A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 423 of 725
The Philosophy That Makes Amy Coney Barrett So Dangerous
In 1987, Robert Bork was denied confirmation to the Supreme Court because his originalist beliefs were deemed a serious threat to constitutional rights. Originalism is no less dangerous for those rights today, yet Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s repeated statements professing her belief in originalism have been met with little objection.
Originalists believe that the meaning of a constitutional provision is fixed when it was adopted and that it can change only by constitutional amendment. Under this view, the First Amendment means the same thing as when it was adopted in 1791 and the 14th Amendment means the same thing as when it was ratified in 1868.
But rights in the 21st century should not be determined by the understandings and views of centuries ago. This would lead to terrible results. The same Congress that voted to ratify the 14th Amendment, which assures equal protection of the laws, also voted to segregate the District of Columbia public schools. Following originalism would mean that Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided in declaring laws requiring segregation of schools unconstitutional.
In fact, under the original public meaning of the Constitution, it would be unconstitutional to elect a woman as president or vice president until the Constitution is amended. Article II refers to them with the pronoun “he,” and there is no doubt that original understanding was that only men could hold these offices.
Throughout American history, the Supreme Court has rejected originalism and protected countless rights that cannot possibly be justified under that theory. For example, the court has interpreted the word “liberty” in the Constitution to protect the right to marry, to procreate, to custody of one’s children, to keep the family together, to control the upbringing of one’s children, to purchase and use contraceptives, to obtain an abortion, to engage in private adult consensual same-sex sexual activity, and to refuse medical treatment.
Judge Barrett doesn’t need to explicitly say that she would vote to overrule Roe v. Wade because she has left no doubt by saying that she is an originalist in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked.
“His judicial philosophy is mine too,” she told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Justice Scalia, who died in 2016, repeatedly and unequivocally urged that Roe be overruled, arguing that the Constitution says nothing about abortion and states should be allowed to decide the question for themselves. Judge Barrett’s scholarly writings suggest she would have no hesitation in overruling Roe, either, nor those “liberty” decisions. She wrote, “I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.”
The rejection of originalism is not new. Early in the 19th century, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that “we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding,” a Constitution “meant to be adapted and endure for ages to come.”
It is a myth to say that an “original public understanding” can be identified for most constitutional provisions because so many people were involved in drafting and ratifying them. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton disagreed about such fundamental questions as whether the president possesses any inherent powers.
Moreover, it is a myth to think that even identifying an originalist understanding can solve most modern constitutional issues. Can original public meaning really provide useful insights about the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and whether the police can take DNA from a suspect to see if it matches evidence in unsolved crimes or obtain stored cellular phone location information without a warrant?
More at https://web.archive.org/web/20201021102931/https://www.nytimes.com/202
0/10/21/opinion/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett.html
The Joss Whedon script f
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
T 
Stupid people don't know they're stupid, and they certainly don't realize how obvious it is to others. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The Philosophy That Makes Amy Coney Barrett So Dangerous
Just in case you missed it, she was sworn in.
You can let it go now.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is she protected by the Secret Service?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The Philosophy That Makes Amy Coney Barrett So Dangerous
Just in case you missed it, she was sworn in.
You can let it go now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_judges_kil
led_in_office
To make it clearly understood by 6ix how much danger Amy Coney Barrett faces if she actually does what she, for now, implicitly intends to do:
Historians and Democrats say that the 2nd Amendment was to arm militias to put down slave rebellions. Republicans say that the purpose of the amendment was to give citizens the opportunity to kill tyrannical federal government officials. Since slavery ended, the 2nd has no purpose, according to its original meaning and intentions. But Republicans, having imagined a new purpose for the 2nd, did not imagine the new purpose being used against them. Before Republican Supreme Court justices, in 5 to 4 rulings, tyrannically trash decisions or laws made by Democrats, they might want to reinterpret the 2nd to match its original meaning.
