Covid - 19

[Guisslapp]

No, I see it as the SC protecting people's 1st Amendment rights. Since this was aimed directly at religious rights you, as an atheist, giddily cheered Coma on.

But, what if a governor issued an EO that says, "No channel in this state can broadcast CNN and MSNBC. And, copies of the NY Times and the Washington Post are hereby banned. Furthermore, no one is allowed to speak fondly of any left-leaning politician either in person or via social media."

That would be okay, right, since that governor is not Congress, and you would support that governor's edict, right?

Have you read the first Amendment to know what 1st amendment rights people have?


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“

What does the 1st amendment have to do with Cuomo? The first amendment protects Americans against actions taken by Congress, not the states...at least if you are an originalist.

[dawg80]

Have you read the first Amendment to know what 1st amendment rights people have?


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“

What does the 1st amendment have to do with Cuomo? The first amendment protects Americans against actions taken by Congress, not the states...at least if you are an originalist.

So, you're okay with a governor blocking people's free speech rights...got it.

By the way, even Guvnar Coma admits President Trump has been unfairly treated by the media. I suppose now that they think he's gone, they can safely tell the truth.

[Guisslapp]

So, you're okay with a governor blocking people's free speech rights...got it.

By the way, even Guvnar Coma admits President Trump has been unfairly treated by the media. I suppose now that they think he's gone, they can safely tell the truth.

I thought you were an originalist? I am not.

[FriscoDog]

I thought you were an originalist? I am not.

So an originalist would say that the states could say no to gay marriage, abortion, and thumb their noses at any assault weapons ban or such? Just seeing if I have your definition correct.

[Guisslapp]

So an originalist would say that the states could say no to gay marriage, abortion, and thumb their noses at any assault weapons ban or such? Just seeing if I have your definition correct.

Sure, an originalist would say that it is within a states right to do any of that, or the opposite. But no judge is actually an originalist. A true originalist though wouldn’t even think the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review in the first place. That isn’t in the constitution.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Sure, an originalist would say that it is within a states right to do any of that, or the opposite. But no judge is actually an originalist. A true originalist though wouldn’t even think the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review in the first place. That isn’t in the constitution.

Dawg80 nailed you sir.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Sure, an originalist would say that it is within a states right to do any of that, or the opposite. But no judge is actually an originalist. A true originalist though wouldn’t even think the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review in the first place. That isn’t in the constitution.

Dawg80 and FriscoDog nailed you sir.

[Guisslapp]

Dawg80 and FriscoDog nailed you sir.

An originalist wouldn’t have found Cuomo’s executive order unconstitutional. Gorsuch and Barrett are clearly not originalists. But I never believed them when they claimed to be.

[dawg80]

An originalist wouldn’t have found Cuomo’s executive order unconstitutional. Gorsuch and Barrett are clearly not originalists. But I never believed them when they claimed to be.

I understand the point you are trying to make. I can read and comprehend the written word...such as the 1st Amendment as written. I also understand the "original" intent of the Founding Fathers given the historical context in which they lived and what the key issues were at their time. So, you can high five yourself...I suppose you could do that in a mirror...for clearly defining the "purest" definition of "originalist" as it pertains to the Constitution. However, there are those....yes, I have been doing a little research for opinions on the topic...that more "liberally" define "originalism" as meaning an interpretation of what the Founding Fathers meant. Constitutionalists(originalists) accept all the amendments added to the "original" document as long as they were added following the instructions in the Constitution (Article 5).

What is meant by "originalists" is the proper application of law and that manifests in "separation of powers" between the three branches. Judges should not, CAN NOT, legally create law from the bench. That is the arena of a legislative body. All a judge can do is rule that a law, some EO, violates the written law, but that judge(s) CAN NOT then say, wait, the bench will fix it, rewrite the EO such that it now meets written law.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg made it 100% crystal clear that Roe v. Wade was terrible "law." An awful bastardization of the role of the SC. She said that state legislatures, and state legislatures alone...note, she did not say the US Congress...had the authority to enact such laws. That made Ruthie an "originalist" in that context.

From one article I read:

That brings us to the final misconception: Isn’t originalism just a rationalization for conservative results? The short answer is “no.” Originalists take the bitter with the sweet. They may not like federal income taxes or the direct election of senators, but they accept the original meaning of the 16th and 17th amendments on those points. Moreover, originalists often believe – whether on abortion or same-sex marriage, for example – that controversial political and moral questions should be decided by the democratic, legislative process, a process that can lead to progressive, libertarian or conservative outcomes.

