Amy Coney Barrett

In other words, freedom is slavery.
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!!
 
Last edited:
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!"
 
You consistently betray yourself as a (presumably) Russian troll, but that bolded portion is just golden--the average American high school student knows better than that.
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.
And, not coincidentally, Scalia is almost universally regarded as the most racist, homophobic and misogynistic Supreme Court Justice in modern history--I think one of his colleagues even described him as "Archie Bunker." Did you even bother to review any of Scalia's rulings on matters of gender, race, etc. to see just how well they lined up with the absurd nonsense you posted above?
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".)

Are you mad ??? Of course not, you're just unable to think past immediate gratification.
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.
 
You probably are (talking?) about the laws of the US which restricted the citizenship to white people?
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:
Abused dogs, prisoners tortured in Guantánamo and supermax facilities, or slaves killed by the state — all are deprived of personhood through legal acts. Such deprivations have recurred throughout history, and the law sustains these terrors and banishments even as it upholds the civil order. Examining such troubling cases, The Law Is a White Dog tackles key societal questions: How does the law construct our identities? How do its rules and sanctions make or unmake persons? And how do the supposedly rational claims of the law define marginal entities, both natural and supernatural, including ghosts, dogs, slaves, terrorist suspects, and felons? Reading the language, allusions, and symbols of legal discourse, and bridging distinctions between the human and nonhuman, Colin Dayan looks at how the law disfigures individuals and animals, and how slavery, punishment, and torture create unforeseen effects in our daily lives.



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".)
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?
 
Last edited:
Schmelzer said:
In other words, freedom is slavery.
W4U said; Are you mad ? Of course not, you're just unable to think past immediate gratification.
Seems, the Western educational system has degenerated in such a way that more and more people don't know even elementary rules of courtesy.
You are assigning the concept that "freedom is slavery" to me. I call that rude and ignorant and against the rules of elementary courtesy.
Just for your information, I also think that freedom brings responsibility. Individual responsibility for individual decisions.
And who decides your level of responsibility, you or the community you live in?
 
Thanks, that is useful background. But according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre_Dame_Law_School , Notre Dame Law School is not just a Mickey Mouse Diploma Mill, churning out footballers.
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/
- - - - People of Praise has never had very many members to begin with—only about 1,700 nationally, with a few hundred congregating with Judge Barrett in South Bend, where Notre Dame University was its spiritual hub. But Barrett has stuck it out, a sign that she is likely a true believer. Her ties to Praise of People run deep. Her parents are members; her father Mike Coney has been a member of its top leadership, serving on the board of governors, and her mother was reportedly a handmaid. She has six siblings, many of whom are also in the group, have done missionary work for it, and are married to other members. Barrett’s husband, Jesse Barrett, is a fellow Notre Dame law school grad, former assistant US attorney, and a lawyer in private practice—and a member of People of Praise.

Barrett has also served on the board of the Trinity School at Greenlawn, a People of Praise school for grades 6 through 12 in South Bend, where she reportedly has sent her own children, - - -

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:
In 2003, an honorary degree and public platform was given to pro-choice Holy Cross alumnus Chris Matthews despite pro-life alumni objections. College President Fr. Michael McFarland defended the invitation and degree, despite clear direction from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop policies and Catholic Church policies never to give a public platform to those at odds with central holdings of the Church, -
}

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.
 
But regardless of the applicability of the term hidden agenda to what you meant to say or imply, all I am trying to do is get at what objective evidence there is that she is a bad judge.
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.
Do you have evidence from her record as a judge that she has a hidden religious agenda? Because that is what is relevant here.
No. Any evidence of a religious agenda, from any aspect of her life or past, would be relevant. This isn't a game show.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
You are assigning the concept that "freedom is slavery" to me. I call that rude and ignorant and against the rules of elementary courtesy.
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.
And who decides your level of responsibility, you or the community you live in?
Reality. Which, includes, of course, also social reality, that means, what the people around me think about me given what I have done.
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:
"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.
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.
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.

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?
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.
 
