Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

SunnySide · 10-14-2020, 11:48 AM

The paralegal cubicle outside my office is playing the Barrett confirmation hearings out loud .. so I get the joy of listening to the whole thing.

While I do wish SCOTUS nominees would have more than 3 years experience on the bench, she does sound qualified. Much better temparment than Kavanaugh who frankly seemed to be too emotionally fragile.

Constitution originalists like Scalia kinda scare me. They believe the protections under the Constitution are only for what is expressly stated within the 4 corners of the document. A document ratified in 1787. Anything else should fall under "states rights".

They do not believe the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted and applied to modern times and context.

^^ that sounds acceptable? right?

Except these same "originalists" selectively choose when to be "states rights" and other times ignores "original intent" approach when it does not benefit their conservative view.

Example?

Abortion.

No where in the constitution is the word 'abortion" used. yet these originalists use word play and interpretation to make abortion illegal under the Constitution.

If the Constitution does not expressly forbid abortion ... then there should not be any constitutional challenges to abortion laws.

10-14-2020, 11:48 AM	#157
SunnySide Playmaker Join Date: Sep 2019 Posts: 4,568	Re: Supreme Court vacancy The paralegal cubicle outside my office is playing the Barrett confirmation hearings out loud .. so I get the joy of listening to the whole thing. While I do wish SCOTUS nominees would have more than 3 years experience on the bench, she does sound qualified. Much better temparment than Kavanaugh who frankly seemed to be too emotionally fragile. Constitution originalists like Scalia kinda scare me. They believe the protections under the Constitution are only for what is expressly stated within the 4 corners of the document. A document ratified in 1787. Anything else should fall under "states rights". They do not believe the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted and applied to modern times and context. ^^ that sounds acceptable? right? Except these same "originalists" selectively choose when to be "states rights" and other times ignores "original intent" approach when it does not benefit their conservative view. Example? Abortion. No where in the constitution is the word 'abortion" used. yet these originalists use word play and interpretation to make abortion illegal under the Constitution. If the Constitution does not expressly forbid abortion ... then there should not be any constitutional challenges to abortion laws. __________________ 19,937 car accidents a day in the US. Buy a dash camera for everyone you love. Insurance companies are increasingly denying claims.