joe biden

monkimark

Do they believe in the original constitution or are the 33 amendments also original?

rjsterry said:

The more I read about the so-called 'originalists' and their deliberations the more absurd they seem to believe that a bunch of jumped up plantation owners had some sort of quasi-divine insight into how to run a country for any and all eventualities. It's like trying to determine how to wire a plug by consulting the Bible.

pblakeney

monkimark said:

Do they believe in the original constitution or are the 33 amendments also original?

Well, we know that they like the second amendment so presumably time stopped sometime between then and the 33rd.

MattFalle

They only like the amendments that suit them.

monkimark

To be fair, you can't follow them all - at least one of them repeals a previous amendment.
When you're making amendments to amend previous amendments, you ought to realise that the constitution isn't exactly infallible.

pblakeney

monkimark said:

To be fair, you can't follow them all - at least one of them repeals a previous amendment.
When you're making amendments to amend previous amendments, you ought to realise that the constitution isn't exactly infallible.

Precisely. It is a fluid document that reflects the change in time.
As it should be.

TheBigBean

I don't understand the arguments here. It's the same as the ECJ deciding whether the EU has the right to allow abortion in Poland.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

I don't understand the arguments here. It's the same as the ECJ deciding whether the EU has the right to allow abortion in Poland.

I think it's mainly we're of the view it's not really the state's responsibility to decide what people can or can't do with their own bodies.

it's not so much a constitutional question as it is focused on the outcome which is, if this happens, 36 million women no longer have access to legal abortions.

Particularly challenging as all the evidence suggests legality of abortions does not change the number of abortions, it just changes the mortality rate of women.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

I don't understand the arguments here. It's the same as the ECJ deciding whether the EU has the right to allow abortion in Poland.

...in 1973, then reaffirming that decision several times, then deciding almost 50 years later that all those cases were wrongly decided. Justified by an opinion that makes no sense.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

I don't understand the arguments here. It's the same as the ECJ deciding whether the EU has the right to allow abortion in Poland.

...in 1973, then reaffirming that decision several times, then deciding almost 50 years later that all those cases were wrongly decided. Justified by an opinion that makes no sense.

That view makes sense. Moaning about a constitution doesn't to me.

Pross

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

I don't understand the arguments here. It's the same as the ECJ deciding whether the EU has the right to allow abortion in Poland.

...in 1973, then reaffirming that decision several times, then deciding almost 50 years later that all those cases were wrongly decided. Justified by an opinion that makes no sense.

That view makes sense. Moaning about a constitution doesn't to me.

I think the references to the Constitution stemmed from that being used as the basis for this reported Supreme Court decision.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

I don't understand the arguments here. It's the same as the ECJ deciding whether the EU has the right to allow abortion in Poland.

...in 1973, then reaffirming that decision several times, then deciding almost 50 years later that all those cases were wrongly decided. Justified by an opinion that makes no sense.

That view makes sense. Moaning about a constitution doesn't to me.

Not moaning about a Constitution: mocking the stupidity of thinking that a set of rules devised in a particular situation are magically applicable to any and all future situations. Also the elevation of the drafters of those rules to demi-gods. See also Magna Carta bores.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

I don't understand the arguments here. It's the same as the ECJ deciding whether the EU has the right to allow abortion in Poland.

...in 1973, then reaffirming that decision several times, then deciding almost 50 years later that all those cases were wrongly decided. Justified by an opinion that makes no sense.

That view makes sense. Moaning about a constitution doesn't to me.

Not moaning about a Constitution: mocking the stupidity of thinking that a set of rules devised in a particular situation are magically applicable to any and all future situations. Also the elevation of the drafters of those rules to demi-gods. See also Magna Carta bores.

That's broadly one of the dissenting views on Roe vs Wade.

pblakeney

We've all been there... 🤣

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-61853794

briantrumpet

Interesting takes on Biden having found (and returned) classified docs he'd mistakenly taken away. Garland has already appointed a special counsel, mirroring the one appointed for Trump and his (apparently) wilful removal and retention and reticence about returning them.

Certainly gives some ammo to the Trumpophiles, though at least having two special counsels means that the Trumpo's won't be able to claim Biden's being treated differently, and could actually make it easier to throw the book at Trump, if the SC deems him to have broken laws.

briantrumpet

Ha, could be...

https://twitter.com/PalmerReport/status/1613693889835327489

rick_chasey

American dream is dead. Long live nepo babies

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/02/16/nepo-babies-are-taking-over-the-workplace

pblakeney

They used to be called dynasties. Just a new label.
May be more prevalent or simply more reported but it's not really new.

orraloon

rick_chasey said:

American dream is dead. Long live nepo babies

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/02/16/nepo-babies-are-taking-over-the-workplace

Nepotism is nothing new. I raise you King Brian. And his befores and afters.

rick_chasey

christ alive, what was the american dream, guys?

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

christ alive, what was the american dream, guys?

A myth?

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

christ alive, what was the american dream, guys?

A myth?

nah, social mobility was a real thing then

pangolin

rick_chasey said:

christ alive, what was the american dream, guys?

A white picket fence?

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

christ alive, what was the american dream, guys?

A myth?

nah, social mobility was a real thing then

When? The place was invented by the landed gentry.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

christ alive, what was the american dream, guys?

A myth?

nah, social mobility was a real thing then

When? The place was invented by the landed gentry.

40s-80/90s

rjsterry

Quite a small window. I guess it's a self-reinforcing idea as well.

Effort and merit is rewarded > I'm being rewarded so I must be brilliant.

Jezyboy

Did that period also see more social mobility in the UK?

I wonder whether the societal and technological changes between the 40s and 90s were more conducive to social mobility.

pblakeney

The American dream in action,

rick_chasey

Jezyboy said:

Did that period also see more social mobility in the UK?

I wonder whether the societal and technological changes between the 40s and 90s were more conducive to social mobility.

Nowhere near the same

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

christ alive, what was the american dream, guys?

A myth?

nah, social mobility was a real thing then

No, myth was the correct answer. The USA is a very unequal society but people have been brainwashed

morstar

USA has baked inequality into the schooling system in a way the UK Tories have wet dreams about.