Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

Shit, I edited a post instead of creating a new one.

Talent - as an originalist do you reject Berger's opinion on Brown and his opinion on what the 14th amendment entails?

[iam416]

Talent - as an originalist do you reject Berger's opinion on Brown and his opinion on what the 14th amendment entails?

Sorry -- I missed that. I'm not sure what you're referring to, Froot. The dude from the 1970s that shit all over Brown?

I accept Judge Bork's opinion on Brown, which is what I stated without being super explicit. From an "strict constructionist" perspective, Brown court was faced with a tension -- equality or segregation. In the Guilded Age the Court (and others) assumed that those two concepts weren't mutually exclusive. By 1954 it was plain that they were. You could not have segregation and continue caring about equality and if cared about equality you couldn't continue with segregation.

The plain text of the 14th A emphasizes equality. At the time it was believed segregation could produce that. So, it's unlikely the original intent included schools (there are plenty of originalist writings that dispute this and point to gads of Radical Republican statements to that effect -- with some force, IMO).

So, as a matter of Constitutional interpretation, I start with the language. The purpose and language of the EPC is abundantly clear. The Plessy Court did, too -- for example, it was clear to Plessy that you HAD to offer alternatives -- you couldn't just give schools to white folks, you had to also make sure black folks had schools. However, they thought that that system produced equality. After nearly 100 years it was clear that assumption was wrong.

[CGVT]

Oh god. CGVT doesn't respect me? This will be a trying day.

Ha! Everybody's a troll. It's just that some are better at it than others. This thread is a prime example. A good troll is gold. Then there are trolls like Krapture...

[iam416]

Also, Froot, my perspective on the Constitution is that I start with a strict construction (go to the text), but I understand the need to deviate on occasion. I'm not Bork (or Thomas) on the matter. I don't, e.g., think that the 8th A ought to be judged by 18th C standards. The Court's legitimacy, in part, depends on hewing reasonably close to pubic opinion on the "hot button" issues. I think Kennedy's opinion on gay marriage is legal garbage, but as matter of Court legitimacy I think was good (and I certainly agreed with the outcome).

And I don't mind having "living constitutionalists" on the Court. I don't consider Constitutional interpretation to be monolithic. Different thoughts and arguments are good for the dialogue even if I rarely agree with RBG or Sotamayor.

But, my inclination is almost always to avoid judicial legislating. I am, e.g., still really torn on the public union decision. That one would have been very difficult for me because I respect the 1st A arguments, but I really don't like undoing long-standing state legislation.

So, I'm not going to sit here and say there's only one way or whatever. I do however, think, that generalities are applicable to the groups of justices (as I stated them). There will always be exceptions both ways.

[iam416]

So, wait....to paraphrase Almost Famous....I AM A GOLDEN TROLL!

[CGVT]

Occasionally

[froot loops]

The truth is Warren wanted to end segregation and work backwards to get it. A guy like Rehnquist argued to reaffirm Plessy. Of course he disavowed that when trying to get confirmed 20 years later, duh, good move Will.

The use of the discredited study to justify the conclusion was really problematic, but everything in that decision was ends justifies the means. But it was a good ruling. It certainly wasn't an originalist ruling, but if you are an originalist you have to find a way to sure up with that. Because nobody wants to argue it was a flawed decision. It's definitely a weak spot for the originalists.

Yes Berger wrote his book in the 70's Government by Judiciary. He said Brown was flawed and he dissected Bork's conclusion. He was one of the original originalists.

[hack]

Trolling is valued and necessary in a forum such as this. It's quite odd to expand its use as a basis of governance.

[iam416]

The truth is Warren wanted to end segregation and work backwards to get it. A guy like Rehnquist argued to reaffirm Plessy. Of course he disavowed that when trying to get confirmed 20 years later, duh, good move Will.

The use of the discredited study to justify the conclusion was really problematic, but everything in that decision was ends justifies the means. But it was a good ruling. It certainly wasn't an originalist ruling, but if you are an originalist you have to find a way to sure up with that. Because nobody wants to argue it was a flawed decision. It's definitely a weak spot for the originalists.

Yes Berger wrote his book in the 70's Government by Judiciary. He said Brown was flawed and he dissected Bork's conclusion. He was one of the original originalists.

I'm sure many people much smarter than I hold a different opinion, including you and Dr. Strangelove. That said, I've set forth my thoughts on the actual decision (and Plessy). As wrong as they may be, they're still my thoughts.

[iam416]

An opinion from The Guardian on a recent poll that shows Ds losing support amongst the millennials, especially white millennials and especially white male millennials: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...change-message

[Kapture1]

I. Wonder. Why.



Makes no sense. I can't figure it out..........

[iam416]

D language is probably part of it, but it's not that simple. The Guardian piece offered some other explanations that are also at play (IMO).

[Kapture1]

I think it is as simple as in the hierarchy of the left' identity politics, straight white males are the oppressors.

[The Oracle]

Aw, poor lil fella feeling attacked. Guarantee you've felt nothing personally, just more bullshit you seek out to feed you're delusional, woe is me mind.

White men, just those like you, are the problem.

[Ghengis Jon]

This should trigger the Republican snowflakes.

https://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/2018/06/29/michael-moore-fahrenheit-11-9-trump-presidency-documentary/744691002/

Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow!!!