Community >> View Post
Post By
The Avenger

Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: Illiberal upstarts reinvent conservatism
Posted: Thu May 12, 2022 at 05:21:03 pm EDT (Viewed 180 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Illiberal upstarts reinvent conservatism
Posted: Thu May 12, 2022 at 03:44:48 pm EDT (Viewed 179 times)

    The catholic church surprises me. Given the influence of the conservative evangelical movement within the US, I am surprised it is not based on that or more an abstract view of Christianity, being most view the US as being a nation founded on Christian principles.

I recommend this article:

When is a conspiracy theory not a conspiracy theory? When it's true.

To know what's really going on in the American judiciary, including and especially the Supreme Court, one has to become knowledgeable about the Federalist Society and, perhaps even more crucially, the Knights of Malta.

    While I agree with your concern on the application of a theocratic based state it is hypothetically prevented by the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, no, it's not. All the First Amendment does, in this context, is prohibit the establishment of a state religion. This is easily circumvented. Simply legislate in accordance with your religion's moral theology, without explicitly referencing your religion. Don't say, "Catholicism opposes abortion." Say, instead, "Conservatism opposes abortion."

    I hate to break this next part to you but there is not a judge alive or who has lived that has taken the strict intention as written. Even the guys on the court now that claim to will modify definitions as needed. And that has been the case throughout US history.

I don't know why I keep receiving comments like, "I hate to break this next part to you," which seem, to me, to be disrespectful.

In this instance, I will simply reply that I know most judges won't restrict themselves in accordance with originalism. They won't restrict themselves at all. I am saying that I wish they would. My entire concern is the existence of an omnipotent and unassailable judiciary. Such a judiciary seems great when it agrees with your particular ethos. Comes a time when it agrees with your opponents, and suddenly its omnipotence and unassailability will seem like problems to you. Unfortunately, it will be too late to do anything about it.

    The fact that there are unenumerated rights should also not be that controversial to you. Given the 14th Amendment and the 9th Amendment in particular.

Unenumerated rights of course exist. But what are they? We don't know - because they're unenumerated!

Suppose I say to you, "All married men have the right to demand sex from their wives, and punish non-compliance." You say, "No they don't!" I say, "Sure they do. It's unenumerated!"

    It is simply not always clear what was meant in certain views. And there are clearly different views on the matter. Consider the Establishment Clause alone. Conservative judges are happy enough to ignore it or break it down when it seems pretty clear that the reading indicates that state sponsored religion is not ok, but the language as it is does not inform us as to where the specific line is. And Courts have fought about it for ages.

Which is precisely why I want legislatures to legislate. Put it in writing.

    The Constitution itself is also full of alot of material that does not count as such anymore. Militias are rarely used for instance so what does the Second Amendment mean?

The Framers wanted to make sure their states would not be disarmed by the federal government. An honest application of originalism would show that a lot of what's in the Constitution is there to protect state rights, not individual rights.

But see, here's the point: originalism is something that's amenable to debate. We can gather evidence for conflicting points of view and have it out on the intellectual arena. It isn't the arbitrary whims of omnipotent and unassailable judges.

But I'm willing to entertain some other principle that could be used to tell judges to their faces, "You're wrong."

On another thread I proposed the following:

The Freedoms Amendment

The Supreme Court shall pass no new judgment that decreases or restricts the freedoms of individuals, and shall invalidate any new action of the federal or state legislature which decreases or restricts the freedoms of individuals. No individual shall be understood as having, nor be newly granted, the right or freedom to decrease or restrict the freedoms of any other individual on any grounds whatsoever, including religious.

    Sorry for the tangent. I agree with your general point that nobody should be ruled by anothers religion or really beliefs but I just think the law and Constitution are very vague in certain areas.

Which is why I want legislatures to legislate.


      By the way, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are Catholic.

    Which is fine, it should not matter. People can be whatever they want. I have more concerns with Roberts friendliness to business, Thomas's hostility towards any befinicial regulation, Alito being a partisan and Kavanaugh being apparently out for revenge in his approval hearings.

Unfortunately, the excessive influence of Catholic natural law theology on the United States judiciary is not, in my opinion, fine. It does matter.

Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software