How Slave Owners Dictated the Language of the 2nd Amendment
www.thedailybeast.com/how-slave-owners-dictated-the-language-of-the-2n
d-amendment
Virginia Governor Patrick Henry saw danger lurking in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to provide for “organizing, arming, and disciplining” militias.
Henry feared that without checks upon it, Congress could undermine the ability of militias in Virginia and elsewhere in the South to suppress slave uprisings and pursue runaway slaves.
The militia issue was important enough for Henry to see it as grounds for opposing ratification of the Constitution. The positive power Congress had over militias, Henry reasoned, could easily be turned into restrictive power.
It took Madison two drafts to get the Second Amendment into the single sentence it is today. His careful wording was deliberate. In drawing a connection between militias and the right to bear arms rather than simply defending the right to bear arms, Madison, a slave holder himself, was speaking to his state’s ruling powers. Only the white men in the Virginia militia had the right to bear arms.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Happy Halloween!
Won't be handing out candy this year.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Is she protected by the Secret Service?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The Philosophy That Makes Amy Coney Barrett So Dangerous
Just in case you missed it, she was sworn in.
You can let it go now.
Blah, blah, blah..
Yes. We know. You love giving death threats.
P.S. This thread has also been archived and added to Second's ever growing list of death threats.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By the way...
That's a very interesting "hidden" thread you have there, Kiki. (I'm truly touched that the copy paste stuff you put in reply to me has taken the top spot on the thread).
That's been archived too.
It would seem I'm not the only one that has backed up Second's death threats to the president and advocacy for killing your bosses and stealing everything they own.
Although it should be noted that, yes indeed, Second went back through his own posts and tried to delete that evidence.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And just in case it doesn't believe me...
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Oh good. Second read a book.
Does that mean I can expect you to stop giving me shitty comments about my current work situation when you've lost an argument then?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
No. My advice to you is to kill any boss who fucks you over, steal his money, and don't get caught. You'd be making the world a better place. The author Emily Guendelsberger was earning money and hoping she made the world better by writing about it, but she would have actual done far more good for the world by murdering her bosses. It's kind of like a slave uprising: if you don't kill the slave owner, the slaves will end back in slavery. See the American Civil War. That problem of slavery was solved with cold steel and hot lead fired at slave owners, not by writing books or talking about the hardships of slavery. Slave owners knew they had a good thing for themselves back then and bad bosses know they have a good thing for themselves now and neither bosses nor slave owners will change unless violently forced.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
^ Further evidence that Second is indeed Marcos, and that Marcos was the extension that Second felt he needed to distance himself from his true "burn the world down" mentality.
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
When every person that has two brain cells firing has denounced Trump
JO just called for his execution.
Second is calling for his assassination.
Go to dictionary.com and tell me what the definition of denounce is.
While you're at it, you should look up the word fascism. Maybe if you knew what it means you'd stop practicing it.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Have you ever watched Firefly? The entire cast, the production crew at FOX, the Firefly writers, and the executive producer Joss Whedon were calling for instantaneous executions of people who were annoying or in the way of Mal. Where were the judges for the poor people about to die? Where was the jury? When was the sentencing phase by a compassionate judge? None of that was on Firefly. Mal, Zoe, Jayne and River were always skipping over all those intermediate steps and going directly to execution in less than a minute after the soon to be dead man offended the sensibilities of the crew of Serenity. On the other hand, Trump has had a lot more than a minute to annoy people. It's time to make up your mind about Trump, take careful aim at him, then pull the trigger. Or vote against Trump, whichever action pleases you more. Do it to memorialize Firefly!
Just now I remembered that Trump has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. He is only an actor playing a part. If anybody kills him, there will be fake blood. Then he will stand up and the camera crew will shoot the next scene.
"I Am Donald Trump’s Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and I’ve Seen Enough. It’s Time for Impeachment."
https://slate.com/culture/2019/04/donald-trump-star-hollywood-walk-of-
fame-impeachment.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
That one is probably my favorite though.
My my, Kiki. You have been thorough, haven't you?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
