Amy Coney Barrett

Are you mad ??? Of course not, you're just unable to think past immediate gratification.

Freedom brings responsibility, not do as you please. Apparently you have not learned anything from our wanton use and/or pollution of natural resources and are now beginning to pay the piper to the tune of billions of dollars in damages from climate disturbances in payment for our irresponsible abuses due to our flawed perception of the meaning of "freedom" .

In this universe nothing comes for FREE!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

old saying:
The last time we saw old Lukey,
he was a runnin down the road
a rippin off his clothes and yelling
"I'm free, I'm free!"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just before he got arrested for indecent exposure.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You probably are about the laws of the US which restricted the citizenship to white people?

But such laws only define who can gain citizenship of the US. They do not define the meaning of the word "citizen". I think everybody was aware at that time that citizenship is not something God-given, but something defined and regulated by the government. I doubt that the answer of people at that time to the question "can black people be citizens of China" would have answered "of course, not, black people cannot be citizens of whatever state, only white people can be citizens". That means, who is citizen depends on the actual legislation about citizenship. This actual legislation may change, my citizenship may change too, but this does not change the meaning of the word "citizen". And it is this meaning which should be used if one interprets the Constitution. Once now black people can be US citizens, they automatically have all the rights given by the constitution to US citizens.

Why do you think this matters at all? I don't have to care about Scalia at all. Scalia is so irrelevant that it seems sufficient for me to rely on Wikipedia, which is in political questions known to be completely unreliable. The collection of "racist, homophobic and misogynistic" means only the left hates him. (They have to blame themselves for using these words inappropriately so many times that they have lost their original meaning, so that their actual meaning is "unspecific swearword used by the left".)

Seems, the Western educational system has degenerated in such a way that more and more people don't know even elementary rules of courtesy.

Just for your information, I also think that freedom brings responsibility. Individual responsibility for individual decisions.

 

"The last time we saw old Lukey..."
Your guess is as good as mine.

 

Nope. I am referring to matters of "personhood" throughout U.S. history, with respect to legal theory and action--see, for instance, The Law Is a White Dog: How Legal Rituals Make and Unmake Persons:

It matters insofar as it supports my contention that originalist readings tend toward the preservation only of the rights of white, propertied men, to the detriment of everyone else.

Also, as I noted, Scalia received his post-secondary education from the late 1950s through the 1960s. The English translation of Foucault's Madness and Civilization was published in 1964; moreover, Kesey's One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest--which, minus the theory and critique of historical method--was published in 1962 and reached essentially the same conclusions as Foucault's work. How on earth did Scalia not recognize that this "original meaning" theory is every bit as problematic as "original intent" theory, albeit for very different reasons?

 

You are assigning the concept that "freedom is slavery" to me. I call that rude and ignorant and against the rules of elementary courtesy.

And who decides your level of responsibility, you or the community you live in?

 

Neither is it known as a reliable source of what for lack of a better term one might call "wisdom". It harbors too much Republican partisan allegiance and too much Catholic Christian cult stuff for that.

Taking the unfashionable tack, set the Republican jingo team aside and review the cult Catholic schoolboy angle: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/809630-give-me-the-child-for-the-first-seven-years-and
That was from Aristotle - education lasts into one's twenties nowdays.

Coming out of that Jesuitical environment, her professed allegiance to what apologists call "originalist" or "textualist" interpretations of the US Constitution is not a good sign. Her membership in the Children Of Praise organizes the issue. The existence of a ready-made faction on the Supreme Court for her to join nails the objections down.

About that cult membership - https://www.motherjones.com/politic...t-about-her-religious-group-people-of-praise/

Yes, this nominee is a first class academic intellectual with a solid reputation for intelligence and achievement in that arena. But we have seen several such people - including the Justice she clerked for - operate on the Supreme Court in ways that are only excused by a lack of honest engagement with physical and political reality. That is, their only escape from assessment as evil is the possibility that they are clueless. The Republican Court, for example - headed by Roberts, whose reputation for academic intelligence and record of real world achievement was and is higher than Corbett's - ruled as matter of Court finding that racism was no longer a significant factor in the establishment of voting districts, procedures, or infrastructure, in the several States of the old Confederacy where it had been found to be so in past decades.

They might as well have ruled that Holstein cattle are no longer black and white. And Roberts is the best respected Republican nominated conservative Catholic schoolboy on that Court. Scalia was a shallow and belligerent pedant in comparison, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas, are all of them supposedly a cut below. Corbett joins them.

Repeat: The Supreme Court is not a criminal court. It deals with philosophy as much as it deals with law, with physical reality as much as with legal technicality. Wisdom is a job requirement. The Republican Catholic schoolboy Court faction - a deliberately established political faction of a deliberately politicized Court, a faction which Corbett is being nominated to join and welcomes membership in - recently ruled that racism no longer existed as a significant political factor in the establishment of voting procedures and districts in the State of Texas. The reasoning involved was of the kind sometimes described as "Jesuitical" - even in situations where it is not, as it was there, the product of people with pervasively Jesuit influenced, and explicitly Catholic Church influenced, educations.

{A Wiki example from Clarence Thomas's alma mater:

}

That's dingbat city, and it's coming from the cult Catholic school Republican Party faction of the politicized Supreme Court. With Corbett's seating, that faction will be a clear voting majority of the Court - 2/3 of the seated Justices.

 

She hasn't done much as a judge - as with Kavanaugh and several other Republican nominees to the SC, there isn't much evidence one way or the other of her ability to manage a criminal trial or the like.

