2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Quite literally the "It's Current Year" argument.

Except to an extreme extent where you presume that someone that disagrees with you automatically wants to put the nigs back in the chains and secede the states again.

So you are arguing that it is still 1776? I know you Trumpers are known for being slow, but that's a record even for you guys.

What do you think the original constitution was?

 

[FAQnews Correspondent]

So you are arguing that it is still 1776? I know you Trumpers are known for being slow, but that's a record even for you guys.

What do you think the original constitution was?

Goddess forbid Justices do their job, which is to interpret the constitution as written and not make up new laws wholesale.

 

[EmuWarsVeteran]

Anyone who advocates for originalism is batshit insane. She wants to bring us back to the original constitution, when women couldn't vote and black people were enslaved. As the world progresses, times change. A supreme court judge should be aware of that.

That's not what originalism means!

It doesn't mean "do away with the ammendments", it means "if you read laws as written and then shield yourself on doublespeak and technicallity to force bullshit that isn't there, you're a cunt that should be stopped by the courts."

You. Are. A. Moron.

edit: cougared!

 

[-4ZURE-]

Yo, what has this thread become?

EDIT - 2016 results per Wikipedia:
Clinton was the winner, with 53 percent of the vote; Trump received 36 percent while Johnson received 11 percent; this would be the second time the kids vote would not match the winner of the general election.

Do you know what the second election that kids picked wrong was. I want to say Bush would be it.

I remember voting for Obama in 08, and him winning, so I think he is off the table.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

That's not what originalism means!

View attachment 1694334

It doesn't mean "do away with the ammendments", it means "if you read laws as written and then shield yourself on doublespeak and technicallity to force bullshit that isn't there, you're a cunt that should be stopped by the courts."

You. Are. A. Moron.

Lol what the hell were the laws in 1776 then? That is the original interpretation of it. We should be trying to move forward, not backwards.

 

[Crinoids]

Does anyone know if they rigged it for the Hilderbeast 4 years ago?

EDIT - 2016 results per Wikipedia:
Clinton was the winner, with 53 percent of the vote; Trump received 36 percent while Johnson received 11 percent; this would be the second time the kids vote would not match the winner of the general election.

I remember tons of young girls liking Clinton for the sole reason of "boys are stinky" so it makes sense to me.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

Yo, what has this thread become?

Sperging about Roe v Wade and abortion laws, then ACB, then originalism.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

I remember tons of young girls liking Clinton for the sole reason of "boys are stinky" so it makes sense to me.

Yeah but girls have cooties

 

[EmuWarsVeteran]

Lol what the hell were the laws in 1776 then? That is the original interpretation of it. We should be trying to move forward, not backwards.

The laws in 1776 included an AMMENDMENT process so we can change the fucking laws to move forward if and when necessary. Inferring bullshit and changing the definition of words to win by default isn't progress. It's tyranny. That is what Originalism means. And that is why all judges should be originalists.

 

[PepsiVanilla]

Yo, what has this thread become?

Do you know what the second election that kids picked wrong was. I want to say Bush would be it.

I remember voting for Obama in 08, and him winning, so I think he is off the table.

The first was Kerry in 2004, which I actually remember hearing about IRL when it got considerable press at the time.

 

[Harvey Danger]

The year isn't 1776 anymore. Times change. The founding fathers were okay with black people being enslaved. Do you want to go back to that? Actually, don't answer that because I am guessing you do

Times changed, and the Constitution changed, through this thing called Amendments. Maybe you heard about them. We don't have slavery any more because the nation came together to pass Amendments, not because your and your buddies signed a Change.org petition.

You want things to change with the times, do it the correct way, or stop whining that the rest of the country won't go along with your ideas. "It's Current Year(tm)" is mocked for a reason, and repeating it doesn't make the Constitution any less valid.

