Sign in to follow this  
The Joker

Amy Coney Barrett Let the Knives and Shields come out

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, jzk said:

Seems like you think that if something has existed for 240 years, it can't be made better.

I'm sure that it can be made better/more equitable for everyone. I'm also pretty sure you're not the guy to make that happen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jzk said:

My position on this is so outrageous and so ridiculous, that at least one Supreme Court Justice has the same position.  Soon to be two.

1, possibly 2, out of 9.  Impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, amphib44 said:
3 hours ago, jzk said:

How could the court invalidate commerce?  Be nice if it just interpreted the Constitution properly.

If they did so, there are plenty of things that should be amended.  Why not just amend it the right way?

240 years of judicial rule and opinion by hundreds of legal scholars, and they have been interpreting the Constitution incorrectly the whole time. Who'd a thunk it?! Sir, you waste your valuable time trying to educate the morans on this website. Make the move to Harvard Law, where you can teach the young before they become polluted by incorrect legal philosophy. Please, run for a local judgeship, where you can begin to reweave the fabric our judicial system, so long the victim of wrong-thinking judicial "scholars".

arrogant ass... 

Got it in one.

JZK's legal opinions are a lot less amusing, but every bit as factual, as his economic and political opinions.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

1, possibly 2, out of 9.  Impressive.

More like 2, probably 3, soon to be 4 and just quite possibly 5.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Got it in one.

JZK's legal opinions are a lot less amusing, but every bit as factual, as his economic and political opinions.

- DSK

While it is true that you aren't one of the forum retards that Jiblet and Astro are, you are in like the bottom 10% of intellectual talent presented by this fine discussion board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, jzk said:

More like 2, probably 3, soon to be 4 and just quite possibly 5.  

So, your position is shared by the minority, until the President stacks the court, and you feel this validates you as a legal scholar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

So, your position is shared by the minority, until the President stacks the court, and you feel this validates you as a legal scholar.

No one is stacking anything.  Just following the Constitution, as written.  

119889932_10225243961874847_2306746342088440856_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

No one is stacking anything.  Just following the Constitution, as written.  

119889932_10225243961874847_2306746342088440856_n.jpg

Remind me of how you viewed this issue with regard to Merrick Garland.  I would suggest the Constitution was NOT followed, in this instance.

For the record, he IS stacking the courts, with the complicity of the lapdog Senate, with judges deemed unfit or unqualified.

But, they past the political litmus test, so you are good with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

While it is true that you aren't one of the forum retards that Jiblet and Astro are, you are in like the bottom 10% of intellectual talent presented by this fine discussion board.

Which is why you can't answer any of the questions I give you

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Remind me of how you viewed this issue with regard to Merrick Garland.  I would suggest the Constitution was NOT followed, in this instance.

For the record, he IS stacking the courts, with the complicity of the lapdog Senate, with judges deemed unfit or unqualified.

But, they past the political litmus test, so you are good with it.

Obama had the power to appoint the nominee, and the Senate the power to consent.  The Senate didn't consent.  They don't have to consent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Which is why you can't answer any of the questions I give you

- DSK

It is just that they usually aren't that interesting.  Sorry, but that is the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

It is just that they usually aren't that interesting.  Sorry, but that is the truth.

Yeah sure

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jzk said:

Obama had the power to appoint the nominee, and the Senate the power to consent.  The Senate didn't consent.  They don't have to consent.  

They refused to consider the nomination. Never came close to having to consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gangbusters said:

They refused to consider the nomination. Never came close to having to consent.

That sounds like one big absence of consent to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gangbusters said:
9 minutes ago, jzk said:

Obama had the power to appoint the nominee, and the Senate the power to consent.  The Senate didn't consent.  They don't have to consent.  

They refused to consider the nomination. Never came close to having to consent.

Bingo.

If the parties were switched, jzk would have been screaming his pointy head off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

Bingo.

If the parties were switched, jzk would have been screaming his pointy head off.

I am not a Republican.   Why the pointy head insult?  You have generally been civil in these discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

That sounds like one big absence of consent to me.

And once again you are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gangbusters said:

And once again you are wrong.

