreddit muttering is worth the credence you seem to give it, but I may be wrong. That might be where the true evil lurks. Nothing surprises me much any longer.

Let me just say this, it should bother you at a conceptual level to realize that you seem to think that enough Libs can be so congruent on any level that they would get together and commit uncivil disobedience. At a level high enough to actually cause problems? This sounds to me suspiciously like the Great Migrant Caravan that mysteriously disappears the day after every election....   :-\

8)
Visit my Haydn blog: HaydnSeek

Haydn: that genius of vulgar music who induces an inordinate thirst for beer - Mily Balakirev (1860)

DavidW

Quote from: greg on June 27, 2022, 02:42:16 PM
In the r/antiwork and r/antinatalism subreddits, also, for example, I've seen plenty of calls for violence in the last two days.
But we'll see.

I haven't heard of the second subreddit, but the first has a strict no call for violence rule that is a ban-able offense that is strictly enforced by the mods.  And they have NOT been posting calls for violence.  Quit your BS.

SimonNZ

And elected officials on the left aren't calling for violence or amplifying those nutjob voices and would had have denounced calls for violence.

A distinction greg seems not to see.

milk

The gun and prayer rulings bother me more than the Roe. I really don't know if you can find protection for abortion in the constitution and half the states seem to want it outlawed - overwhelmingly (in those states). I think the restrictions are a bad idea and short-sighted but let republicans try to defend them nationally. Plus, how dumb have Dems been? That's a big disappointment. #1 RBG should have retired when they had the chance. #2 Clinton was always a bad nominee. For a second, I thought Trump would save her by being the worst politician in American history. But no. She couldn't even beat him where it counted. Republicans play the long game. They play for keeps.
SCOTUS's second amendment and prayer rulings seem off the rails. They have elevated guns into a cult ideology. It's dangerous. If the state cannot regulate guns, what next? We see the result. The prayer thing is the inevitable result of having religious hypocrites on the bench.

Que

#3658
The judiciary in the US has always been too political. A major design flaw that combined with the unbalanced and politised electoral system could (will) lead to a constitutional crisis.

Johnnie Burgess

Quote from: milk on June 27, 2022, 08:58:12 PM
The gun and prayer rulings bother me more than the Roe. I really don't know if you can find protection for abortion in the constitution and half the states seem to want it outlawed - overwhelmingly (in those states). I think the restrictions are a bad idea and short-sighted but let republicans try to defend them nationally. Plus, how dumb have Dems been? That's a big disappointment. #1 RBG should have retired when they had the chance. #2 Clinton was always a bad nominee. For a second, I thought Trump would save her by being the worst politician in American history. But no. She couldn't even beat him where it counted. Republicans play the long game. They play for keeps.
SCOTUS's second amendment and prayer rulings seem off the rails. They have elevated guns into a cult ideology. It's dangerous. If the state cannot regulate guns, what next? We see the result. The prayer thing is the inevitable result of having religious hypocrites on the bench.

Name one gun law that has kept a criminal from getting one.