I couldn't disagree more. There are constitutional means to change the Constitution. Having super-legislators decide when Constitutional rights actually mean something different is terrifying.

goddamn

that Camel is such a nasty woman

watching live currently.

camelA is such a lush
she was slurring the entire final month of her failed campaign
total total lush and now you can see it under her eyes from the liver damage of KFC and cheap wine

she was nominated because she was the hottest choice.
Trump always chooses the hottest.

honestly, her being a christian fundamentalist and social conservative is probably not the worst thing about her objectively. abortion is already de facto abolished in large parts of america, certainly in solid red states. the supreme court throwing out legal protections of women's / minorities' rights will just be a largely symbolic thing at this point.

her pro corporatism stance is what really matters, it's the real crime against the american people - especially when you look at who she replaces. ofc most of the american right is too dumb and partisan to realise that. they are easily distracted by the political theatre, their simplistic sports team mentality, and the red meat that is her radical religious world view. meanwhile, the biggest damage she will do is protecting the oligarchs against people fighting for representation, the corrupt washington swamp and the donor class against average americans (who largely oppose them, across party lines), and corporations against the working class. her main purpose is to protect the system, to shield late stage capitalism, which is responsible for the insane degree of inequality, poverty, and sickness, that plagues major parts of american society, against its people.

we know you hate women, maybe just ease up on the rage and get to sleep you prussian wannabe bot deployed by soviets to interfere in our politics



*LAUGH OUT LOUD*

It's a hard line to ride, because not only does language change but our understanding of concepts changes. Go back and tell people in the 1800's that gay and trans people will want rights in a few hundred years and you'd get a weird look and a bible thrown at you from even the most educated and liberal politicians, and yet the concept of sex as they wrote it absolutely applies to that case.

So an originalist position only isn't sufficient in the slightest to having a functional government, otherwise you would have constant amendments to update the constitution over every menial issue.

My personal view is that originalism is non-sensical. It requires somebody to read the mind of the writer at the time it was written.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 13 2020 06:36pm

When asked about if the president can delay elections she said she would have to hear briefs and arguments and etc. etc.

She's not being honest IMO, because that's something a judge going to the supreme court should know off the top of their head because the constitution explicitly delegates holding elections to the states and the day of the election is specifically stated as being determined by congress.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 13 2020 06:38pm

Marijuana legalization was culturally verboten 15 years ago. Now it's on track to be legalized in every state.

You don't need to establish (and erase) rights at the whim of super-legislators to achieve change.

You don't need to do that to achieve change, but that's not what is being done by taking a textualist interpretation.

Nobody I've seen is seriously supporting a judge who wants to just interpret laws to mean whatever they want them to mean. The debate is over in what light those laws are interpreted.