The Barrett Hearings

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But originalists don't seem to use "well-regulated" to mean anything at all.

 

[J842P]

But originalists don't seem to use "well-regulated" to mean anything at all.

Why do you think they don't?

 

[Trausti]

But originalists don't seem to use "well-regulated" to mean anything at all.

An originalist would recognize the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to restrict the power of the new national government; not take away individual rights to the aggrandizement of that national government.

 

[Elixir]

But originalists don't seem to use "well-regulated" to mean anything at all.

An originalist would recognize the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to restrict the power of the new national government; not take away individual rights to the aggrandizement of that national government.

Actually it was to restrict the power of the new national government over the elite, while allowing whatever abridgement "necessary" of the rights of the poor or off-colored. It has worked well so far, but now there are so many uppity commoners.... it's a problem. They want to fix it by affirming Corporations and their money as having individual rights equivalent to the rights of the elite individuals, but without the liability that individuals might suffer. This election might be the last chance to keep them from doing that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But originalists don't seem to use "well-regulated" to mean anything at all.

Why do you think they don't?

For example, some right-wingers scream about militias without the obvious "well-regulated" portion which has the effect of making the prefatory clause irrelevant...since anyone can claim, "hey yeah, I'm in a militia." Even someone as pompous a right-wing originalist as Scalia still falls into the same trap in Heller merely calling on definitions of "militia" sans "well-regulated" in references contemperaneous with the amendment.

An originalist would recognize the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to restrict the power of the new national government; not take away individual rights to the aggrandizement of that national government.

A competent textual analyst would observe that the prefatory clause provides justification for the operational clause and that further, if the analyst is an originalist, they must concede that the militia in question is intended to be a well-regulated one.

 

[Trausti]

For example, some right-wingers scream about militias without the obvious "well-regulated" portion which has the effect of making the prefatory clause irrelevant...since anyone can claim, "hey yeah, I'm in a militia." Even someone as pompous a right-wing originalist as Scalia still falls into the same trap in Heller merely calling on definitions of "militia" sans "well-regulated" in references contemperaneous with the amendment.

An originalist would recognize the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to restrict the power of the new national government; not take away individual rights to the aggrandizement of that national government.

A competent textual analyst would observe that the prefatory clause provides justification for the operational clause and that further, if the analyst is an originalist, they must concede that the militia in question is intended to be a well-regulated one.

The Bill of Rights speaks of Congress, the States, and the People. If the drafters had wanted to limit the bearing of arms to Congress or the States, they could have done so.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

For example, some right-wingers scream about militias without the obvious "well-regulated" portion which has the effect of making the prefatory clause irrelevant...since anyone can claim, "hey yeah, I'm in a militia." Even someone as pompous a right-wing originalist as Scalia still falls into the same trap in Heller merely calling on definitions of "militia" sans "well-regulated" in references contemperaneous with the amendment.

An originalist would recognize the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to restrict the power of the new national government; not take away individual rights to the aggrandizement of that national government.

A competent textual analyst would observe that the prefatory clause provides justification for the operational clause and that further, if the analyst is an originalist, they must concede that the militia in question is intended to be a well-regulated one.

The Bill of Rights speaks of Congress, the States, and the People. If the drafters had wanted to limit the bearing of arms to Congress or the States, they could have done so.

Non sequitur strawman.

 

[Trausti]

The Bill of Rights speaks of Congress, the States, and the People. If the drafters had wanted to limit the bearing of arms to Congress or the States, they could have done so.

Non sequitur strawman.

Regardless of how the militia was to be regulated, the right was reserved to the People. It's not ambiguous at all.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Ok, so a witch has different compressibility than a person.

Why does it need to be a duck to reveal this??

No, no, no, you miss the point. Read it again.

I understood. You're right about e=mc^², you actually do weigh more with a duck pressed against you. I can see the energy being different for a witch than for a person (but how? The energy is going to be related only to the pressure the duck puts on them. Given the same pressure you'll add just as much to a steel plate as a bag of feathers), but I don't see why it matters that it's a duck doing the pressing. Would you not get the same result if you used a goose? Or perhaps a chicken?

