[Pants-of-dog]

@Doug64

But you hopefully see how this contradicts your claim that you do not want them setting policy.

And there is still confusion, since you gave an example of a judge supposedly setting bad policy, despite the fact that the policy he set was consistent with the original intent of the constitution.

How is the Dred Scott decision a bad one?

[Doug64]

Here's an interesting study on the impact of home-centered religious worship--such as Barrett's. It doesn't exactly fit The Handmaid's Tale. From the Executive Summary (emphasis added):

• There is a strong correlation between home-centered religious worship patterns and positive relationship outcomes. Couples and individuals who report the highest levels of religiosity - engaging in home-centered religious practices - are significantly more likely to report positive outcomes on various measures of life happiness and relationship quality. For example, women in relationships where both partners worship at home relationships were twice as likely to report being emotionally close to their partner. Similar results were found with regard to reported sexual satisfaction, joint decision making, money problems, and partner virtues, among others.
• Religious “dosage” matters. Religious worship patterns correspond to a stratification of religiosity, and this study found important differences in self-reported outcomes between those who engage in the highest levels of religious worship and those who are secular, nominally religious, or who attend religious services but do not engage in home worship practices. For example, higher levels of sexual satisfaction were found for couples who shared home-centered religious worship patterns, but not for couples who shared church attendance alone. These and other findings suggest potential benefits to high religious dosage, including home-centered religious practices.

[Drlee]

I think this is right.

Certainly home worship requires an intimacy and honesty that can easily be missing in secular relationships. Not that it is necessarily missing but that in home religious settings the act of worship almost requires a deep trust and the willingness to share out most personal thoughts.

(Here come the folks who are going to insert absolutes that I have not included in this simple statement.)

[Pants-of-dog]

@Doug64

Since you are not going to explain your seeming double standard, I will assume that you actually have no problem with judges setting policy.

———————

As for the home worship thing, it seems easier to sidestep the home worship and go directly to the deep trust and willingness to share.

Also, why is this relevant for a judge? Who cares if she has a good sex life with her husband? Creepy.

[Doug64]

@Pants-of-dog, what I have a problem with is your reading comprehension, seeing how you somehow twisted my statement around to mean the exact opposite. But I suppose that's what I get for exploring the subtleties of the situation, I'll just have to remember going forward to make any of my responses to your posts purely black and white.

As for the study, I wasn't so much concerned with the healthy sex life as the joint decisionmaking. From the study:

Shared decision making is rightly viewed as a hallmark of an enduring relationship. Accordingly, we examined respondents’ reports of the pattern used in their relationship for making “major household decisions” and whether these decisions were mostly made by one partner (self or partner) or mostly made together. As expected, we found that most men and women report making decisions as a couple. However, contrary to sometimes negative religious stereotypes, we found that women in Shared Home Worshiper Couples are significantly more likely to report joint decision making than women in Shared Secular Couples. We found similar levels of shared decision making among women in Shared Attender Couples. Men in most relationship types reported similar levels of shared decision making (see Figure 13). The same general patterns were found in an analysis of the United States sample.

We also examined what patterns of decision making are used when respondents report that decisions are not made together. These analyses showed that both women and men are most likely to report that decisions are “made by themselves” or that “partners switched in who makes the decision.” Only a small portion of respondents, among both women and men, reported that their partner makes most of the decisions.

Our analysis of shared decision-making patterns proved to be more balanced across religious participation couple types. But, on the whole, women in highly religious couples reported similar, or higher, levels of shared decision-making than their more secular counterparts. These findings on shared decision-making patterns in highly religious couples may challenge stereotypes about devout couples that sometimes favor traditional gender roles. Scholars have typically used terms like egalitarian to imply that gender equality is more possible in relationships where men and women divide family tasks in ways that are not defined by traditional gender roles. However, the comparatively high levels of shared decision making among highly religious couples, combined with their higher levels of emotional closeness, might prompt further inquiry into whether a shared vision of blending complementary and interdependent roles can contribute to high levels of relationship quality. A key element in these findings may be that equality of process helps partners decide important decisions together and support common family goals.

