Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ridiculous thread. First, starting with a false premise. Dems (at least this one) don't find strict Constitutionalists threatening. Second, none of the four poll options are true.
Personally, I believe in a textualist approach. Amy Coney Barrett, I believe, was wrong to conflate textualist and Originalist philosophies. Originalism means to interpret according to the original intent of the authors. I find this to be impossible: it requires one to somehow get into the head of someone who died hundreds of years ago. We can argue forever about what the Founders intended, but no one can ever say with any certainty.
That's why I favor textualism: what do the words actually say? Here we all have a common baseline - the words are there in black and white. If the wording is unclear, or if it seems no longer applicable in modern context, we can amend the constitution, but until then we are stuck with what the constitution actually says.
Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of stretching the meaning of the text. In Roe v Wade, the Court discovered a right to privacy that was not stated in the constitution. In Citizens United they found that freedom of speech somehow means corporations giving money.
Worse they stretched the meaning and definition of privacy. Also you have to take the context and the whole passage in consideration to know what the text and words mean. That is the problem with textualist who don't take original intent, meaning, understanding and context into consideration. It's just activism.
I'm not voting in your bogus poll, but I don't want ordained ministers on our court who are going to use religion as a tool to overturn Roe v Wade or Obergefell v Hodges
This...or who decide to take away my health care because of my Pre-existing conditions.
She’s not a religious nut. She’s a traditional practicing Catholic. You lefties sure are bigoted against religion.
Who wants to use those beliefs to overturn same sex marriage and end a woman's right to choose what to do w/ her own body.
When you use your religious beliefs to make any decisions that affect others, I have a real problem w/ that...and don't believe you have any business being on the SCOTUS.
The US Constitution is the one thing on planet Earth, that prevents total world domination by a totalitarian philosophy.
The dems need to have power so they can work to destroy the Constitution from within, to deliver the USA into the hands of tyrants. While keeping themselves in power as the de facto "managers".
CN
^^^I would agree with something along these lines. The Democrats want to control people and the Constitution limits their ability to execute full control over people.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan
^^^I would agree with something along these lines. The Democrats want to control people and the Constitution limits their ability to execute full control over people.
No we don't, we want to stop the government from trying to control people
I'm not fine with any of those things, not on a Federal level anyways.
Just because I abhor abortion on a personal level in almost all circumstances doesn't mean that I think it should be illegal.....
(I know the Left has a hard time wrapping their brains around that concept......it's part of that "live and let live philosophy you might have heard of)
I personally think that abortion should be legal, with some "reasonable restrictions" (I know how y'all love THAT concept)
But that should be decided on a state level.
So you can still exercise your "right" to kill your babies simply by traveling to another state and or pushing for abortion to be legal in your own state.
And I couldn't give a wet slap who you marry as long as you don't try to force me to bake you a cake for the wedding or pay for it with my taxes.
And who's putting restrictions on birth control??
Other than not wanting to subsidize it with taxation??
Have all the sex you want, gay, straight...I don't care.
As long as leave me, my labor and my wallet out of it.....
We're good.
More lying talking points. Noone is stopping you from living with or doing anything with any consenting adult. Now redefining a long established word and issuing a government license is what you want, not individual rights. And you want to be able to force religious people to violate their believes and participate with you. Nobody is stopping you from doing anything with your body, although even Roe v. Wade puts restrictions on when you can terminate a life. And no government is stopping people from becoming parents. No government is restricting who can adopt, only giving adoption organizations the ability to set their own standards.
“Partisan tool?” What do you consider the attempt to pack the court, as Harris would do?
It would be the right thing to do to bring balance back to the court instead of leaving full of partisan activist conservatives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. The Communications Decency Act and section 230 (although that was bi-partisan).
