Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You missed my point.  The textualist/originalist foundation is that the Constitution is interpretable only as understood around the time it was drafted, rather than It being a statement of principles that can be adapted to modern concerns.  

Thus, if there is something that isn't addressed by the text or original intent or understanding of the Constitution circa 1789. then the Constitution doesn't provide for it.  If the Constitution is to provide for it, it must be amended or otherwise re-written to accomplish that end.

That is both a "classically conservative" position (incremental and measured change) and a "post-modern conservative" justification for revanchism.

The more liberal position is something like the second clause of my second sentence:  the Constitution is a statement of principles from which even modern problems can be addressed and solved.

All of this is kind of a load of shit, because no single interpretive philosophy can realistically get the job done.  But your concession that the Constitution can't get it done is a justification of textualism and originalism.

And, one of the problems of rewriting the Constitution is that all of the revision would basically have to be approved by popular vote supermajority.  And, aside from current hyperpartisanship, Americans are too fucking stupid to design a proper government.

 

I'm not trying to be combative, but I can't believe that you are sitting here in 2025 still giving originalists credit for an "interpretive philosophy" other than political preference. You understand that Scott Hall and Kevin Nash were in fact employees of WCW during the NWO era, right? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

So we fully expect alito and Thomas to retire in like 2027 right?

Wouldn’t they want to do it before the midterms? If the Democrats retake the Senate in ‘26 I would certainly hope they’d block any Trump nominee from even getting a hearing. Give him the full McConnell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Wouldn’t they want to do it before the midterms? If the Democrats retake the Senate in ‘26 I would certainly hope they’d block any Trump nominee from even getting a hearing. Give him the full McConnell. 

Don’t get your hopes up that Democrats will take the Senate in ‘26 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I'm not trying to be combative, but I can't believe that you are sitting here in 2025 still giving originalists credit for an "interpretive philosophy" other than political preference. You understand that Scott Hall and Kevin Nash were in fact employees of WCW during the NWO era, right? 

I'm not, that's why the third paragraph of my post indicating that it's all a load of shit.

But orignalism, such as it is, is just a form of textualism, expanded.  And both of them preceded the postmodern Supreme Court by decades.

All constitutional interpretation is a load of shit, insofar as it purports to provide the "one true rule."   But they do have legitimate theoretical underpinnings.

And, I have always contended that Supreme Court jurisprudence is calvinball and always has been.  The justices pick and choose interpretive devices to justify decisions reached on other grounds, and always have.  It's just a bit more naked now, and certain of them, anyway, contend that orignalism is the one true rule.  And when you employ textualism and orignalism, you get stuck with a document as-written and as-understood in 1789.  That is, a retrograde and fairly unimportant document.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Don’t get your hopes up that Democrats will take the Senate in ‘26 

No, but the more astute strategy would be to assume they would, and thus replenish the court prior to that date.

A couple of years of legacy is not "worth" a few decades of control, despite what RBG might have thought.  And here we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...