Check the Supreme Court roster.  You will notice that Garland is not on it.  Garland is not on it because the Senate didn't consent to Obama's appointment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

Check the Supreme Court roster.  You will notice that Garland is not on it.  Garland is not on it because the Senate didn't consent to Obama's appointment.  

The unprecedented refusal of a Senate majority to consider the nomination was deemed highly controversial. Some Republican lawmakers even suggested leaving the court with just eight seats if Hillary Clinton were to be elected, saying they would block Garland or any other nominee and keep the seat vacant for at least another presidential term.[1] Garland's nomination lasted 293 days and expired on January 3, 2017, at the end of the 114th Congress

It was never even considered. There is a difference. The result might be the same, but the process is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gangbusters said:

The unprecedented refusal of a Senate majority to consider the nomination was deemed highly controversial. Some Republican lawmakers even suggested leaving the court with just eight seats if Hillary Clinton were to be elected, saying they would block Garland or any other nominee and keep the seat vacant for at least another presidential term.[1] Garland's nomination lasted 293 days and expired on January 3, 2017, at the end of the 114th Congress

It was never even considered. There is a difference. The result might be the same, but the process is not.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about considering.  Only about advising and consenting.  The President nominated.  The Senate didn't consent.  That is the end of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2020 at 12:29 PM, Shortforbob said:

What?

Oh yeah, don't forget she's blonde and blue eyed too.

 

A little touch of Lebensborn never hurts the cause does it?

Women in Nazi Germany

This is the kind of good arab immigrant we want not that other kind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

Bingo.

If the parties were switched, jzk would have been screaming his pointy head off.

I am not a Republican.   Why the pointy head insult?  You have generally been civil in these discussions.

You may claim to not be a Republican.  That does not negate my point that you'd be screaming if the Dems pulled that shit.

1 hour ago, jzk said:

The Constitution doesn't say anything about considering.  Only about advising and consenting.  The President nominated.  The Senate didn't consent.  That is the end of it.

The Senate GOP did nothing.  Just like the 400+ bills on Majority Leader McConnell's desk.  Including bills regarding election security.

They did nothing.  They sat on their hands.  That is NOT the way it is supposed to work.  Give the guy a hearing and vote up or down.

They knew they had no real way to object to Garland.  So, they obstructed the process.

And, if the parties were reversed, you'd have a problem with it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

You may claim to not be a Republican.  That does not negate my point that you'd be screaming if the Dems pulled that shit.

The Senate GOP did nothing.  Just like the 400+ bills on Majority Leader McConnell's desk.  Including bills regarding election security.

They did nothing.  They sat on their hands.  That is NOT the way it is supposed to work.  Give the guy a hearing and vote up or down.

They knew they had no real way to object to Garland.  So, they obstructed the process.

And, if the parties were reversed, you'd have a problem with it.

If the Dems had the Senate, Trump's nominee would not get confirmed.  Let's be clear about that.  Nothing I could do.

Of course I would oppose adding judicial activists to the court.  But it wouldn't be unconstitutional.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

If the Dems had the Senate, Trump's nominee would not get confirmed.  Let's be clear about that.  Nothing I could do.

That’s the age we are in now. If a judge dies and one party has both WH and Senate, whoever they pick goes in on rails. If they are different parties the WH gets blocked.

However I got a very long text from my *very* Catholic mother today and she is saying three rosaries a day for the defeat of ACB. Mom said she feels bad about not being pro life but said “Not my place to judge. Stuff is complicated.” She always felt very strongly about the efficacy of the three rosaries program, and strangely never uses it for things, she always prays against things. Scared the shit out of me as a kid. Hope it works this time.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Thank you Jeff. I'm not going to go down the hallway until we are both in the same room though.  The 4th is about searches and seizures by the government.  How does it create a right to privacy?

 

If you think the 4th Am does not confer a "right to privacy", you might want to take that up with Cornell Law School.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment

Quote

The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

That’s the age we are in now. If a judge dies and one party has both WH and Senate, whoever they pick goes in on rails. If they are different parties the WH gets blocked.

