If it were not for the SCOTUS, and their only job was to always maintain the status quo, we'd still live in the age of segregation and women not voting.

Yet  today, watching the SCOTUS hearings, I am hearing from every GOP member the same old "good ol days" bullshit, claim of " strict originalist" interpretation.

There was even one asshole GOP senator that had the gall to claim that the three branches were not "co-equal".  And what he really meant by that is that "It isn't fair if I don't get everything I want."

Originalist interpretation is stupid. Who gives a fuck what the founding fathers wanted. If they have a problem with what we're doing, they can bitch about it all they like.

(October 12, 2020 at 1:09 pm)Brian37 Wrote: If it were not for the SCOTUS, and their only job was to always maintain the status quo, we'd still live in the age of segregation and women not voting.

Yet  today, watching the SCOTUS hearings, I am hearing from every GOP member the same old "good ol days" bullshit, claim of " strict originalist" interpretation.

There was even one asshole GOP senator that had the gall to claim that the three branches were not "co-equal".  And what he really meant by that is that "It isn't fair if I don't get everything I want."

Well, that 'asshole GOP senator' was correct - the three branches are not co-equal. They're supposed to be, they were intended to be, but the legislative and judicial branches (both parties) have gradually ceded more and more power to the executive.

It's always seemed to me that originalism is a failed argument.  Your founders were clever enough to know that the Constitution was a flawed document, which is why they included a mechanism to change it from time to time.

Boru

Activist Judge = one that rules in a manner contrary to what YOU want.

(October 12, 2020 at 2:04 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 12, 2020 at 1:09 pm)Brian37 Wrote: If it were not for the SCOTUS, and their only job was to always maintain the status quo, we'd still live in the age of segregation and women not voting.

Yet  today, watching the SCOTUS hearings, I am hearing from every GOP member the same old "good ol days" bullshit, claim of " strict originalist" interpretation.

There was even one asshole GOP senator that had the gall to claim that the three branches were not "co-equal".  And what he really meant by that is that "It isn't fair if I don't get everything I want."

Well, that 'asshole GOP senator' was correct - the three branches are not co-equal. They're supposed to be, they were intended to be, but the legislative and judicial branches (both parties) have gradually ceded more and more power to the executive.

It's always seemed to me that originalism is a failed argument.  Your founders were clever enough to know that the Constitution was a flawed document, which is why they included a mechanism to change it from time to time.

Boru

NO HE WAS NOT....... His argument was to maintain the status quo. And certainly throughout the history of the court, it has. But that same court has also told the social norms of it's time, "No, you cannot step on the rights of others, merely because you are the majority."

(October 12, 2020 at 2:19 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(October 12, 2020 at 2:04 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Well, that 'asshole GOP senator' was correct - the three branches are not co-equal. They're supposed to be, they were intended to be, but the legislative and judicial branches (both parties) have gradually ceded more and more power to the executive.

It's always seemed to me that originalism is a failed argument.  Your founders were clever enough to know that the Constitution was a flawed document, which is why they included a mechanism to change it from time to time.

Boru

NO HE WAS NOT....... His argument was to maintain the status quo. And certainly throughout the history of the court, it has. But that same court has also told the social norms of it's time, "No, you cannot step on the rights of others, merely because you are the majority."

YES HE WAS.  Are you denying that the power of the executive has eclipsed that of the other two branches?

Boru

People tend to pick a political philosophy that's convenient for what they want.  Our constitution makes it very hard to change things at a Federal level.  So people who don't want things to change... of course they're going to claim 'originalism'.  Nevermind the fact that the writers of the constitution themselves didn't agree on what said document meant in many cases.  No principles are involved in this argument except for convenience.  That's true of most politics IMO.

Our constitution is just a political tool.  To be quoted and wielded like the bible.  George W. Bush was right when he said it was just a godddamn piece of paper.  But it's a very useful goddamn piece of paper if people believe in it.  And what better way to sell your point than to convince every barely-educated American out there that he's a fucking constitutional scholar?  The Right has been hammering on that for most of my life- and they've been wildly successful with that tactic.


The Right can only be defeated by a supermajority.  Yeah, it's not fair... but it's a fact.  A slim majority will *never* be enough, given the structure of our system.

Rural white people like myself have some serious built-in structural advantages in our political system... the most obvious ones being the electoral college and massive overrepresentation in the House and the Senate.  Most of that won't change in our lifetimes.

Now, it seems to me that deliberately alienating one of the largest (and THE most structurally advantaged) voting blocks in the U.S. would be a bad idea.  For a party that actually wants to win elections and change policy, that is.  I'm still not convinced that the Democrats have any real interest in changing much of anything.  I think they're basically paid to fail... whether they're aware of that or not.

Quote:Activist Judge = one that rules in a manner contrary to what YOU want.

Activist Judge = Someone who rules in a Partisan manner .Unless your delusional enough to believe supreme court is neutral .

---

originalism is a myth 

https://news.gsu.edu/research-magazine/f...riginalism

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2020/10/the-myt...judge.html

Rural whites aren't represented, at all. That's a huge part of why the white victimization narrative plays. In lieu of actual representation and policies that might be able to tackle rural blight - we get race baiting nonsense.

(October 13, 2020 at 12:49 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Rural whites aren't represented, at all.  That's a huge part of why the white victimization narrative plays.  In lieu of actual representation and policies that might be able to tackle rural blight - we get race baiting nonsense.

Rural white people are vastly overrepresented in the House and Senate, compared to their population.  As for race-baiting nonsense... frankly that's what a lot of them want.