Does Biden Have Positive Approval Rating Anywhere?

[*Nately120*]

So mean tweets and nothing else?

[BFritz21]

(07-23-2022, 04:52 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Wrote all that instead of just reading the 9th amendment like I asked haha. 

Are you seriously that clueless?

I know what the 9th amendment says and that's what I addressed in my post.

Did you even read my post or did you assume that I didn't quote it directly that I don't know what the amendment says?

Hint: when you do the "haha" thing with no substance and just post the same thing as your previous post, it makes your argument look incredibly weak.

[CJD]

(07-23-2022, 11:56 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Are you seriously that clueless?

I know what the 9th amendment says and that's what I addressed in my post.

Did you even read my post or did you assume that I didn't quote it directly that I don't know what the amendment says?

Hint: when you do the "haha" thing with no substance and just post the same thing as your previous post, it makes your argument look incredibly weak.

I don't know if you know what the amendment says, but I know that you don't know what it means.

So. the 9th amendment reads: 

Quote:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

"enumeration" just means "list of things." So the 9th amendment, in laymen's terms, means "Just because a right isn't explicitly mentioned in the constitution does not mean that it is not protected by the constitution."

This amendment is a direct response to your belief that if the Constitution doesn't specifically mention a right that it should be left to the states. Several founding fathers actually opposed writing the Bill of Rights because they feared that "Enumerating any rights, Wilson argued, might imply that all those not listed were surrendered. And, because it was impossible to enumerate all the rights of the people, a bill of rights might actually be construed to justify the government’s power to limit any liberties of the people that were not enumerated." You said:

Quote:That's why it came back to the states, because the constitution doesn't say anything about the right to murder babies.

and

Quote:How could you possibly counter that the constitution says nothing about abortion and has no right to make any ruling on it?

and

Quote:Anyways, if you had the slightest idea of what you were talking about, you'd know that the judges did their jobs and followed the constitution, which is their job to do, and found that the constitution doesn't have the power to rule on abortion and made it a state matter. So the judges he appointed are following the law of the land, and you have a problem with that and that's Trump's fault?

See, the problem is constitutional fundamentalists, or "originalists" as they sometimes call themselves, have this belief that the Constitution is an all encompassing text that explicitly describes every right that is protected under it to such a degree that you can objectively interpret the Constitution so that there's only one answer to any given question on what rights are protected within it.

In reality, the Constitution is written extraordinarily vaguely with several gaps in its explicit text such as the 9th and 14th amendments. This allows people to interpret the Constitution as subjectively as they wish to protect, or refuse to protect, whichever rights they want based on their ideology or biases. And, in my biased opinion, that is what makes the Supreme Court and the Constitution very flawed, as you can interpret it however you want based on what your beliefs are.

You claimed that the conservative justices of the Supreme Court did their jobs by interpreting the Constitution in such a way that defies 50 years of precedent and ignores the vagueness within the 9th and 14th amendments that are meant to allow for additional rights and protections for the people (often times, rights to privacy and bodily autonomy) that just so happen to perfectly fall in line with their personal political beliefs. That's fine if that's your belief but you seem to not understand that that is a subjective reading of the constitution done in service of their political beliefs. The idea that the Supreme Court is an apolitical branch of government has always been a fantasy but these justices have laid bare the truth for all to see and yet, somehow, people like you still refuse to see that.

With all that said, this wasn't even the original point of the discussion. My original response in this thread were a list of things that I and people like me did not like about Donald Trump that had nothing to do with him "hurting our feelings" as you claimed in your original post. You either accidentally or willfully misinterpreted my post and took it off on a tangent from the very beginning and now we're talking about something completely unrelated that you also happen to not understand.

My "haha" was just laughing at the absurdity of the direction of this conversation because you seem so sure that you know everything about everything and anyone who disagrees with you is "failing." Politics does not seem to be about helping people or maximizing the utility of society to you. It seems like you talk politics because you want to "own" people and point out their "failures" and how little they understand (relative to you, who understands everything). So I'm sorry if I take a little satisfaction in knocking you down a peg or two like in this scenario where you didn't even bother looking up (or, perhaps, understanding) the 9th amendment, let alone how it may be applicable to the conversation that we were having. When someone centers their entire world view around "owning the libs" it's hard not to revel in "owning" them right back. Of course, you'll never agree that I "owned" you, which is half the fun!

[BFritz21]

(07-23-2022, 12:23 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I don't know if you know what the amendment says, but I know that you don't know what it means.