However I got a very long text from my *very* Catholic mother today and she is saying three rosaries a day for the defeat of ACB. Mom said she feels bad about not being pro life but said “Not my place to judge. Stuff is complicated.” She always felt very strongly about the efficacy of the three rosaries program, and strangely never uses it for things, she always prays against things. Scared the shit out of me as a kid. Hope it works this time.

 

I'll have to ask my Irish Catholic mom what she's praying for.

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell is up with Dianne Feinstein? Has she gone full retrograde?

Quote

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has lost the support of abortion rights group NARAL after she hugged Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and praised his handling of the hearings for Supreme Court Justice nominee Amy Coney Barrett. The group said that the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee “offered an appearance of credibility to the proceedings that is wildly out of step with the American people. As such, we believe the committee needs new leadership.” Barrett is outspokenly anti-abortion and her nomination process was heavily criticized for being rammed through by Republicans just before the election. She will replace the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had voted in favor of abortion rights. Feinstein praised Graham At the end of this week’s hearings, Feinstein called it “one of the best Senate hearings that I’ve participated in.”

Posted by the WaPo via The Daily Beast. https://www.thedailybeast.com/abortion-rights-group-ditches-support-for-sen-diane-feinstein-after-praise-of-lindsey-graham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

If you think the 4th Am does not confer a "right to privacy", you might want to take that up with Cornell Law School.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment

 

I said no such thing.  I asked you how the words of the fourth amendment convey a right that is not expressly written therein.  I don't see 'people shall have a right to privacy' in there.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Which is why you can't answer any of the questions I give you

- DSK

Probably the same reason old AJ never gives references even when I ask him politely.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

 I don't see 'people shall have a right to privacy' in there.

Ummm, well how about the 10th?  

Shouldn't the gummint have an explicit authority to invade our privacy? Where is that? 

Asking as a non-lawyer 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Probably the same reason old AJ never gives references even when I ask him politely.

FKT

OMG, what did I do now ?? When have you ever in your life been "polite"? 

Could it be a grudge ? 

Grow up Dude 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Remind me of how you viewed this issue with regard to Merrick Garland.  I would suggest the Constitution was NOT followed, in this instance.

For the record, he IS stacking the courts, with the complicity of the lapdog Senate, with judges deemed unfit or unqualified.

But, they past the political litmus test, so you are good with it.

Advice and CONSENT:D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jzk said:

If the Dems had the Senate, Trump's nominee would not get confirmed.  Let's be clear about that.  Nothing I could do.

Of course I would oppose adding judicial activists to the court.  But it wouldn't be unconstitutional.  

Adding regressive judicial activists to the court is concerning to some of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

121806199_3877556235622663_9079422131210100871_n.png

This, of course, is false.  

Read the text of Article one, section two.

Now read the text of the 13th Amendment. 

On its face, there are no people to which the three fifths clause applies today.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jzk said:

 

This, of course, is false.  

Read the text of Article one, section two.

Now read the text of the 13th Amendment. 

On its face, there are no people to which the three fifths clause applies today.  

What does the word "originalism" mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

What does the word "originalism" mean?

It means to interpret the law as written giving the words the meaning they had at the time they were written.  To be super precise, this is a combination of originalism and textualism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that Hannity clip for real?  Or a good fake?  I can't believe he stopped drinking the kool-aid!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ishmael said:

What the hell is up with Dianne Feinstein? Has she gone full retrograde?

Posted by the WaPo via The Daily Beast. https://www.thedailybeast.com/abortion-rights-group-ditches-support-for-sen-diane-feinstein-after-praise-of-lindsey-graham

I did not vote for DiFi. Much respect, but sometimes it’s time to retire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:

It means to interpret the law as written giving the words the meaning they had at the time they were written.  To be super precise, this is a combination of originalism and textualism.

Kinda like fundamentalist Christians. The original text means what they think it means. It has nothing to do with original meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Raz'r said:
2 hours ago, jzk said:

It means to interpret the law as written giving the words the meaning they had at the time they were written.  To be super precise, this is a combination of originalism and textualism.

Kinda like fundamentalist Christians. The original text means what they think it means. It has nothing to do with original meaning.

It means "The law favors the wealthy" when you go by the results.

