Constitutional Originalism

[dneal]

.

Scalia did not invent textualism or originalism.

Who said he did? Certainly not the article I posted.

Your agreement with Dobbs doesn't mean that the Dobbs interpretation is better jurisprudence. The history of the SC has plenty of examples of flawed majority opinions that we later see with a clearer and more "just" eye.

Scalia hasn't won anything with his argument, not on the court, anyway. (Maybe he has won you). What has happened is that the court has become more populated with justices who already agree with that judicial philosophy (and some liars and creeps).

Nobody said “won”. You still seem angry.

[TSherbs]

.

Scalia did not invent textualism or originalism.

Who said he did? Certainly not the article I posted.

Your agreement with Dobbs doesn't mean that the Dobbs interpretation is better jurisprudence. The history of the SC has plenty of examples of flawed majority opinions that we later see with a clearer and more "just" eye.

Scalia hasn't won anything with his argument, not on the court, anyway. (Maybe he has won you). What has happened is that the court has become more populated with justices who already agree with that judicial philosophy (and some liars and creeps).

Nobody said “won”. You still seem angry.

??

I'm a little sad that I gave up my foster dog today after having cared for him for a month. But "angry," no. And he is off to a family who seems very kind and caring.

It's a casual chat, dneal. I didn't claim that you said that he won anything. *I* said he didn't. I am not interested in debate or argument or even summarizing your argument. I don't even read all that you have to say, like a person at a bar distracted by all the noise and catching enough of a conversation to nod and enjoy the offering on the tap. I don't care how much you like Scalia (or others). I acknowledge that you do. That's good enough for me, and I am not interested in disabusing you of your respect for him and others who tend to think like him. I am certainly not interested in debating it. The draft is too good to be soured with that.

[TSherbs]

I'm watching the World Cup and typing this at the same time cuz my brain needs something else to do while watching soccer. The USA has already lost, but that was expected (Netherlands are the shit this year!), and so no, no anger here at all.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I'm watching the World Cup and typing this at the same time cuz my brain needs something else to do while watching soccer. The USA has already lost, but that was expected (Netherlands are the shit this year!), and so no, no anger here at all.

Heh!

Imagine what this is like for me as an Englishman. Please complete the following number sequence: 1966...

[kazoolaw]

[QUOTE=Chuck Naill;383451]

CN, CN,
It was read and understand Heller and Bruen.
Always helps to read the instructions.

[Chuck Naill]

[QUOTE=kazoolaw;383500]

CN, CN,
It was read and understand Heller and Bruen.
Always helps to read the instructions.

Stop drinking and sober up

[TSherbs]

I'm watching the World Cup and typing this at the same time cuz my brain needs something else to do while watching soccer. The USA has already lost, but that was expected (Netherlands are the shit this year!), and so no, no anger here at all.

Heh!

Imagine what this is like for me as an Englishman. Please complete the following number sequence: 1966...

um....

<fingers thrumming tabletop>

[Empty_of_Clouds]

1966 was the only time England won the world cup. It's a dig at English supporters, in that there are no further numbers in the sequence (yet!).

[TSherbs]

1966 was the only time England won the world cup. It's a dig at English supporters, in that there are no further numbers in the sequence (yet!).

Yes, the thrumming fingers meant maybe having to wait at least another four years....

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Ah, gotcha. Probably would have spotted that in real life. To be an England supporter is to live with disappointment.

[kazoolaw]

[QUOTE=Chuck Naill;383524]

CN, CN,
It was read and understand Heller and Bruen.
Always helps to read the instructions.

Stop drinking and sober up

CN,
You know when you talk to yourself we can hear you.

[kazoolaw]

[QUOTE=Chuck Naill;383524]

CN, CN,
It was read and understand Heller and Bruen.
Always helps to read the instructions.

Stop drinking and sober up

Chuck,
We also noticed you screwed up the quotes.
Get a good night's sleep.

[TSherbs]

Is Trump's call for a suspension of the Constitution re the 2020 election a part of originalist thinking?

[dneal]

Is Trump's call for a suspension of the Constitution re the 2020 election a part of originalist thinking?

Is this the type of conversation you are wanting the forum to move to?

[TSherbs]

Is Trump's call for a suspension of the Constitution re the 2020 election a part of originalist thinking?

Is this the type of conversation you are wanting the forum to move to?

Really dneal? You don't want any more calling out of Trump's antidemocratic, anti-Constitutional behavior?

Saying that Trump is anti-Constitutional is quite different from calling a fellow member here a sexual pervert who is a danger to his colleagues.

You are making a false equivalency.

Let me be clearer, then: we should stop smearing EACH OTHER tirelessly with disgusting personal accusations and stick to the topics of the threads. Being critical of political, cultural, and religious figures is entirely acceptable in the religion, culture, and politics forum.

I'll give an example:

Trump is an anti-democratic demagogue (acceptable)

MemberJoeBobSue is a angry pervert who can't be trusted with children (unacceptable, even if a thread has been made to trash MemberJoeBobSue).

You are free to disagree.

[dneal]

I'm not talking about the content. I'm talking about the tone and the snark.

I'm happy to talk about Trump's crazy comments, impact it may have, etc... But civilly and reasonably.

"Is Trump's call for a suspension of the Constitution re the 2020 election a part of originalist thinking?" is neither.

Snide and sarcastic attitudes are how we got here.

So I ask again: Is this the type of conversation you are wanting the forum to move to?

[TSherbs]

To highlight my sincere opinion on this, I am posting a WaPo column saying it much better than I can:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...530100007F02A8

[dneal]

Sorry, I don't have time to invest reading WashPost links. I'm sure you can relate, based on comments you've made.

I'm asking about discussion. Is that sort of comment: "Is Trump's call for a suspension of the Constitution re the 2020 election a part of originalist thinking?" what you desire this forum to be? Do you think that represents thoughtful discussion between adults?

[TSherbs]

No, snideness and sarcasm are not how we got here. Check the thousands of times snideness and sarcasm have not resulted in calling people sexual perverts, idiots, or psychologically broken people who need help. We got here when adults couldn't keep from crossing THAT line.

I fully expect to heap Donald Trump with my invective, especially when he calls for the suspension of the Constitution. I may even do it with special snark, or his penchant (childish?) for use of caps (and I do it too!!! Sad!)

[dneal]

I'm not going to debate the past. I'm asking how you want the present and future to be.

So again, is this sort of comment: "Is Trump's call for a suspension of the Constitution re the 2020 election a part of originalist thinking?" what you desire this forum to be?