The Right's true opposition to CRT?

[Jehanne]

I wonder if the reason that social conservatives are opposed to CRT is that they want to maintain the idea that the federal courts should interpret the Constitution principally from the framework of the Founding Fathers (whose number ranges from 7 to 13, depending on which scholar one asks).  On the other hand, if historians can show (and, they have shown) that the Founding Fathers, while distinguished during their own time, nonetheless, had some ideas that the majority of individuals of our day would regard as being nutty, then the idea of the "textualist" view of the federal courts seems silly.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I wonder if the reason that social conservatives are opposed to CRT is that they want to maintain the idea that the federal courts should interpret the Constitution principally from the framework of the Founding Fathers (whose number ranges from 7 to 13, depending on which scholar one asks).  On the other hand, if historians can show (and, they have shown) that the Founding Fathers, while distinguished during their own time, nonetheless, had some ideas that the majority of individuals of our day would regard as being nutty, then the idea of the "textualist" view of the federal courts seems silly.

I admire you ‘digging deep’, but the answer is that racists don’t want the history of racism dragged into the open.

Boru

[onlinebiker]

How many years do you pick at a scab until you decide to let a festering wound heal over?

[The Grand Nudger]

They wouldn't be able to define or describe crt. It's a dogwhistle campaign - not a principled rejection of a thing that's actually happening.

[Pat Mustard]

I wonder if the reason that social conservatives are opposed to CRT is that they want to maintain the idea that the federal courts should interpret the Constitution principally from the framework of the Founding Fathers (whose number ranges from 7 to 13, depending on which scholar one asks).  On the other hand, if historians can show (and, they have shown) that the Founding Fathers, while distinguished during their own time, nonetheless, had some ideas that the majority of individuals of our day would regard as being nutty, then the idea of the "textualist" view of the federal courts seems silly.

Re the bit I bolded; they can't even get that right. For example it is clear as day that the founding fathers vested the rights in the second amendment in the states and not in individuals, hence the "well regulated militia" clause. Also despite what "originalists" think, the first amendment doesn't privilege christianity, it tells all religions to butt out of secular business and the state will not impose its will on them.

[Jehanne]

I wonder if the reason that social conservatives are opposed to CRT is that they want to maintain the idea that the federal courts should interpret the Constitution principally from the framework of the Founding Fathers (whose number ranges from 7 to 13, depending on which scholar one asks).  On the other hand, if historians can show (and, they have shown) that the Founding Fathers, while distinguished during their own time, nonetheless, had some ideas that the majority of individuals of our day would regard as being nutty, then the idea of the "textualist" view of the federal courts seems silly.

Re the bit I bolded; they can't even get that right.  For example it is clear as day that the founding fathers vested the rights in the second amendment in the states and not in individuals, hence the "well regulated militia" clause.  Also despite what "originalists" think, the first amendment doesn't privilege christianity, it tells all religions to butt out of secular business and the state will not impose its will on them.

I point out the Treaty of Tripoli to such folks:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Wikipedia: Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11

[Rev. Rye]

How many years do you pick at a scab until you decide to let a festering wound heal over?

If only ignoring the festering wound would allow it to heal over in this case. We tried that for half a century and it failed to work.

[AkiraTheViking]

You get me all excited for a thread about the gory of Cathode Ray Tubes only to bring me down with more boring american politics? BAH!

[Mermaid]

How many years do you pick at a scab until you decide to let a festering wound heal over?

You can't let it heal over by pretending it didn't happen.

[no one]

As long as those who wield power have dark secrets to protect, opposition will be their default stance on any proposal deemed hazardous to said secrets.