And that's not necessarily a key factor. The biggest problem with Kavanaugh, for example, was not so much his near total lack of courtroom or trial experience, but what he had been doing instead (partisan Republican campaign work, mostly) and his lack of intellectual accomplishment in general.

A Supreme Court Justice is not a judge of that kind. There is no real reason a Supreme Court Justice would need to have been a judge at all, if they had instead a lifetime of relevant experience and intellectual accomplishment, if they could reason well and rigorously. There is a movement in the US to push the nomination of non-judges, even non-lawyers, to the Supreme Court - the idea being that we seem to have dug into a narrow rut, that we need less supposed technical legal expertise and more wisdom in that body.

No. Any evidence of a religious agenda, from any aspect of her life or past, would be relevant. This isn't a game show.

 

That has to be balls. It is obvious that you need to be a judge, since the cases that come to your court are legal cases, referred from lower courts.

If you start appointing people who are not even judges you really will have a game show on your hands - even more so than having a game show president, as now.

 

there is no requirement that a supreme court justice to have been a judge or even a lawyer.

 

How many have been neither?

 

It is simply a reformulation of your "Freedom can only exist within an orderly pattern of social engineering". So, it is clearly an argument about the content - "an orderly pattern of social engineering" is criticized as an euphemism for slavery. And in fact, slavery is a particular example of an orderly pattern of social engineering. If you think that arguments about content violate rules of elementary courtesy, I would say you don't know what are the rules of elementary courtesy. Your "are you mad" is, instead, a personal attack.

Reality. Which, includes, of course, also social reality, that means, what the people around me think about me given what I have done.

"Person" is, indeed, also a legal notion. It is, in particular, important for access to courts. That means, for similar reasons, that if the legal definition of "person" changes, the rights given in the constitution to persons will apply after this to all those who are persons according to the changed definition. Independent of the question who had personhood at that time, it is clear that blacks without property usually have personhood now. Once this is clarified, it is clear that according to the meaning of the word "person" and according to the original meaning theory all the rights which the constitution gives to persons have now to be interpreted as being given to those blacks without property who have personhood now too.

So, the original meaning theory seems unproblematic to me.

Even if the claim would be justified, even if in the original meaning of those swearwords, it would be only a weak ad hominem against original meaning theory.

Why should Scalia bother about what some French left guy writes? Because that French guy received his doctorate based on this book "despite reservations"? Why should he care about prosa written by some Kesey?

The reasons why the original intent theory is problematic are clear enough, even as listed in Wiki they are serious and quite obvious. What are the problems of the original meaning theory? You seem to think that Foucault has shown some such problems. Maybe. Present the arguments to make your point. I have taken a look at your "white dog" book, but it seemed quite confused to me, so I have stopped reading it after ~1/3. Reading Foucault is certainly more interesting, he is a good writer at least, even if his philosophy is nonsense.

 

Yes and wrong..!!!!! Clearly you do not understand the meaning of the term slavery.

Is a 30 mph speed limit within city limits an example of "slavery"? Is mandating "access ramps" for disabled persons an example of slavery? Do you understand the term "social (civil) engineering"

Social engineering (political science)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(political_science)#

 

Reality? Who's reality. Does it matter what people think about what you have done? What about your "freedoms"?

You overlook that reality is by agreement and codification.
Codification

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codification_(law)

Law of obligations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_obligations

 

No it isn't. "Are you mad"? is a question about state of mind, not a statement of fact.

OTOH,

That is a statement of fact falsely attributed to me...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You Sir, owe me an apology....

 

none, though most have not had a whole lot of expierence as a judge

 

I agree.

3/4 personhood does not grant equal rights as declared under the Constitution.

Really, "personhood" does no longer apply only to persons at all.

You want an example of bad social engineering?
Corporate Law once stipulated that Corporations have rights "similar to", but "distinct from" people.
Somewhere along the line the qualification; "distinct from" disappeared from Corporate Law without legislation. The result of this has granted Corporations full status of "personhood" and "money" equals free speech, instead of a financial "means of exchange".

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporation.asp

 

Read what I wrote:

In case you don't know what this means, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism defines this as

Slavery is unpleasant, while "social engineering" sounds innocent. This is quite typical,
Of course, there should be some relation between these two notions. Quite often, there is not even a direct relation between the two, and I think it is quite typical that the euphemism means something more general, while the unpleasant thing is only a particular example. This is the case here. Your Wiki link gives examples of "social engineering" which are quite similar to slavery:

Sorry, no. Once I have written "in other words", it follows that I have not attributed the statement as I have written it down to you. As you can see from the quotes from your own source, things which are comparable with slavery have been described there as examples of social engineering.

The point being? I have not suggested it does.

Your seem to think that a corporation is limited liability is such bad social engineering. Instead, it is a very good one. It allows to collect money from different persons for something which will be done and controlled by only a few of them, while most of those who give the money have no time to care about the everyday details. But these everyday details may lead to bankruptcy. In this case, they lose what they have invested, but not more. This is fine, because there is no reason to blame them - if one of them cares, this should be enough, if all of them having to care all the time this would be inefficient. If the risk they take would be unlimited, they would simply refuse to participate.

The risk is, for such a limited liability company, now on the side of those who make contracts with that company. This contract is a particular act, and they should care if this act is risky or not. The necessary information that this is a limited liability company is known to them. So, the risk is located correctly, on the side of those who make contracts with that company.

 

Well, lets just concentrate on the premise, ok?

“Freedom can only exist within boundaries.”
9/30/2012

*http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922