MAGAThread XIX: Hambergers, Noble Prizes, & Disinfectant

[Kowani]

guys, this 2016 law article by one amy coney barrett is a wild ride, yo

an excerpt:



and that's just the ìntroduction, a thought exercise if you will, from a leading candidate in trump's (and mcconnell's?) shortlist

She actually questions the Constitutionality of West Virginia even existing?

Ironically, she has a point there.
By most standards, WV is an exercise in "the ends justify the means."

[Valrifell]

guys, this 2016 law article by one amy coney barrett is a wild ride, yo

an excerpt:



and that's just the ìntroduction, a thought exercise if you will, from a leading candidate in trump's (and mcconnell's?) shortlist

She actually questions the Constitutionality of West Virginia even existing?

I mean to be fair, the Constitution stipulates that states can only be made out of other states if the majority of the relevant statehouse agrees. Richmond didn't support the existence of WV, but nobody cared.

"Does WV have a legal standing to exist?" imho, maybe not.

[The Black Forrest]

guys, this 2016 law article by one amy coney barrett is a wild ride, yo

an excerpt:



and that's just the ìntroduction, a thought exercise if you will, from a leading candidate in trump's (and mcconnell's?) shortlist

Brown v Board being a bad case isn't actually too uncommon an opinion.

Amoung originalists or in general?

There's even a book out there that I highly recommend by people who otherwise agree with the decision that makes the argument it was reached incorrectly and they lay out a scenario for how it should have been done instead. It's called What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said for anyone curious.

It’s on my “to read” list with is rather large You think the lockdowns would shrink it. It only allows for more to be added.

I did a small check on Balkin and found this:

https://scholarlycommons.law.northweste ... kingpapers

Someone doesn’t like him.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Brown v Board being a bad case isn't actually too uncommon an opinion.

Amoung originalists or in general?

Both really. Even liberal leaning types who otherwise agree with it can fully believe the end point was reached incorrectly. It's a really interesting case because of that.

It’s on my “to read” list with is rather large You think the lockdowns would shrink it. It only allows for more to be added.

I know the pain, my reading list has expanded exponentially this year

[Diahon]

guys, this 2016 law article by one amy coney barrett is a wild ride, yo

an excerpt:



and that's just the ìntroduction, a thought exercise if you will, from a leading candidate in trump's (and mcconnell's?) shortlist

Brown v Board being a bad case isn't actually too uncommon an opinion. There's even a book out there that I highly recommend by people who otherwise agree with the decision that makes the argument it was reached incorrectly and they lay out a scenario for how it should have been done instead. It's called What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said for anyone curious.

yeah i come across arguments against brown a fair bit

none of them have been originalist, though, and i assume that book of yours isn't so premised as well?

[Telconi]

She actually questions the Constitutionality of West Virginia even existing?

Ironically, she has a point there.
By most standards, WV is an exercise in "the ends justify the means."

That's basically the entire civil war. The government justified different actions both on the basis that the Confederate states were foreign enemies without legal standing, but also they were legal United States territories with U.S. citizens who were just committing crimes.

They applied whichever take justified their actions after the fact.

[Bear Stearns]

Ironically, she has a point there.
By most standards, WV is an exercise in "the ends justify the means."

That's basically the entire civil war. The government justified different actions both on the basis that the Confederate states were foreign enemies without legal standing, but also they were legal United States territories with U.S. citizens who were just committing crimes.

They applied whichever take justified their actions after the fact.

Lincoln basically ruled as a dictator, especially after 1863. But no one cared because it was viewed a necessary cost to win the war.

[Valrifell]

That's basically the entire civil war. The government justified different actions both on the basis that the Confederate states were foreign enemies without legal standing, but also they were legal United States territories with U.S. citizens who were just committing crimes.

They applied whichever take justified their actions after the fact.

Lincoln basically ruled as a dictator, especially after 1863. But no one cared because it was viewed a necessary cost to win the war.

That's kind of a running theme with war time presidents tbf.

[Kowani]

Lincoln basically ruled as a dictator, especially after 1863. But no one cared because it was viewed a necessary cost to win the war.

That's kind of a running theme with war time presidents tbf.

Sometimes, the ends do justify the means.

[Vassenor]

Mitt Romney's position is that Donald Trump is a corrupt President guilty of high crimes worthy of removal AND he should make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court moments before the voters weigh in on who should be President.

Totally logical and morally consistent

[Farnhamia]

Mitt Romney's position is that Donald Trump is a corrupt President guilty of high crimes worthy of removal AND he should make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court moments before the voters weigh in on who should be President.

Totally logical and morally consistent

Sure. Did Trump say he'd buy Romney dinner again if he wins? Makes me wonder if Trump stuck Romney with the check for that first one back when Romney thought he was going to be the Secretary of State.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Mitt Romney's position is that Donald Trump is a corrupt President guilty of high crimes worthy of removal AND he should make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court moments before the voters weigh in on who should be President.

