And Barrett is in......for the next 40 years potentially.
Will Trump replace RBG in his current term?
- Thread starter rafterman
- Start date
It's a great day. There are now 6 originalists (sometimes 5) on the SCOTUS. Originalists that believe in judicial restraint as opposed to judicial activism. Concerned with Interpreting the law, not making it. No question that the Un Democrats, if they win the Senate, will take actions to counter this. Including potentially stacking the court with liberal activists. This is a very important election for this alone.
Trump got 2 personal picks of judges who may rule on whether he is trying to steal the election.
Originalists ignore reality of the changing world and only look to the society of hundreds of years ago. As the late Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court justice most identified with originalism, said in 2012, “The Constitution is a static being.”
Originalists, for instance, have insisted that the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should not be applied to sexual orientation and the right to marry. Because the amendment was drafted to protect freed slaves, the argument goes, it has no applicability to same-sex marriage.
Roy S. Moore, former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court insisted that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment applied only to Christianity because the founders did not know any religion besides Christianity.
An example is the 2nd amendment. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. . . .”
Indeed, historians have demonstrated that the founders were anxious to ensure that militias were properly armed against the British. Very likely, therefore, the founders intended to secure the right to bear arms for members of militias.
But even if we set aside the militia argument, an originalist approach to the Second Amendment – one concerned about “the political and intellectual atmosphere of the time” – would surely strain to justify a constitutional right to semi-automatic weapons. Did the founders really intend to ensure the right to the AR-15 that the mentally unbalanced teenager used to kill 17 in Parkland, Fla.? An originalist might reasonably argue for the constitutional right to wield a musket, but an automatic weapon would surely go beyond the bounds of original intent.
Originalists, for instance, have insisted that the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should not be applied to sexual orientation and the right to marry. Because the amendment was drafted to protect freed slaves, the argument goes, it has no applicability to same-sex marriage.
Roy S. Moore, former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court insisted that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment applied only to Christianity because the founders did not know any religion besides Christianity.
An example is the 2nd amendment. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. . . .”
Indeed, historians have demonstrated that the founders were anxious to ensure that militias were properly armed against the British. Very likely, therefore, the founders intended to secure the right to bear arms for members of militias.
But even if we set aside the militia argument, an originalist approach to the Second Amendment – one concerned about “the political and intellectual atmosphere of the time” – would surely strain to justify a constitutional right to semi-automatic weapons. Did the founders really intend to ensure the right to the AR-15 that the mentally unbalanced teenager used to kill 17 in Parkland, Fla.? An originalist might reasonably argue for the constitutional right to wield a musket, but an automatic weapon would surely go beyond the bounds of original intent.
Astounding legal mind! That wasn't even true in the time of the founders. When the constitution states that there be no state established religion it was clearly directed at Christianity, specifically the church of England.
Last edited:
The War of 1812 proved them right, but also that there needed to be a great deal more militia training to be effective. Little really applies, though in an era where the border can be sealed by mutual consent and most of the people still fighting the war of 1812 do so only online....
And Scalia was lying. Originalists decide what the Constitution means based on what outcome they would like to achieve. They have always done this. It's just a smokescreen. The examples you give show that quite clearly. (As y2kmark notes)
The judicial branch isn't supposed to make law, that is up to legislators. Its role is threefold. First to check the powers of the legislative and executive branches. Second, to protect civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Third to be a last resort for those seeking justice. By interpreting laws and rules of precedent.
Stacking courts with judicial activists violates this role. All it does is makes the court another political body.
No they don't. The reality of the changing world should be reflected in amendments to the Constitution. That is done by the legislative branch.
Then you should be opposed to Barret. She's is a judicial activist and is there as part of an ongoing campaign to make the court even more of a political body than it already is.
