 |
|
Lefties.. how can someone take a text from 230 years ago
Posted on: October 13, 2020 at 22:20:17 CT
TigerMatt STL
Posts:
93802
Member For:
26.31 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
18
and say that we should ignore what the authors meant and instead reinterpret it to how we want it to mean?
It isn't the same text then.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/12/amy-coney-barrett-bad-choice-women
"Obedience to the exact original meaning of the constitution without current context is problematic. These laws were made by white, cisgender men who enslaved other human beings and never intended to include a vast sum of Americans – like women and people of color – in their quest for equal rights."
If an author writes "Thou shall not murder", you have to read it and understand it in the context it was written. If the definition of murder later changes, you do not get to decide that the author meant something differently, specifically your new definition.
It is the same with the US Constitution. You don't get to decide the text means something differently. If change is needed, that is what amendments are for. It is not the role of judges to change it at the bench.
The best part of this article is it not once cited any rulings of ACB where her religious beliefs impacted the ruling. Instead it relies only upon appeals to emotion.
"I worry about the lives and futures of my fellow Americans..."
"I worry about the lives of over 20 million Americans who depend on the Affordable Care Act for healthcare.."
"I worry about the lives of women and all those with uteruses.."
"I worry about the lives of LGBTQ+ families.."
"I worry about the lives of Black, Native, Asian and Latinx Americans.."
"I worry about the lives of transgender youth and adults.."
"What I fear is that her leadership on the supreme court would erode rather than protect liberty and justice for all."
"I do, however, have a problem when evidence exists, in words and actions, that their faith paired with their legal theory might compel them to make decisions that would negatively impact the lives, agency and wellbeing of generations of Americans."
Ok... then cite one legal decision she made that provides this evidence...
Nevermind.. guess the author ran out of space to provide the evidence.
It isn't the same text then.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/12/amy-coney-barrett-bad-choice-women
"Obedience to the exact original meaning of the constitution without current context is problematic. These laws were made by white, cisgender men who enslaved other human beings and never intended to include a vast sum of Americans – like women and people of color – in their quest for equal rights."
If an author writes "Thou shall not murder", you have to read it and understand it in the context it was written. If the definition of murder later changes, you do not get to decide that the author meant something differently, specifically your new definition.
It is the same with the US Constitution. You don't get to decide the text means something differently. If change is needed, that is what amendments are for. It is not the role of judges to change it at the bench.
The best part of this article is it not once cited any rulings of ACB where her religious beliefs impacted the ruling. Instead it relies only upon appeals to emotion.
"I worry about the lives and futures of my fellow Americans..."
"I worry about the lives of over 20 million Americans who depend on the Affordable Care Act for healthcare.."
"I worry about the lives of women and all those with uteruses.."
"I worry about the lives of LGBTQ+ families.."
"I worry about the lives of Black, Native, Asian and Latinx Americans.."
"I worry about the lives of transgender youth and adults.."
"What I fear is that her leadership on the supreme court would erode rather than protect liberty and justice for all."
"I do, however, have a problem when evidence exists, in words and actions, that their faith paired with their legal theory might compel them to make decisions that would negatively impact the lives, agency and wellbeing of generations of Americans."
Ok... then cite one legal decision she made that provides this evidence...
Nevermind.. guess the author ran out of space to provide the evidence.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Lefties.. how can someone take a text from 230 years ago - TigerMatt STL - 10/13 22:20:17
-