So you’re saying, Justice, that as circumstances change, the original meaning of the Constitution and subsequent rulings isn’t sufficient to address them?
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
So let’s see what he says about 14.3. Oh ho ho Flashmobs! Didn’t have those or tweets or PA systems in the 1860s. Judicial joke judicial joke heh heh heh
i'm going with the society pages over telegraph, telephone, and letters being the social networks of the pre-packet-switched era, and wire fraud, defamation per se, and so forth were prosecuted under existing laws.
Alito—lied about the history of abortion. Reached back to the 1600’s to find “precedent”. Relies on untrained “historians” who believed in all sorts of nonsense like phrenology, witchcraft and white supremacy. That’s good enough to govern us womenfolk but tech billionaires may need more deference
I always thought Alito’s glib remark here during oral arguments in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass‘n, the joke being that James Madison of course had nothing to say about video games, was sorta telling
As ever, these monsters have no principles or ideology. They just babble bullshit at their masters' command. Originalism was always nonsense, just as the original writers of the constitution explicitly warned.
To be fair to the Justice, the founders relied on pre-modern technology that was slow and severely limited, not the rapid mass spread modern tech allows. How could they possibly know what we should do to limit the damage?
Ugh...does everything have to come down to the states? Leaving important decisions to the states is not only a copout (to me anyway) but can we even call ourselves the United States anymore?
For online/software providers this is also a nightmare to try to comply with because it’s impractical/expensive and unwieldy/unfriendly to users to try to comply with 50 different state law variants…
It’s the State’s Rights scam: let a state run by nut bars establish a “conservative” precedent and other states follow, but if a liberal state tries to set a progressive precedent, block that the federal level.
When I teach a Clarence Thomas opinion I put a picture of a Ouija board onscreen. My students have been universally astonished to see someone call "originalism" out for the nonsense that it is. One year there were audible gasps when I called Clarence Thomas "America's Worst Justice(TM)".
He takes the position that violent video games shouldn't get First Amendment protection because the Founders wouldn't have wanted kids to have access to them. Why he thinks it's the Founders would have wanted kids to have access to AR-15s but not video games including them, he never says.
We absolutely cannot trust the Supreme Court if you ask me. Or anyone else with eyes and ears (assuming the person is listening to them at least). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE-VJrdHMug
Honestly, the ouija board gives him an excuse. No, his decisions are penned with intention, malice, and a firm desire to destroy America. It's very much designed, and I suspect the designers can all be tied back to a handful of white dudes.
Fair. I use the Ouija board to say that you'd need one of these to know why he goes in the direction he goes on any point, because of the way he purports to channel the "Founders' intent" that none of us could possibly know on account of they're dead.
Comments
And even if Constitution is insufficient to address, changing circumstances, it permits amendments that are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRGp0S7qZLw
NUH-UH
You don't get to change Constitutional interpretation theory horses midstream, Sammy
file under alito, wrong, again.
https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts6/oral_argument_audio/21675