If we go by the original text of the Constitution, we have slavery, Senators appointed by the states, no standing Army, and no restrictions on owning black powder weapons including cannon. Of course, the Constitution was written in tongues so nobody but a religious whackoe handling a snake can properly understand what it is truly supposed to mean.

- DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

It means "The law favors the wealthy" when you go by the results.

If we go by the original text of the Constitution, we have slavery, Senators appointed by the states, no standing Army, and no restrictions on owning black powder weapons including cannon. Of course, the Constitution was written in tongues so nobody but a religious whackoe handling a snake can properly understand what it is truly supposed to mean.

- DSK

 

The great part about the Constitution is that it explains in detail the amendment process by which you can change and update it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

The great part about the Constitution is that it explains in detail the amendment process by which you can change and update it.

Is "amended" or "changed" or "updated" the same thing as "original"?

Make up your tiny mind.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I said no such thing.  I asked you how the words of the fourth amendment convey a right that is not expressly written therein.  I don't see 'people shall have a right to privacy' in there.

I'm not getting into this semantic word game dick competition with you.  If you want to actually have an adult conversation, knock this pedant word "Gotcha" game off. 

So do you think the 4th conveys a right to privacy or not?  I believe (as does most the US legal community and the rest of the gen pop) that the 4th is about a general (but not unlimited or absolute) right to privacy.  

But we both know that RvW has little to do with the 4th but more of a fucked up interpretation of the 14th.  So let's talk like adults and quit this game of semantics and gotcha.  We are not in a courtroom, and I'm not interested in your BS.  Your move sir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

It means "The law favors the wealthy" when you go by the results.

If we go by the original text of the Constitution, we have slavery, Senators appointed by the states, no standing Army, and no restrictions on owning black powder weapons including cannon. Of course, the Constitution was written in tongues so nobody but a religious whackoe handling a snake can properly understand what it is truly supposed to mean.

- DSK

 

Why do you hate America so much?  First of all, what legal document isn't fucking written in tongues that requires people like Clean and his elk to charge you $400 an hour to interpret it when it could be written in simple plain language?  And 2nd of all, the Connie is likely harder to read due to fact that the language of the day was vastly different that it is now 230 years later.  So there is that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

Why do you hate America so much?  First of all, what legal document isn't fucking written in tongues that requires people like Clean and his elk to charge you $400 an hour to interpret it when it could be written in simple plain language?  And 2nd of all, the Connie is likely harder to read due to fact that the language of the day was vastly different that it is now 230 years later.  So there is that.  

I don't hate America at all, I actually like most of the people that live here, however I find a lot of what has happened to it lately to be rather bad.

And IMHO the Constitution is one of the most clearly written legal documents around. Yes the language is a bit archaic but it's not like the friggin' Domesday Book or even Shakespeare.

The beef I have against "originalism" and "textualism" is that looking at the results, they seem to be sad-ass excuses for deciding in favor of the richest asshole in the room.

Which is exactly what Republican Jesus wants, too

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I don't hate America at all, I actually like most of the people that live here, however I find a lot of what has happened to it lately to be rather bad.

And IMHO the Constitution is one of the most clearly written legal documents around. Yes the language is a bit archaic but it's not like the friggin' Domesday Book or even Shakespeare.

The beef I have against "originalism" and "textualism" is that looking at the results, they seem to be sad-ass excuses for deciding in favor of the richest asshole in the room.

Which is exactly what Republican Jesus wants, too

- DSK

Regrettably, the constitution was written by and for the richest people in the room.  Mostly decent-hearted, liberal-minded guys, except when it came to the rights of womenfolk, Black folks, pesky indigenous types and people without property in general.  So current day "originalists" have quite some fertile ground to plow when they go hunting for support for the seeds of discrimination.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Regrettably, the constitution was written by and for the richest people in the room.  Mostly decent-hearted folks, except when it came to the rights of womenfolk, Black folks, pesky indigenous types and people without property in general.  So current day "originalists" have quite some fertile ground to plow when they go hunting for support for the seeds of discrimination.   

Yep,

This is where it came from. ...

Voting Rights: A Short History

"Despite their belief in the virtues of democracy, the founders of the United States accepted and endorsed severe limits on voting. The U.S. Constitution originally left it to states to determine who is qualified to vote in elections. For decades, state legislatures generally restricted voting to white males who owned property. Some states also employed religious tests to ensure that only Christian men could vote."