Convince a majority that it's important enough to change the laws, and you win the argument. If you prefer to get 5 judges to subvert the law of the land, you just might be an authoritarian asshole. If you're freaking out that your side only has 4 biased judges available to subvert democracy, you don't deserve sympathy or a place in the debate.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

Lol what the hell were the laws in 1776 then? That is the original interpretation of it. We should be trying to move forward, not backwards.

You can read them for yourself. They're in the Constitution, after all. The vast majority of them, as written in the original Constitution, have been followed to the letter in which they were written for hundreds of years.

The Bill of Rights (the first series of amendments) however...

 

[Tour of Italy]

Anyone who advocates for originalism is batshit insane. She wants to bring us back to the original constitution, when women couldn't vote and black people were enslaved. As the world progresses, times change. A supreme court judge should be aware of that.

Is this a fucking bait or are you really just that dumb?

That’s not what originalism means, at all.

The constitution literally contains the means to amend itself. It was amended to address those very things you’re bitching about, in the way prescribed by the original text.

So barring a popular amendment rolling that shit back, all the expanded rights are here to stay. They’re as iron clad in the eyes of an originalist as everything from the original.

 

[FAQnews Correspondent]

Times changed, and the Constitution changed, through this thing called Amendments. Maybe you heard about them. We don't have slavery any more because the nation came together to pass Amendments, not because your and your buddies signed a Change.org petition.

You want things to change with the times, do it the correct way, or stop whining that the rest of the country won't go along with your ideas. "It's Current Year(tm)" is mocked for a reason, and repeating it doesn't make the Constitution any less valid.

Convince a majority that it's important enough to change the laws, and you win the argument. If you prefer to get 5 judges to subvert the law of the land, you just might be an authoritarian asshole. If you're freaking out that your side is down to 4 biased judges, you don't deserve sympathy or a place in the debate.

He's purposefully obtuse, it's a tactic.

 

[-4ZURE-]

The first was Kerry in 2004, which I actually remember hearing about IRL when it got considerable press at the time.

It seems they always go Democrat.

 

[The Pink Panther]

So you are arguing that it is still 1776? I know you Trumpers are known for being slow, but that's a record even for you guys.

What do you think the original constitution was?

literally bait because no fucking shit it's not 1776

At this point, you're just derailing the thread to get a reaction from people because that answer and many others are so stupid that it isn't worth rebutting because I know you're trolling at this point. You purposefully misinterpreted my argument in the means of getting a reaction and I have no business dealing with your Jewish trickery, you filthy shit-eating possible theoretical pajeet.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

literally bait because no fucking shit it's not 1776

At this point, you're just derailing the thread to get a reaction from people because that answer and many others are so stupid that it isn't worth rebutting because I know you're trolling at this point. You purposefully misinterpreted my argument in the means of getting a reaction and I have no business dealing with your Jewish trickery, you filthy shit-eating possible theoretical pajeet.

Am I Jewish, or am I Indian? I wish you Trump cultists would make up your damn minds. I am confused as to what I am because you guys keep changing it.

 

[Lodoss Warrior]

Could you bring them up, please?

Sure. AP News has a decent article listing her comments.

"And as a right that was exercised for the benefit of the community (like voting and jury service), rather than for the benefit of the individual (like free speech or free exercise), it belonged only to virtuous citizens,."

The issue is: the concept of a 'virtuous citizen' seems nebulous and liable to be arbitarily applied or disapplied.

Here's the Breitbart article to show a right-wing rebuttal to the talking point. Basically, ACB made that comment in relation to gun rights, which was the main point of her dissent quoted by the senator. So, legally speaking, she has not made any firm stances on the right to vote.

Still, it's not a good look imo.

 

[EmuWarsVeteran]

Am I Jewish, or am I Indian? I wish you Trump cultists would make up your damn minds. I am confused as to what I am because you guys keep changing it.

You can be an Indian Jew. There's dozens of them. Dozens!

 

[Oats12345]

Am I Jewish, or am I Indian? I wish you Trump cultists would make up your damn minds. I am confused as to what I am because you guys keep changing it.

Your an asshole is that simple