[Guisslapp]

I understand the point you are trying to make. I can read and comprehend the written word...such as the 1st Amendment as written. I also understand the "original" intent of the Founding Fathers given the historical context in which they lived and what the key issues were at their time. So, you can high five yourself...I suppose you could do that in a mirror...for clearly defining the "purest" definition of "originalist" as it pertains to the Constitution. However, there are those....yes, I have been doing a little research for opinions on the topic...that more "liberally" define "originalism" as meaning an interpretation of what the Founding Fathers meant. Constitutionalists(originalists) accept all the amendments added to the "original" document as long as they were added following the instructions in the Constitution (Article 5).

What is meant by "originalists" is the proper application of law and that manifests in "separation of powers" between the three branches. Judges should not, CAN NOT, legally create law from the bench. That is the arena of a legislative body. All a judge can do is rule that a law, some EO, violates the written law, but that judge(s) CAN NOT then say, wait, the bench will fix it, rewrite the EO such that it now meets written law.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg made it 100% crystal clear that Roe v. Wade was terrible "law." An awful bastardization of the role of the SC. She said that state legislatures, and state legislatures alone...note, she did not say the US Congress...had the authority to enact such laws. That made Ruthie an "originalist" in that context.

From one article I read:

That brings us to the final misconception: Isn’t originalism just a rationalization for conservative results? The short answer is “no.” Originalists take the bitter with the sweet. They may not like federal income taxes or the direct election of senators, but they accept the original meaning of the 16th and 17th amendments on those points. Moreover, originalists often believe – whether on abortion or same-sex marriage, for example – that controversial political and moral questions should be decided by the democratic, legislative process, a process that can lead to progressive, libertarian or conservative outcomes.

There is no other amendment that clearly applies the protections of the first amendment to the states. That came about due to the “incorporation doctrine”, which itself is not an originalist interpretation of the 14th amendment. That didn’t come about until the 1920s. Before that the SC said that the 14th amendment didn’t apply the 1st and 2nd amendment to the states. That was some artful legislating from the bench.

Framer’s intent is a different concept from originalism and it is also fraught with application issues - particularly the faulty premise that the framer’s actually agreed on what was intended. They didn’t.

The common law is based entirely on the idea of legislating from the bench, so i wouldn’t get too hung up on that.

The more you study law and understand your own blind spots, you realize that absolutist legal ideologies and constructions are all failures.

Originalism is a mirage and you can’t trust judges that call themselves that. They either don’t know history or themselves. We should expect more.

[dawg80]

I trust such judges WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than the libtard ones who think they as an unelected judge can MAKE law from the bench.

[Guisslapp]

I trust such judges WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than the libtard ones who think they as an unelected judge can MAKE law from the bench.

What do you think common law is? What do you think legal precedent is?

[FriscoDog]

Interesting article published by John Hopkins faculty member Briand. JHU deleted the study, but they did not dispute anything in the article was incorrect. They just made blanket statement that it needed further research and that the article was being used against COVID narrative. What will be interesting is at end of this year, compare number of deaths in U.S. (total) to years past to see how much difference there is. That will not be easy to manipulate as people say "follow the science/data".


https://notthebee.com/article/a-few-...n-its-entirety

[dawg80]

What do you think common law is? What do you think legal precedent is?

I think it is wrong.

[Guisslapp]

I think it is wrong.

It is cute how you form an opinion on something before you even understand it.

The Constitution talks about “due process”, but it never tells you what exactly that entails. Where do you think one looks to understand what due process is under the Constitution?Well, that would be the common law. You have to understand common law to understand the constitution.

I am telling you, it is impossible to be an absolutist when it comes to the various canons of construction. This is not like some doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. There is a reason that there isn’t just a single canon of construction. Jurists have to apply reasoning skills to arrive at interpretations of statutory and common law (and sometimes constitutional law), considering the facts before the court as well as the universe of facts of similar cases not before the court, to render opinions that are “just” for the case at hand but being careful not to decide cases that are not before the court by ruling on to broad of a basis. Louisiana is the one oddball state in the country that doesn’t exactly follow these legal traditions, even though it is very much bound by the common law on issues of Constitutional law or other matters of federal preemption.