It is simply a reformulation of your "Freedom can only exist within an orderly pattern of social engineering".
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)
Social engineering is a discipline in social science that refers to efforts to influence particular attitudes and social behaviors on a large scale, whether by governments, media or private groups in order to produce desired characteristics in a target population. Social engineering can also be understood philosophically as a deterministic phenomenon where the intentions and goals of the architects of the new social construct are realized.
Social engineers use the scientific method to analyze and understand social systems in order to design the appropriate methods to achieve the desired results in the human subjects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(political_science)#
 
Last edited:
Reality. Which, includes, of course, also social reality, that means, what the people around me think about me given what I have done.
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
cod·i·fi·ca·tion
noun
  1. the action or process of arranging laws or rules according to a system or plan.
    "a codification of existing common-law principles"
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codification_(law)
Law of obligations
The law of obligations is one branch of private law under the civil law legal system and so-called "mixed" legal systems. It is the body of rules that organizes and regulates the rights and duties arising between individuals. The specific rights and duties are referred to as obligations, and this area of law deals with their creation, effects and extinction.
An obligation is a legal bond (vinculum iuris) by which one or more parties (obligants) are bound to act or refrain from acting. An obligation thus imposes on the obligor a duty to perform, and simultaneously creates a corresponding right to demand performance by the obligee to whom performance is to be tendered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_obligations
 
Your "are you mad" is, instead, a personal attack.
No it isn't. "Are you mad"? is a question about state of mind, not a statement of fact.

OTOH,
W4U said; Freedom can only exist within an orderly pattern of social engineering with consideration of the human "foot-print" on Earth.
Schmelzer said; In other words, freedom is slavery.
That is a statement of fact falsely attributed to me...:(

You Sir, owe me an apology....
 
Last edited:
"Person" is, indeed, also a legal notion. It is, in particular, important for access to courts.
I agree.
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.
3/4 personhood does not grant equal rights as declared under the Constitution.
So, the original meaning theory seems unproblematic to me.
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
  • A corporation is a legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations enjoy most of the rights and responsibilities that individuals possess.
  • An important element of a corporation is limited liability, which means that shareholders may take part in the profits through dividends and stock appreciation but are not personally liable for the company's debts.
  • Corporations are not always for profit.
 
Clearly you do not understand the meaning of the term slavery.
Is a 30 mph speed limit within city limits an example of "slavery"? Do you understand the term "social (civil) engineering"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(political_science)#
Read what I wrote:
"an orderly pattern of social engineering" is criticized as an euphemism for slavery.
In case you don't know what this means, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism defines this as
euphemism (/ˈjuːfəmɪzəm/) is an innocuous word or expression used in place of one that may be found offensive or suggest something unpleasant.
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:
Radical social engineering campaigns occurred in countries with authoritarian governments ... The Soviets used newspapers, books, film, mass relocations, ... political executions (for example the Night of the Murdered Poets in Moscow in 1952), and arguably fear of becoming a victim of mass murder, played an influential role in the social engineering frameworks in Soviet Russia. Similar examples include the Chinese "Great Leap Forward" (1958–1961) and "Cultural Revolution" (1966–1976) programs and the Khmer Rouge's deurbanization of Cambodia (1975–1979).
That is a statement of fact falsely attributed to me...:(
You Sir, owe me an apology....
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.
3/4 personhood does not grant equal rights as declared under the Constitution.
The point being? I have not suggested it does.
You want an example of bad social engineering?
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
If you've followed this site for any amount of time, it should be obvious that I place high value on the freedom of individuals. However, I also want to recognize that true freedom can only exist within preset limitations. And yes, this is a paradox.
A dog is free to run in the gated backyard; a baby is free to play in the nursery. Similarly, the freedoms we enjoy in this country are not boundless. Freedom of speech does not confer the right to slander or to falsely shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. The freedom to own guns does not extend to felons, mentally handicapped, or someone dishonorably discharged from the military.*
This is why I support bans on smoking in public places: I have a right to clean air that would otherwise be infringed upon by smokers. However, if people want to smoke in the privacy of their own homes, that is their prerogative.
Removing these types of basic limitations on freedom would result in anarchy, which is not freedom at all. The difficulty obviously comes down to determining where the limitations should end and where the individuals’ freedoms should begin. I prescribe to the notion of, “My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.” The moment that the freedom of an individual infringes on the rights of others is when the freedom should be limited.
Generally, I will rule in favor of individuals’ rights until the rights of others are at risk.
*http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
 
Back
Top