And most of us here were born before Blacks could vote in the US.  And this is the document that the fucking wacko's refer to for their arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

And IMHO the Constitution is one of the most clearly written legal documents around. Yes the language is a bit archaic but it's not like the friggin' Domesday Book or even Shakespeare.

How do you square that ^^ with what you said literally like 3 hours before below??? 

3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Of course, the Constitution was written in tongues so nobody but a religious whackoe handling a snake can properly understand what it is truly supposed to mean.

You are slinging BS out so fast you don't even know WTF you're saying anymore.  It literally seems to change by the minute.  UFB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, astro said:

And most of us here were born before Blacks could vote in the US.  And this is the document that the fucking wacko's refer to for their arguments.

REALLY???  You were born before 1870??  Is your name Lazarus by any chance?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:
19 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

And IMHO the Constitution is one of the most clearly written legal documents around. Yes the language is a bit archaic but it's not like the friggin' Domesday Book or even Shakespeare.

How do you square that ^^ with what you said literally like 3 hours before below??? 

3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Of course, the Constitution was written in tongues so nobody but a religious whackoe handling a snake can properly understand what it is truly supposed to mean.

You are slinging BS out so fast you don't even know WTF you're saying anymore.  It literally seems to change by the minute.  UFB.

Well, I see the problem. You're sarcasm-impaired. The Quaylesque spelling and the snake reference might have been a clue.

Probably humor impaired also, but a lot of people do not find my idea of 'funny' to be at all comical, so at least you have company there.

- DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

REALLY???  You were born before 1870??  Is your name Lazarus by any chance?  

Before 1965 when you could be killed in the attempt to vote.

EDIT: and how the fuck could anyone vote for a party that engages in Vote Suppression?  Oh, I get it ... racists would want that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They dared to register blacks to vote, and the KKK killed them: A 52-year-old case is closed — unsolved

A former Klansman is serving what amounts to a life sentence, but one of the most infamous murder cases of the civil rights era has long been overshadowed by a sense of justice denied.

Though three federal investigations spanned decades, prosecutors never obtained a murder conviction. This week, federal and state officials reluctantly conceded that the investigation into the killings of Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney is closed -- and still unresolved.

“There’s nothing else that we can do,” Mississippi Atty. Gen. Jim Hood announced at a news conference Monday, a day before the 52nd anniversary of the slayings. “All’s been done unless some other witness comes forward.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

REALLY???  You were born before 1870??  Is your name Lazarus by any chance?  

Well, 3/5ths of you could be counted when allocating congress critters and electoral college elites, but voting?  Maybe if you had your papers as a "freed man" and wanted to take the risk.  But...Nah, not so much in most states for the run-of-the-mill chained and enslaved Black human pieces of property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

REALLY???  You were born before 1870??  Is your name Lazarus by any chance?   

What a dumb cunt when an Australian has to school you in your own fucking history.

Voting Rights for African Americans

what-a-colored-man-should-do-to-vote.jpg To the Colored Men of Voting Age in the Southern States: What a Colored Man Should Do to Vote, pamphlet circa 1900

A terrible and bloody Civil War freed enslaved Americans. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution (1868) granted African Americans the rights of citizenship. However, this did not always translate into the ability to vote. Black voters were systematically turned away from state polling places. To combat this problem, Congress passed the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870. It says:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Yet states still found ways to circumvent the Constitution and prevent blacks from voting. Poll taxes, literacy tests, fraud and intimidation all turned African Americans away from the polls. Until the Supreme Court struck it down in 1915, many states used the "grandfather clause " to keep descendents of slaves out of elections. The clause said you could not vote unless your grandfather had voted -- an impossibility for most people whose ancestors were slaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, astro said:

What a dumb cunt when an Australian has to school you in your own fucking history.

Voting Rights for African Americans

what-a-colored-man-should-do-to-vote.jpg To the Colored Men of Voting Age in the Southern States: What a Colored Man Should Do to Vote, pamphlet circa 1900

A terrible and bloody Civil War freed enslaved Americans. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution (1868) granted African Americans the rights of citizenship. However, this did not always translate into the ability to vote. Black male voters were systematically turned away from state polling places. To combat this problem, Congress passed the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870. It says:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude (if they have a penis).

