Merged SCotUS nominee - Neil Gorsuch

[sunmaster14]

I'm probably the only originalist out there (loving v Virginia decided incorrectly, obergefell v Hodges decided correctly).

That's originalist? I can't see how such a position makes sense at all.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm probably the only originalist out there (loving v Virginia decided incorrectly, obergefell v Hodges decided correctly).

I'll bite. An explanation, please?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I'm probably the only originalist out there (loving v Virginia decided incorrectly, obergefell v Hodges decided correctly).

Slavery and all?

 

[logger]

I don't understand, it's not the current president's job to nominate anyone to the SC, that's the job of the next president. Because democracy or something.

Lol

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Mitch McConnell. He litterally stole this nomination from the weakling left and the bumbling boob Obama. It was a masterful performance to watch with a little luck thrown in.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Slavery and all?

Yes. Before the thirteenth amendment it would be patently ridiculous to read the Constitution as not permitting slavery.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes. Before the thirteenth amendment it would be patently ridiculous to read the Constitution as not permitting slavery.

So you are an originalist, except that you accept amendments?

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'll bite. An explanation, please?

There is no reading of the 14th amendment based on all evidence on what those words meant in 1868 that can lead to a conclusion that anti miscegenation laws violated the amendment. Liberal law professors make that argument all the time as they use it to argue that originalism is a bad philosophy

It isn't resolved as an issue of gay marriage laws and must rely on other approaches.

Anti miscegenation laws Constitutional, anti gay marriage laws unconstitutional.

 

[BobTheCoward]

So you are an originalist, except that you accept amendments?

All originalist accept amendments. That as a criticism doesn't even make sense. Nothing in the definition of originalism says the constitution can't be amended. Originalism means you have to use the legal meaning of the terms in the amendment at the time of their ratification.

 

[Meadmaker]

There is no reading of the 14th amendment based on all evidence on what those words meant in 1868 that can lead to a conclusion that anti miscegenation laws violated the amendment. Liberal law professors make that argument all the time as they use it to argue that originalism is a bad philosophy

Well I certainly am not a true originalist, and I doubt that any federal judge is either, but I think a case could still be made that the intent of the amendment included the elimination of anti-miscegenation laws, at least in the minds of many of its supporters. Perhaps the subject came up in northern newspapers of the time and we could see what was part of the debate?

It isn't resolved as an issue of gay marriage laws and must rely on other approaches.

But this part truly puzzles me. I don't understand what you said there, and I can't imagine any originalist interpretation that works for this one.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well I certainly am not a true originalist, and I doubt that any federal judge is either, but I think a case could still be made that the intent of the amendment included the elimination of anti-miscegenation laws, at least in the minds of many of its supporters. Perhaps the subject came up in northern newspapers of the time and we could see what was part of the debate?





But this part truly puzzles me. I don't understand what you said there, and I can't imagine any originalist interpretation that works for this one.

Intent is simply a minority view in originalism. Their intent doesn't matter. If they intended it, they failed as any legal definition at the time recognized contemporary anti miscegenation laws were safe.

As to gay marriage, this is where I call myself a pure originalist. Unlike anti miscegenation, where there is near universal acceptance among originalism critics it remained permitted following the 14th amendment, there is not the same consensus for gay marriage. Therefore, I will not stoop to the fools errand of reading tea leaves of history. A different philosophy must be applied.

 

[theprestige]

So you are an originalist, except that you accept amendments?

That's the whole point of amendments: if don't like the original text, you amend it. You don't pretend it means something else.

It's exactly because I am an originalist, that I propose to improve the constitution by amending it.

 

[Bob001]

I'm probably the only originalist out there (loving v Virginia decided incorrectly, obergefell v Hodges decided correctly).

Okay, I'll bite, although I suspect I'll regret it. On what basis do you think the Constitution allows a state to prohibit and criminalize marriage between whites and "coloreds" (the language used in the law)? I note particularly that, beyond just not recognizing such marriages, the state sent the couple to prison for a year.

 

[thaiboxerken]

That's the whole point of amendments: if don't like the original text, you amend it. You don't pretend it means something else.

It's exactly because I am an originalist, that I propose to improve the constitution by amending it.

Like the 2nd amendment, which taken literally, only aims to arm citizens in a well-regulated militia?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why?

Because it's another bone to the base?

I predict it will energize Progressives.

What changed between 2006 and now?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Like the 2nd amendment, which taken literally, only aims to arm citizens in a well-regulated militia?

Of course not! Every "originalist" knows which parts of the Constitution to take literally and which parts to imagine it says whatever they want it to say, kind of like the Bible.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

In other words, you would have preferred someone with a greatly diminished ability to energize the Progressives.

When put up against the potential hostile decisions this could enable?

Yeah, I can forgo some fleeting sense of righteous indignation.

 

[Wayward son]

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Mitch McConnell. He litterally stole this nomination from the weakling left and the bumbling boob Obama. It was a masterful performance to watch with a little luck thrown in.

Probably the first and last time I have/will every agreed with logger.

 

[Wayward son]

Like the 2nd amendment, which taken literally, only aims to arm citizens in a well-regulated militia?

There has only been one President elected in my life-time who might take away people's guns. There was zero chance Obama would ever do it. There was zero chance Clinton would ever do it. Trump? If there is an assassination attempt, you better believe it. He doesn't give a damn about the constitution, and we will see at that time how much wiggle room there is for governments to restrict people's individual gun rights.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What changed between 2006 and now?

Republicans showed the public that it is okay to completely block a SCOTUS nominee indefinitely.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I don't understand, it's not the current president's job to nominate anyone to the SC, that's the job of the next president. Because democracy or something.

That's exactly what Joe Biden said to do in an election year.......

Chris B.