Your post was unclear.
All this objection to ACB seems highly irrational.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Originalism Is Conservative BS
- Thread starter joe1776
- Start date
All this objection to ACB seems highly irrational.
PureX
Veteran Member
So, anything to don't understand must be "highly irrational"?
Not everything.
But in this case I've come to understand that hatred for & fear of
ACB is driving some to criticize an invented version of originalism,
but not one evidenced as embraced by her.
Tis fine to criticize her legal views, but it should be based upon
thorough analysis, not seizing upon a few words, & taking a
strange & extreme literal inference. Let go of fear & hat.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
If we apply the concept of originalism to his razor, Willie Occam said nothing of the sort.
I found an article from the NYTimes on originalism written about Gorsuch. Here's the closing paragraph:
Despite the serious problems with textualism and originalism, we can expect to hear Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee champion these theories in their attempt to send Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. But Democrats should make clear that neither theory is prescribed by the Constitution or reflects a convincing picture of the founders’ intent. Nor, in the end, do they prevent the judicial activism that Justice Scalia supposedly abhorred. On the contrary, they are nothing more than thinly veiled disguises for modern political conservatism.
Opinion | The Problems With Originalism (Published 2017)
It can be applied to any theory which has redundancies.If we apply the concept of originalism to his razor, Willie Occam said nothing of the sort.
Example....
F=ma on Monday, F=ma on Tuesday, etc.
Pare away having the day of the week, & we're left with just F=ma.
The NY Times offers an analysis-free opinion that disses
originalism because of its association with conservatism?
That's like going to NAMBLA for justification of child abuse.
As you said on a prior page.....
If it's fundamentally the whole justice system that you oppose,
why limit your opposition solely to originalism? All the justices
have some philosophy for reading the Constitution & the body
of law, eg, textualism, strict constructionism, originalism, living
document.
Why single out one for attack as BS when it seems that all are?
Last edited:
joe1776
Well-Known Member
Because originalism is obvious conservative BS as explained in the OP. The rest of the law is just ordinary, run-of-the-mill BS.
I see originalism as also being counter-conservative.
Consider the 1st Amendment's origins being about
"separation of church & state". The amendment itself
doesn't state that, but it's in Jefferson's writing.
Without an originalist interpretation, conservative
theocrats would be able to introduce religion in all
aspects of life, so long as no federal law enshrined it.
Do you want more religion in government?
No. Then you should like originalism.
Last edited:
joe1776
Well-Known Member
I focus on the rule not the exception. As a rule, the minds of men in the 18th Century were more aligned with conservatives, who need to be dragged along kicking and screaming into the future, than they are with progressives like me.
Last edited:
I disagree with the statement. An originalist goes back to "original intent" no matter when it was added to the Constitution. If it is in the Constitution (or any law, past or present) - you go to the original intent of why it was made. There was no "original intent" in reference to race or sex until it was added as an Amendment.
As do I.
Don't think there aren't other examples.
They are also known as "Jeffersonian liberals" & "classical liberals".
Btw, you're hardly "progressive" if you oppose constitutional rights
& liberties. I'd say that you're a populist.
Or rather, the "original intent" changed from what's
in the Constitution to what's in the amendment, ie,
the Constitution as amended.
Those who oppose originalism seem unaware that it's
fundamental in all law. One can read a statute, & think
that it means exactly what it says, no more & no less.
I discovered otherwise in contractual disputes in court.
Judges look to the legislators' intent, which is often at
odds with strict reading of the law.
Note that my experience is in a town so liberal that we
have no Republicans on City Council.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
Ken, amendments are necessary BECAUSE the original intent did not serve the current environment. There was no intent in 18th Century minds to give the vote to women.
And now, original intent is found in the 19th amendment.
Originalism is not about enshrining the Constitution as originally
ratified, & not allowing for subsequent amendment. Where has
ACB said that the amendments aren't part of the Constitution?
joe1776
Well-Known Member
You conservatives love your arguments by labeling. As if calling a rose a skunk makes it smell bad. Or calling a skunk a rose makes it smell good.
I'm just going with the flow of the thread.
You started off with a title bent on labeling ("BS").
And it got worse from there, with mis-defining "originalism".
Btw, conservatives don't like me all that much.
I'm an atheistic, draft dodging, pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion,
pro-prostitution, libertarian feminist, anti-war, anti-theocratic,
miscegenationist moral relativist who won't wear a suit & tie.
(Liberals are the ones who really hate me though.)
No... Amendments was necessary to CLARIFY what "All people are created equal" meant.
LOL - well... just tell us how you really feel.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
Originalism asserts that the founder's intent should rule the decision --- not the intent of some 20th Century legislator.