Totally logical and morally consistent

But Romney is still a Republican and thinks like a Republican, not a Democrat, that does not mean President Trump's Pick of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, or my fellow Cuban American Judge Barbara Lagoa, or whomever it is, is the same way Romney Judges President Trump. Both leading candidates and all candidates, are highly qualified Conservative Republican US Supreme Court Justice candidates, which most if not all leftists and anti Trump persons are not going to like anyway, based on their personal and political views, this is a Fact. oh did I of all persons say Facts, lol, have mercy whatever the heck that means, lol again.

[Jerzylvania]

Mitt Romney's position is that Donald Trump is a corrupt President guilty of high crimes worthy of removal AND he should make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court moments before the voters weigh in on who should be President.

Totally logical and morally consistent

Sure. Did Trump say he'd buy Romney dinner again if he wins? Makes me wonder if Trump stuck Romney with the check for that first one back when Romney thought he was going to be the Secretary of State.

Trump promised Mitt to convert to Mormonism, but Donny's negotiated the baptismal to be timed after his death.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Mitt Romney's position is that Donald Trump is a corrupt President guilty of high crimes worthy of removal AND he should make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court moments before the voters weigh in on who should be President.

Totally logical and morally consistent

Sure. Did Trump say he'd buy Romney dinner again if he wins? Makes me wonder if Trump stuck Romney with the check for that first one back when Romney thought he was going to be the Secretary of State.

lol, good one Farnhamia, I am having a lol attack,

[Telconi]

Mitt Romney's position is that Donald Trump is a corrupt President guilty of high crimes worthy of removal AND he should make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court moments before the voters weigh in on who should be President.

Totally logical and morally consistent

Yes.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Mitt Romney's position is that Donald Trump is a corrupt President guilty of high crimes worthy of removal AND he should make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court moments before the voters weigh in on who should be President.

Totally logical and morally consistent

Yes.

Yes, with still being a Republican who thinks like a Republican, not a Democrat on US Conservative Republican US Supreme Court Justices candidates, all of whom are highly qualified to do so and be so, Yes, very logically and morally consistent.

Add these comments to my previous related post:
viewtopic.php?p=37681614#p37681614

[Idzequitch]

American politicians continue to prove that they are hypocrites and immoral scoundrels who don't give a crap about the status or wellbeing of the USA as long as their brand of politics is implemented.

[Telconi]

American politicians continue to prove that they are hypocrites and immoral scoundrels who don't give a crap about the status or wellbeing of the USA as long as their brand of politics is implemented.

Their brand of politics is the well being of the USA.

[Valrifell]

American politicians continue to prove that they are hypocrites and immoral scoundrels who don't give a crap about the status or wellbeing of the USA as long as their brand of politics is implemented.

Their brand of politics is the well being of the USA.

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

[Telconi]

Their brand of politics is the well being of the USA.

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Yes, and theirs.

[Vassenor]

American politicians continue to prove that they are hypocrites and immoral scoundrels who don't give a crap about the status or wellbeing of the USA as long as their brand of politics is implemented.

Their brand of politics is the well being of the USA.

Without mentioning guns, explain how this objectively benefits the wellbeing of the USA.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

American politicians continue to prove that they are hypocrites and immoral scoundrels who don't give a crap about the status or wellbeing of the USA as long as their brand of politics is implemented.

They put their bank accounts before any ideological belief, sense of honor, and their duty to their constituents and the country. They're scum. We need a revolution.

[Telconi]

Their brand of politics is the well being of the USA.

Without mentioning guns, explain how this objectively benefits the wellbeing of the USA.

Because guns.

[Greater Miami Shores]

American politicians continue to prove that they are hypocrites and immoral scoundrels who don't give a crap about the status or wellbeing of the USA as long as their brand of politics is implemented.

I guess you mean on both sides the Republicans and the Democrats, as I keep posting they both play politics, neither are Political Saints, this is a Fact, I am right and correct for at least once on NS.

[Fahran]

Without mentioning guns, explain how this objectively benefits the wellbeing of the USA.

Barrett has made some pretty sound rulings in the past. Doe v. Purdue University ruled against discrimination on the basis of sex with regard to what amounted to a kangaroo court organized by the university's Advisory Committee on Equity finding a male student guilty of sexual assault without an opportunity for a fair hearing or the presentation of exculpatory evidence. Her dissent in Kantar v. Barr acknowledged the rights of non-violent felons. And she's been pretty strongly supportive of the 4th Amendment, which would counteract a lot of alleged police misconduct and abuse at a time when it's a hot button issue. In short, Amy Coney Barrett is unfathomably based and a gudgurl.