The post was Bomb#20's, not mine. But apart from that, you got something else wrong. I suggest you read your post and his reply more carefully.

Or if you want to cheat

Show

B20 did not say that a witch is different at all. You asked "Does having a duck pressed against you change your weight if you're a witch?", and he replied that that is the case, and gave an argument. But he did not say or suggest that having a duck pressed against you does not change your weight if you are not a witch. Of course, whether you are a witch is irrelevant. He just made the general case.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The 2nd amendment covered arms, not just muskets (In Mexico, it is illegal for their citizens to own swords). Arms are whatever weapons there are available - today, arms include semi-automatic weapons.

The Second Amendment is fucked then and requires some serious revision. Unless you believe convicted felons should be allowed to own nerve gas. By your logic that's a-ok.

If you read the Federalist papers (#29, I think was about militias and the 2nd amendment), as an originalist should/would do, then most of the gun fondlers arguments for owning weapons fall apart.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Don2: "Trausti, you're argument is so terrible, that I will give you a special award."

Trausti: "I am getting a special award. I am so cool!"

Observer: "He didn't say you were cool."

Trausti: "Regardless of his reasons, I am getting a special award."

 

[ZiprHead]

Don2: "Trausti, you're argument is so terrible, that I will give you a special award."

Trausti: "I am getting a special award. I am so cool!"

Observer: "He didn't say you were cool."

Trausti: "Regardless of his reasons, I am getting a special award."

Well, he is... special.

JK, Trausti.

 

[Deepak]

So the question I have is, what exactly make these originalists qualified to do what they do? That is, they're theoretically experts in the use of language throughout all of history, in that they're able to ascertain the meaning of the words in the time that they were written. Is there a school or a degree program that these people go to where they learn this stuff? How come they're not treated if they're introducing novel information into the case? Do they appear as witnesses where their interpretation of the historical meaning can be cross examined? Is there any review process for their findings, or do they simply have to convince themselves?

Because to me, it all sounds like bullshit.

 

[Worldtraveller]

It IS all bullshit.

Glad I could help.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Does anyone know of an example when one of these so-called originalists followed their judicial logic to a conclusion that conflicted with their conservative viewpoint?

 

[Politesse]

Does anyone know of an example when one of these so-called originalists followed their judicial logic to a conclusion that conflicted with their conservative viewpoint?

All the time. McGirt v Oklahoma (2020) is a very important recent example that you may be familiar with. Conservatives in general were horrified that Indian lands in Southeastern Oklahoma were recognized as uncanceled, but Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in the case, making it very clear that if Congress wants to cancel a reservation, it needs to be written in law, because the Constitution grants Congress sole authority in that respect.

Of course, the other "originalists" on the court disagreed vehemently.

 

[J842P]

Does anyone know of an example when one of these so-called originalists followed their judicial logic to a conclusion that conflicted with their conservative viewpoint?

The famous example would be Scalia and flag burning.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Does anyone know of an example when one of these so-called originalists followed their judicial logic to a conclusion that conflicted with their conservative viewpoint?

I think a better, more illustrative question would be if all of the so called originalists agree when a ruling goes against their general party viewpoint. There might be a few, but much less. The examples above are good cases where one (maybe two) originalists actually are consistent, but as Poli notes, the others were in strong disagreement.

The fact that 'originalism' is not so agreed upon even amongst those who are all supposedly originalists should be a good indicator that it's still just an excuse to rule how one wants and not founded on any kind of actual principles.

 

[Politesse]

In fairness, the majority of the Court's decisions are unanimous, and presumably originalist ideas contribute to such cases as well. But it is certainly true that in highly publicized, politically charged cases, certain originalists seem to struggle with their own principles.

 

[Trausti]

Don2: "Trausti, you're argument is so terrible, that I will give you a special award."

Trausti: "I am getting a special award. I am so cool!"

Observer: "He didn't say you were cool."

Trausti: "Regardless of his reasons, I am getting a special award."

I’d like to thank the Academy . . . and note that legal scholars contemporary to ratification of the 2nd Amendment, and up to mid-20th Century, understood the right to bear arms as an individual right. So I’ll pass the special award to Don, whose revisionism has earned it.