TC, not being a legal scholar, forgive my ignorance. In seeing his use of "prophylactic" so often, it appears to me he is cherry picking case law and just trashing any he doesn't like. If this is the case and next he goes after Congressional authority as "prophylactic" as well, is he basically saying that nothing matters except for his o…
TC, not being a legal scholar, forgive my ignorance. In seeing his use of "prophylactic" so often, it appears to me he is cherry picking case law and just trashing any he doesn't like. If this is the case and next he goes after Congressional authority as "prophylactic" as well, is he basically saying that nothing matters except for his own interpretation of what is "original" to the Constitution? Is he dismissing case law and legislation that has occurred over the past 200 years?
Make no mistake. This court is out to HURT people, intentionally. Alito and Thomas want to take the country back to 1930. People were hurting in the Depression; families were losing farms, livelihoods, property. People were literally starving, but the wealthy did not care and neither did Congress. These men are sadistic, and the little “justices” Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and little Amy just vote how they are told. Roberts has become somewhat superfluous. They mean to hurt people by shoving their personal, religious opinions on the country. They are fine with women and girls dying. How else can the situation be construed since they knowingly gave the go ahead to states which have no exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the the mother? Alito is just as monstrous as Roger B. Taney.
The difference between originalism (or “original public meaning”—a verbal legerdemain to get past the seance of calling upon the Founders to convey their intent to us), and any other means of interpreting the Constitution is that with originalism you always know what the result will be. Or as historian Joseph P. Ellis said, “The great sin of the originalists is not to harbor a political agenda but to claim they do not, and to base that claim on a level of historical understanding they demonstrably do not possess.”
TC, not being a legal scholar, forgive my ignorance. In seeing his use of "prophylactic" so often, it appears to me he is cherry picking case law and just trashing any he doesn't like. If this is the case and next he goes after Congressional authority as "prophylactic" as well, is he basically saying that nothing matters except for his own interpretation of what is "original" to the Constitution? Is he dismissing case law and legislation that has occurred over the past 200 years?
You just "passed the bar." He "cherrypicked" the way he "cherrypicked" history for Abortion and the way Thomas "Cherrypicked" for abortion and guns.
Apropos of your point:
https://apple.news/ATFpdzbGJQayCesB06mtzOw
Thanks for this - solid material for research on the issue of "cherrypicking history" I am working on.
Make no mistake. This court is out to HURT people, intentionally. Alito and Thomas want to take the country back to 1930. People were hurting in the Depression; families were losing farms, livelihoods, property. People were literally starving, but the wealthy did not care and neither did Congress. These men are sadistic, and the little “justices” Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and little Amy just vote how they are told. Roberts has become somewhat superfluous. They mean to hurt people by shoving their personal, religious opinions on the country. They are fine with women and girls dying. How else can the situation be construed since they knowingly gave the go ahead to states which have no exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the the mother? Alito is just as monstrous as Roger B. Taney.
The difference between originalism (or “original public meaning”—a verbal legerdemain to get past the seance of calling upon the Founders to convey their intent to us), and any other means of interpreting the Constitution is that with originalism you always know what the result will be. Or as historian Joseph P. Ellis said, “The great sin of the originalists is not to harbor a political agenda but to claim they do not, and to base that claim on a level of historical understanding they demonstrably do not possess.”