CJCS responds to Rep. Gaetz

[nodropinufaka]

I like this one even more. Coney-Barrett is racist because... (checks notes) she interprets the law according to the law instead of social justice sentiments of the day.

Supreme Court watchers worry Amy Coney Barrett’s ‘originalism’ could uphold racist policies

Now that Amy Coney Barrett has been confirmed to the Supreme Court, civil rights advocates are concerned her ideology will reverse their progress.

www.usatoday.com

Do you even realize how fucking ridiculous you sound with this? That’s her JOB!

How is that ridiculous?

Not every Supreme Court judge is an originalist nor are they supposed to be.

you want them to stand by an almost 250 year old text that said humans were 3/5 a person and women can’t vote?

 

[nodropinufaka]

No one is 'flipping out.'

Your assertion that you had to 'work harder' isn't based on objective evidence (i.e. output), but rather that at some point you were conditioned to think that because you are a minority you must have had it worse.

Consider the possibility that you didn't work any harder than the average American to earn an appointment as a Naval officer. What else were the keys to your success?

I would then offer you to consider that anyone of any race or gender could apply those principles to be successful for themselves.

And if we can accept that anyone of any race or gender can learn from your success, then we can also conclude that systemic racism is bullshit.

But I did have it worst then most.

Do I need objective outputs for that when you can just spout off racist nonsense that black people need to abandon their families to be successful?

It doesn’t take a genius or research to realize that when you grow up without money you’re life is very different then the people who had money.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

How is that ridiculous?

Not every Supreme Court judge is an originalist nor are they supposed to be.

you want them to stand by an almost 250 year old text that said humans were 3/5 a person and women can’t vote?

Yes. First of all you’ve been corrected on the three fifths compromise so now you’re being intentionally ignorant. Second, women have the right to vote. It’s in the constitution. Maybe you missed it. Her job is to enforce it. Are you still confused?

 

[nodropinufaka]

Yes. First of all you’ve been corrected on the three fifths compromise so now you’re being intentionally ignorant. Second, women have the right to vote. It’s in the constitution. Maybe you missed it. Her job is to enforce it. Are you still confused?

it wasn’t in the constitution when the text was originally written.

which is how originalists frame their legal arguments.

 

[Spekkio]

You have claimed you had it worse like 5x now without providing any evidence.

I'm simply proposing a mental exercise for you...

Either

A) you are born with such unique talents that you are able to rise above institutional laws and regulations that were designed to prevent you from becoming a Naval officer that no one else can duplicate or...

B) You're not that special and you applied some mix of common keys to success in order to carve out a good career for yourself...which anyone of any race or gender can do.

So which is it?

 

[nodropinufaka]

You have claimed you had it worse like 5x now without providing any evidence.

I'm simply proposing a mental exercise for you...

Either

A) you are born with such unique talents that you are able to rise above institutional laws and regulations that were designed to prevent you from becoming a Naval officer that no one else can duplicate or...

B) You're not that special and you applied some mix of common keys to success in order to carve out a good career for yourself...which anyone of any race or gender can do.

So which is it?

Why does it necessarily have to be those 2?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

it wasn’t in the constitution when the text was originally written.

which is how originalists frame their legal arguments.

Show me something where she said she doesn’t recognize amendments to the constitution. Hell, show me some policies she has enacted that were “racist at their core”.

You can’t. But you still made the claim.

 

[nodropinufaka]

Show me something where she said she doesn’t recognize amendments to the constitution. Hell, show me some policies she has enacted that were “racist at their core”.

You can’t. But you still made the claim.

“In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted".

“ Originalism was used by proponents of segregation to argue in opposition to civil rights legislation during the 1960s.[7][8]Originalism is an umbrella term for interpretative methods that hold to the "fixation thesis", the notion that an utterance's semantic content is fixed at the time it is uttered.[9]”

“The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable personsliving at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Most originalists, such as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, are associated with this view.”

Originalism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Spekkio]

Why does it necessarily have to be those 2?

You are claiming that systemic racism exists to prevent minorities from being successful. You then stated that you are a minority, and that you are successful.

So the only way to resolve the discrepancy in your argument is that your success must be a result of some kind of exceptional talent that the majority of minorities don't have. If not, the only other conclusion is that there is no systemic racism preventing people's success.

 

[grodonfreeman]

Rudy Guianni, l reduced NYC crime levels to historic lows. Homicides fell from 31/100,000 in 1991 to 3.3/100,000 in 2013. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...-worth-remembering-rush-criticize-ncna1151121
I guess Black Lives Matter to Republicans.

 

[nodropinufaka]

You are claiming that systemic racism exists to prevent minorities from being successful. You then stated that you are a minority, and that you are successful.

So the only way to resolve the discrepancy in your argument is that your success must be a result of some kind of exceptional talent that the majority of minorities don't have. If not, the only other conclusion is that there is no systemic racism preventing people's success.

It can keep them from being successful. Not that it does. There is a difference.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

“In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted".

“ Originalism was used by proponents of segregation to argue in opposition to civil rights legislation during the 1960s.[7][8]Originalism is an umbrella term for interpretative methods that hold to the "fixation thesis", the notion that an utterance's semantic content is fixed at the time it is uttered.[9]”

“The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable personsliving at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Most originalists, such as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, are associated with this view.”

Originalism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You just quoted the commentary from the author of the article. Please tell me you’re not that simple. Show me a racist policy she is responsible for enacting, like you claimed. Or just admit you’re full of shit, and maybe you saw a list of white conservatives and... let your prejudice take over.

Futhermore, what else is reasonable than interpreting the law as a reasonable person would have interpreted it when it was written? THATS WHAT THE LAW IS. You don’t get to ignore it later because you don’t like it. You can amend it.

 

[Brett327]

Cut hIm some slack. He’s been held back by the man. I mean he is/was a Commissioned Naval Officer and apparently now successful and educated enough to recognize that none of that mattered and all the hard work was a waste of time because of….wait for it.. systemic racism. You know cause that one time some A-hole racist LT said something ignorant!

And yet he had a senior leader in the Navy tell him he was only where he was because of affirmative action.

 

[nodropinufaka]

Futhermore, what else is reasonable than interpreting the law as a reasonable person would have interpreted it when it was written? THATS WHAT THE LAW IS. You don’t get to ignore it later because you don’t like it. You can amend it.

Well there’s two camps. Some disagree with that and viewing the text and it was written has consequences.

many conservatives like this because it’s extremely hard to legislate new laws rather then having the Supreme Court set a precedent.

If it went strictly off of originalism gay marriage would still be illegal today.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Well there’s two camps. Some disagree with that and viewing the text and it was written has consequences.

many conservatives like this because it’s extremely hard to legislate new laws rather then having the Supreme Court set a precedent.

If it went strictly off of originalism gay marriage would still be illegal today.

Interpreting laws as they were intended and written is what keeps us from being a third world shit hole. We are a nation of laws. The constitution is difficult to amend, with good reason. A judge deciding they know better is a miscarriage of justice.

You still haven’t supported your accusations or apologized.