As I said, A Handmaid's Tale it is not.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog, what I have a problem with is your reading comprehension, seeing how you somehow twisted my statement around to mean the exact opposite. But I suppose that's what I get for exploring the subtleties of the situation, I'll just have to remember going forward to make any of my responses to your posts purely black and white.

Is that supposed to mitigate the whole thing where she has to basically obey her husband?

[Doug64]

@Pants-of-dog, right, just think of what Barrett could have accomplished if she wasn't so oppressed by her patriarchal culture.

[Rich]

American Constitutionalism is a religion. And like Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Mormonism it has its Conservative and Liberal interpreters. Also like them, there a re lot of people who know the whole thing is utter bollocks but go along with it, because they don't want to be seen to mock the religion that so many of their compatriots hold dear.

Originalists are a bunch of fraudulent dishonest hypocrites, ignoring the plain meaning when it suits them. Virtually no politician in America actually respects the meaning of the second amendment. No Conservative politician actually wants America's gangs, or ANTIFA for that matter to be able to legally purchase the heavy machine guns, mortars, anti tank, anti aircraft, mortars, mines, etc, etc that is their right under the second amendment. There is no room for back ground checks under the second amendment.

[Julian658]

@Doug64

Since you are not going to explain your seeming double standard, I will assume that you actually have no problem with judges setting policy.

———————

As for the home worship thing, it seems easier to sidestep the home worship and go directly to the deep trust and willingness to share.

Also, why is this relevant for a judge? Who cares if she has a good sex life with her husband? Creepy.

POD

There no one more religious than you in this forum. Granted your religion is not based on a deity. The type of religion you practice cannot be separated from who you are as a person. That is a much greater concern than being a Catholic.

[Drlee]

American Constitutionalism is a religion. And like Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Mormonism it has its Conservative and Liberal interpreters. Also like them, there a re lot of people who know the whole thing is utter bollocks but go along with it, because they don't want to be seen to mock the religion that so many of their compatriots hold dear.

Originalists are a bunch of fraudulent dishonest hypocrites, ignoring the plain meaning when it suits them. Virtually no politician in America actually respects the meaning of the second amendment. No Conservative politician actually wants America's gangs, or ANTIFA for that matter to be able to legally purchase the heavy machine guns, mortars, anti tank, anti aircraft, mortars, mines, etc, etc that is their right under the second amendment. There is room for back ground checks under the second amendment.

Every word true.

If an "originalist" was to be true to the Constitution he/she would realize that the very first thing the founders did was to amend it a ton of times. And that Jefferson himself said:

"Though we may say with confidence, that the worst of the American constitutions is better than the best which ever existed before in any other country, and that they are wonderfully perfect for a first essay, yet every human essay must have defects. It will remain, therefore, to those now coming on the stage of public affairs, to perfect what has been so well begun by those going off it." --Thomas Jefferson to T. M. Randolph, Jr., 1787. ME 6:165

"We have always a right to correct ancient errors and to establish what is more conformable to reason and convenience." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1801. FE 8:82

So a "real" originalist would embrace the notion that the document is living. It is sad that so many religious people believe that God wrote the Bible or the Koran then hit the snooze button.

[Rich]

Every word true.

If an "originalist" was to be true to the Constitution he/she would realize that the very first thing the founders did was to amend it a ton of times. And that Jefferson himself said:

Thanks for your kind words. Washington, Jefferson et al were men of their time who sought to protect and advance their status and position within society. I feel few people grasp the immense privilege most of us modern westerners have over our ancestors. Slavery was wide spread around the world in their time and was practised in sub Saharan Africa and the Americas before the arrival of Europeans. Even where there was no actual slavery all Agrarian societies had large classes of people consigned to an impoverished existence with very little in the way of practical rights if they came into conflict with a member of their society's elite.

The costs of falling in socio economic status on one's self, one's family and ones descendants were generally far more catastrophic than in the West today. Hence people defended their privileges with extreme viciousness. Washington, Jefferson along with likes of the Feudal war lords, the prophet Mohammed and Genghis Khan can all sleep easy in their graves as far as I'm concerned. However that is a very different thing to setting them up as legal, social and moral role models.

just to note Hunter Gatherers on the whole don't practice slavery. That's not because of any ethical superiority, but just that its not practical. They are however extremely cruel to outsiders, have very high homicide rates, practice women kidnapping and engage in high levels of infanticide. They are also prime suspects for the eradication of a large part of the world's mega fauna, so no they are not even good environmentalists.