Yet states still found ways to circumvent the Constitution and prevent black males from voting. Poll taxes, literacy tests, fraud and intimidation all turned African Americans away from the polls. Until the Supreme Court struck it down in 1915, many states used the "grandfather clause " to keep male descendents of slaves out of elections. The clause said you could not vote unless your grandfather had voted -- an impossibility for most people men whose ancestors were slaves, and for those who were born without a penis.

FIFY

Note the word "Man" in the title.  51% of the population were still disenfranchised.  

(What's interesting to this untrained legal mind of mine is that the 14th and 15th Amendments don't seem to mention gender in any way.  Could a clever attorney have pressed a case to give Black women the vote before the 19th Amendment came along?  Or was the penis part so baked in that it wasn't even a theoretical?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Is "amended" or "changed" or "updated" the same thing as "original"?

Make up your tiny mind.

- DSK

Is this a real question?  And you ask why your questions don't get answered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, astro said:

Before 1965 when you could be killed in the attempt to vote.

EDIT: and how the fuck could anyone vote for a party that engages in Vote Suppression?  Oh, I get it ... racists would want that.

Ah, I see.  When you get caught in your BS, you tapdance and move the goalposts from "right to vote" to "vote suppression".  Typical randumb.

Also, in 1965 - it was the Dems who were doing all the lynching.  Just saying.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jzk said:
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Is "amended" or "changed" or "updated" the same thing as "original"?

Make up your tiny mind.

 

Is this a real question?  And you ask why your questions don't get answered?

Pretty simple, actually. See that curvy thing above the dot at the end? That is called a "question mark" and it's used to MARK a QUESTION.

The question itself also should not be too difficult for anyone of >pinhead-level inteligence. Here's a hint, the answer is either Yes or No.

50/50 chance to get it correct. Of course, that's really really so-o unfair!

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Ah, I see.  When you get caught in your BS, you tapdance and move the goalposts from "right to vote" to "vote suppression".  Typical randumb.

Also, in 1965 - it was the Dems who were doing all the lynching.  Just saying. 

Here's Jeffy,  good try mate but ... no cigar.  BTW tap dancing is so fucking gay, but it suits you.

tumblr_p7qco6yeuB1vczhx4o1_500.gif&f=1&n

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Also, in 1965 - it was the Dems who were doing all the lynching.  Just saying.  

:lol: 1964 was Barry Goldwater who drove blacks from the Republican Party you ignorant fuck.

Quote

As the historian Leah Wright Rigueur describes in The Loneliness of the Black Republican, black delegates were verbally assaulted and threatened with violence by Goldwater supporters. William Young, a Pennsylvania delegate, had his suit set on fire and was told to “keep in your own place” by his assailant. “They call you ‘nigger,’ push you and step on your feet,” New Jersey delegate George Fleming told the Associated Press. “I had to leave to keep my self-respect.”  

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/goldwater-jackie-robinson/474498/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Pretty simple, actually. See that curvy thing above the dot at the end? That is called a "question mark" and it's used to MARK a QUESTION.

The question itself also should not be too difficult for anyone of >pinhead-level inteligence. Here's a hint, the answer is either Yes or No.

50/50 chance to get it correct. Of course, that's really really so-o unfair!

- DSK

Well, dipshit, your question lacks complete understanding of the entire issue.  The amendment process is "original."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2020 at 9:46 AM, jzk said:

I suspect that if I were actually able to mine the metal from my own property, some on the court would argue that I am substantially affecting interstate commerce by making my own gun.

I suspect that homegrown cannabis for personal use affects interstate commerce and I also suspect that the Supreme Court immediately applied that precedent to homegrown machine guns for personal use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

If we go by the original text of the Constitution, we have slavery, Senators appointed by the states, no standing Army, and no restrictions on owning black powder weapons including cannon.

We also have this:

Quote

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

New inventions like radio, TV, and stun guns are anticipated. And covered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Ah, I see.  When you get caught in your BS, you tapdance and move the goalposts from "right to vote" to "vote suppression".  Typical randumb.

