Message from @Fitzydog
Discord ID: 464514325495676938
SEXIST PRESIDENT PICKS WOMAN FOR SUPREME COURT <:covfefe:440543908846632980>
lol
itis ok
these days
indians and blacks are white supremacists
it is a sign of the time
"The new justice won't touch Roe v wade"
"It will be a woman who understand women's rights"
Watch her single handedly destroy RvW
😂
I guess, if we can't get justice Shapiro, the woman will do.
Don't get 7 kids at Planned Parenthood
"ABORTION IS A BIPARTISAN WOMENS ISSUE!"
"Bitch, please."
@DanielKO that woman is actually his favorite from the short list I think
Word on the street from Fox News is that Trump narrowed it to the other two guys
The official notice will come on Monday
yeah, I don't think he'll pick her, I think she'd be really good though
Next round then. Maybe 6 months at this rate lol
lol
@Achlys I disagree with picking a neutral judge
the problem we have is that people expect justices to "interpret" the constitution through a progressive lens
we need judges who read the constitution and interpret it based on what was intended by the writers
@pandaxcentric There's actually a debate in the Libertarian circle right now as to what Originalism even means these days lol
in Chrisitanity there's this idea of Hermeneutics
basically looking at what society was at the time the verses were written, and using that context when interpreting them (as well as other relevant verses)
Really interesting discussion
I'll have to watch it later
the problem when you just use the court to say way you want, like for gay marriage or abortion, then it can be overturned when other justices get appointed
the right way to make things permanent is for Congress to do its job, make a Bill or ammend the Constitution
but for gay marriage for example...they couldn't get the votes in Congress, so they decided to bypass it and use the SC to get it done instead, and this is where you see the Originalism argument coming into play a lot of times
That argument was dumb from both sides.
What is so special about marriage that makes it an attractive pursuit for gay couples? What privileges were they granted from getting it?
Was it right for the US to grant special privileges to married folk arbitrarily?
Why are they legislating private contracts in the first place?
I think it had to do with the problem of separating marriage as a legal status and a religious ceremony
hmm
Right, that's my point. Why is it a legal status in the first place? That's where *I* see the problem
it is legal because some people don't believe in a god but they stil believe in the sanctity of marriage
Well it goes down the hole of "where property rights are extended to between individuals"
tat too
I know gay couples were pushing it for insurance reasons
That all seems like stuff that can be dealt with privately on a case by case basis
there honestly aren't a ton of benefits to being married, right now insurance, getting the other person's estate if they die, and immigration status are the big ones
And mis-matched income levels as well