[Rugoz]

1. Abortion
2. Gun control

Only members of a well-regulated militia have the right to carry guns. And if there's any doubt about the particular interpretation, it's up to politics to decide things, not to the SCOTUS. The same goes for abortion.

American Constitutionalism is a religion. And like Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Mormonism it has its Conservative and Liberal interpreters. Also like them, there a re lot of people who know the whole thing is utter bollocks but go along with it, because they don't want to be seen to mock the religion that so many of their compatriots hold dear.

True, but it will never get reformed if both sides just interpret it the way they want. Constitutionalism itself isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog, right, just think of what Barrett could have accomplished if she wasn't so oppressed by her patriarchal culture.

She could have accomplished more.

RBG, for example, did as much this woman, except she also had to fight against far more sexism to get where this new woman is now.

In fact, RBG opened doors for this woman. This woman would not be where she is now without the help of many feminists. Which is why it is darkly humourous that she will now use her position to (almost certainly) restrict the rights of women.

If this woman had grown up in a society where her religious views dominated society, she would probably have never gone to school.

[Doug64]

Only members of a well-regulated militia have the right to carry guns. And if there's any doubt about the particular interpretation, it's up to politics to decide things, not to the SCOTUS.

So you’re saying that it isn’t the job of SCOTUS to step in when Congress oversteps its Constitutionally limited authority?

As for the 2nd Amendment, “well-regulated” means “properly regulated” which means Congress can’t use the authority to regulate state militias granted to it by the Constitution to disarm them—and the General Militia encompasses all males of military age that are or wish to be US citizens (with some exceptions) plus everyone in the Reserves of either sex, the Special Militia is the National Guard, and none of them can be disarmed by Congress. And that doesn’t take into account the situation on the ground at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified and what that means for Incorporating the 2nd Amendment against the state governments.

The same goes for abortion.

So point to where in the Constitution the government is prevented from regulating abortion, without referencing “emanations” or “penumbras” (fancy words for “we can’t find what we want in the Constitution, so we’re reading it in anyway”).

True, but it will never get reformed if both sides just interpret it the way they want. Constitutionalism itself isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Absolutely. The central premise of Originalism is that constitutions and the laws based on them have a meaning independent of whatever judges would like them to mean, and it is the job of judges to suss out what that meaning is rather than impose their own.

[Pants-of-dog]

Do Originalists support slavery as per the original constitution?

Do they also support open borders as per the original constitution?

[Dimetrodon]

Do Originalists support slavery as per the original constitution?

Do they also support open borders as per the original constitution?

I don't know if the original constitution supported open borders and during the pre-civil war days, states often had the power to expel people from their borders. Regardless, I'm not an originalist and I think their beliefs are out there.

[Stormsmith]

I've heard a few thoughts on Amy Barrett pertaining to loosing Obama-care and abortion and birth control. What I haven't heard is women and men threatening to shut done the stock markets.

[Doug64]

Do Originalists support slavery as per the original constitution?

See the 13th Amendment.

Do they also support open borders as per the original constitution?

The Constitution has nothing to say about what our border policies should be, it simply gives Congress the authority to set them.

[annatar1914]

Do Originalists support slavery as per the original constitution?

Do they also support open borders as per the original constitution?

The US Constitution never ''supported'' slavery, in any way, shape, or form. For more information on this fact, check out this website from a Christian who is politically Communist, compiled information about this;

http://medicolegal.tripod.com/slaveryillegal.htm

Many Abolitionists wrote about this, especially before the American Civil War.

[Pants-of-dog]

See the 13th Amendment.

So no, instead they see it as most people in the USA do: as a perfectly fine way of punishing criminals.

The Constitution has nothing to say about what our border policies should be, it simply gives Congress the authority to set them.

What did the Congress think of immigration at the time the constitution was being written for the US?