CalvinBall wrote:Look, an originalist view of the Constitution is a farce that the Heritage Foundation and conservatives use to push their often discriminatory agenda. The founders did not even agree on what it meant and text just simply cannot have one true interpretation. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 shows they couldn't even agree who was a human being. So #$!&@ Amy Barrett.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

traderdave wrote:Barrett her view pretty succinctly :

"I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn't change over time, and it's not up to me to update it"

I am at an intellectual disadvantage so I cannot debate her (or anyone else on the issue) but that view seems incredibly short-sighted and, candidly, a bit spineless.

RIP women's suffrage. The writers of the Constitution didn't mean for women to vote, so they can't vote.

This is the worst kind of person to put on the court. She is clearly a dishonest activist judge.

This is the worst kind of argument. Do better.

I'm starting to feel a little bad for you. Can I get you some soup or something?

If you've read it, you would probably know the Constitution as originally passed does nothing to preclude women from voting. Furthermore if you've read the Constitution, you would note it has a provision for amendments. If you've read the 19th Amendment, you would know it prohibits denial of voting rights based on sex.

There are plenty of ways you could criticize her. Why would you pick the dumbest?

The Savior wrote:NYPost a conduit to Russian intelligence. Literally rerunning the same strategy from 2016. This is incredible.

CalvinBall wrote:

The Savior wrote:NYPost a conduit to Russian intelligence. Literally rerunning the same strategy from 2016. This is incredible.

And Maggie Haberman on Twitter pretending it is actual news not a hack political attack.

thephan wrote:it was absolutely disgusting that Trump was cheer leading that he survived COVID and wanted people to standup and be recognized as survivors like him in some show of strength. How about asking who knows someone who died in the last 9 months of COVID and mourning the 215,000+? All I can think of is Trump calling the victims losers (just a mental image).

"I can’t explain why Mr. Pankey does that," he said. "Again, there’s more of maybe some sort of minor psychological issue going on there with him. He talks a lot but he doesn’t really say anything about this homicide because he doesn’t know anything about it. He didn’t do it."

CalvinBall wrote:Language evolves

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Language evolves

The Biden quote is from May. Did it fall out of favor over the summer? Like, it's just making up shit to get angry about for no reason.

thephan wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

The Savior wrote:NYPost a conduit to Russian intelligence. Literally rerunning the same strategy from 2016. This is incredible.

And Maggie Haberman on Twitter pretending it is actual news not a hack political attack.

Haberman from the Times is commenting on quality reporting from the Post? Casting it as breaking news when it sounds a lot more like a contrived story to gin up conspiracy theories? Very Qanon like being the reality they want.