Also, in 1965 - it was the Dems who were doing all the lynching.  Just saying.  

Jeff, acknowledge the Southern Strategy and stop posting this shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, roundthebuoys said:

Jeff, acknowledge the Southern Strategy and stop posting this shit.

I fully acknowledge it.  But my statement still stands.  In 1965, the lynching were all Dems.  The "Southern Strategery" didn't happen until 72.  But you knew that already.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I fully acknowledge it.  But my statement still stands.  In 1965, the lynching were all Dems.  The "Southern Strategery" didn't happen until 72.  But you knew that already.  

 

19 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

:lol: 1964 was Barry Goldwater who drove blacks from the Republican Party you ignorant fuck.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/goldwater-jackie-robinson/474498/

He’s so fucking triggered he can’t read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, jzk said:

Is this a real question?  And you ask why your questions don't get answered?

So, you want a California-like system of endless constitutional amendments to handle things like tax policy.

I'd rather we be practical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Unanimous vote to move ACB to confirmation! 

12 Republicans vote to confirm her.  Were you expecting a different outcome?

Another way to phrase it is "vote to confirm ACB falls along party lines".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Unanimous vote to move ACB to confirmation! 

No, it was only the Republicans.  I let my senators know if they voted to confirm I would do my best to see that the GOP is dead in Texas.  They and you don't give 2 shits about anything but power and party before country.  The seeds sown will come to harvest and that is going to be a bitter one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

No, it was only the Republicans.  I let my senators know if they voted to confirm I would do my best to see that the GOP is dead in Texas.  They and you don't give 2 shits about anything but power and party before country.  The seeds sown will come to harvest and that is going to be a bitter one.

Don't know about you but not in my lifetime.  Bret and Amy are pretty darn young and will be there a very long time.  Unless Bret is still boofing....that probably takes a toll on a body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those comfortably ensconced in the Trump Cult bubble this makes perfect sense - anything negative about Trump is fake news and anything negative about anyone else has been ignored and buried by the MSM.  4 decades ago I was leaving a cult and this is just deja vu.  The aftermath is going to be ugly and hopefully at least some will eventually realize they have been conned, used and abused. The rest will just be angry and bitter forever.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

For those comfortably ensconced in the Trump Cult bubble this makes perfect sense - anything negative about Trump is fake news and anything negative about anyone else has been ignored and buried by the MSM.  4 decades ago I was leaving a cult and this is just deja vu.  The aftermath is going to be ugly and hopefully at least some will eventually realize they have been conned, used and abused. The rest will just be angry and bitter forever.

 

There is no Trump bubble for me. I think and have been quoted calling Trump out to be a dick. But I'm more aligned with his economic policies and SCOTUS picks than not. 

However to believe that there has been equal treatment of the Biden issue to any Trump "scandal". You still are in a cult... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Movable Ballast said:

There is no Trump bubble for me. I think and have been quoted calling Trump out to be a dick. But I'm more aligned with his economic policies and SCOTUS picks than not. 

However to believe that there has been equal treatment of the Biden issue to any Trump "scandal". You still are in a cult... 

Uh, no - exactly why cult am I in? The one that demands fact checking and corroboration? That you are aligned with Trump's economic policies means you are deep in the weeds since that has done nothing but skyrocket the debt and artificially prop up the stock market, further enriching the uber wealthy while screwing the bottom 90%,

The man has run an elaborate con and you happily go along with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Uh, no - exactly why cult am I in? The one that demands fact checking and corroboration? That you are aligned with Trump's economic policies means you are deep in the weeds since that has done nothing but skyrocket the debt and artificially prop up the stock market, further enriching the uber wealthy while screwing the bottom 90%,

The man has run an elaborate con and you happily go along with it.

I don't recall you demanding any fact checking for Russia gate. But that's your cult. The cult of Hypocrisy… 

There is no con. The man raised taxes on the wealthy... I should be pissed... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Movable Ballast said:

I don't recall you demanding any fact checking for Russia gate. But that's your cult. The cult of Hypocrisy… 

While I would love to continue with this stimulating conversation there are some Jehovah's Witnesses at the door who want to discuss Jesus with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites