Timex
1850
Yes, and it’s a totally legitimate way to interpret the constitution and law. Indeed, in the face of potential fascism and authoritarianism, it helps lend strength to the rule of law, because it places value upon the law itself, over the men who may enforce it.
The reason why it’s not the same as a salafist, is because the law isn’t from an ancient book… it’s produced by our government. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
It places the responsibility for crafting good laws in the hands of Congress, and thus in the hands of the people who elect them. The position that all we have is the text itself, and shouldn’t inject our own bias onto it through interpretation, is a reasonable one.
vyshka
1851
I always find these stories (sadly) amusing. Along with the stories of people saying God could control/guide Trump. If that is your belief isn’t it the case that God could do the same to anyone sitting in the office? It seems like it was just a justification to ignore your faith and its teachings in order to vote for Trump.
Everyone thinks God helps them win, but no one wants to think about God doing it when they lose.
Historic!
TEASER: (Series of zoom shots of the candidates sitting in a darkened room, nervously looking at each other)
vyshka
1854
It is the first time it has happened in like 365 days!
I mean, it will be historic when Trump announces SCOTUS has been cancelled and that all legal decisions from now on will be made live on Celebrity Apprentice.
I trust a twitter account with a cat avatar more
Did you even read the thread?
Yes. Have you?
None of this changes the fact that a twitter account with a cat avatar is more trustworthy.
(PS /s)
ShivaX
1862
I mean, it’s possible? Twitter isn’t exactly conducive to proper grammar or analysis of said grammar imo.
We could always get Jester or his ilk on it and find out.
KevinC
1863
No. More likely, he will interpret that right to mean every single citizen is allowed to decorate their homes with ursine appendages.
Since there’s no real “proof” of either side being more trustworthy than the other, I’d say they’re about equal. No one has any idea who cat avatar guy is. But no one has any idea who’s running RoguePOTUSStaff either. Both unknowns, both equally trustworthy/untrustworthy. Follower count does not imply trustworthiness.
But what he says makes a lot of sense. And how many non native English speakers who started out speaking Russian are there working at the White House? Just seems like the sort of detail that might be missed in setting up something like a fake twitter account.
ShivaX
1865
Supreme Court is now Judicial Apprentice.
So you’re saying RoguePOTUSstaff is Meliana, obviously.
Timex
1867
We can look at Scalia for an example of constitutional literalism regarding the second amendment.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/takingnote/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/?referer=
Here is Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court reversed a long-held position and ruled that the Second Amendment did give Americans an individual right to own firearms. The court said the District’s ban on handguns in private homes went too far, but that regulation of gun ownership was compatible with the Second Amendment:
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”
Justice Scalia also wrote:
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
Haha! I hadn’t even thought of that.
How fucking AMAZING would that be?
Nerdy post-joke footnote: according to her PR, Meliana speaks Slovene, Serbian, German, French and English, but no mention of Russian.