So. the 9th amendment reads: 

"enumeration" just means "list of things." So the 9th amendment, in laymen's terms, means "Just because a right isn't explicitly mentioned in the constitution does not mean that it is not protected by the constitution."

This amendment is a direct response to your belief that if the Constitution doesn't specifically mention a right that it should be left to the states. Several founding fathers actually opposed writing the Bill of Rights because they feared that "Enumerating any rights, Wilson argued, might imply that all those not listed were surrendered. And, because it was impossible to enumerate all the rights of the people, a bill of rights might actually be construed to justify the government’s power to limit any liberties of the people that were not enumerated." You said:

and
and

See, the problem is constitutional fundamentalists, or "originalists" as they sometimes call themselves, have this belief that the Constitution is an all encompassing text that explicitly describes every right that is protected under it to such a degree that you can objectively interpret the Constitution so that there's only one answer to any given question on what rights are protected within it.

In reality, the Constitution is written extraordinarily vaguely with several gaps in its explicit text such as the 9th and 14th amendments. This allows people to interpret the Constitution as subjectively as they wish to protect, or refuse to protect, whichever rights they want based on their ideology or biases. And, in my biased opinion, that is what makes the Supreme Court and the Constitution very flawed, as you can interpret it however you want based on what your beliefs are.

You claimed that the conservative justices of the Supreme Court did their jobs by interpreting the Constitution in such a way that defies 50 years of precedent and ignores the vagueness within the 9th and 14th amendments that are meant to allow for additional rights and protections for the people (often times, rights to privacy and bodily autonomy) that just so happen to perfectly fall in line with their personal political beliefs. That's fine if that's your belief but you seem to not understand that that is a subjective reading of the constitution done in service of their political beliefs. The idea that the Supreme Court is an apolitical branch of government has always been a fantasy but these justices have laid bare the truth for all to see and yet, somehow, people like you still refuse to see that.

With all that said, this wasn't even the original point of the discussion. My original response in this thread were a list of things that I and people like me did not like about Donald Trump that had nothing to do with him "hurting our feelings" as you claimed in your original post. You either accidentally or willfully misinterpreted my post and took it off on a tangent from the very beginning and now we're talking about something completely unrelated that you also happen to not understand.

My "haha" was just laughing at the absurdity of the direction of this conversation because you seem so sure that you know everything about everything and anyone who disagrees with you is "failing." Politics does not seem to be about helping people or maximizing the utility of society to you. It seems like you talk politics because you want to "own" people and point out their "failures" and how little they understand (relative to you, who understands everything). So I'm sorry if I take a little satisfaction in knocking you down a peg or two like in this scenario where you didn't even bother looking up (or, perhaps, understanding) the 9th amendment, let alone how it may be applicable to the conversation that we were having. When someone centers their entire world view around "owning the libs" it's hard not to revel in "owning" them right back. Of course, you'll never agree that I "owned" you, which is half the fun!

You make this too easy.

Basically, the the ruling to overturn Roe v Wade symbolizes that the constitution is an original reading, and not a living reading.

That means, that, the gaps that you mention, like abortion, are limited to the states and not the federal government.

Quote:This is a revolutionary ruling. Not just for abortion, but for the ongoing debates over the nature of rights under the Constitution.

The ruling signals a massive change in how we read the Constitution, from a living reading to an original reading. The court has firmly rejected the theory of the living Constitution, which argues that the meaning of the document’s language changes as the beliefs and values of Americans change. 
The living view, which prevailed at the Supreme Court during the second half of the 20th century, means that additional rights can emerge over time, including abortion, privacy and same-sex marriage. The living Constitution is updated through the judgment of the justices of the Supreme Court, who determine when public values have changed, and hence new rights have emerged.

Originalism, which is the approach taken by the justices who overruled Roe, rejects the living Constitution. In the originalist view, the Constitution is static until officially altered by amendment. It does not evolve on its own without public approval. The role of the justices is to determine the original public meaning of the text, but to leave other decisions to democratic representation through elections.

Regarding abortion, the conclusion of Dobbs is clear: “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

Rights have evolved, but abortion is NOT a right guaranteed by the Constitution:

Quote:But the other evolved or implicit rights that have been recognized by the court over time – abortion and gay marriage, among others – are simply not constitutional rights in the view of the new majority. Enumerated rights – the ones specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights – will be accorded stronger protections, while the recently recognized rights of the living Constitution will not be protected.

Given that it is NOT guaranteed in the Constitution, the decision should be protected by the majority of the citizens in each state through their legislators:

Quote:Under Roe, the majority saw abortion as within the category of rights. Hence it received constitutional protection. But under the new abortion decision, it should be governed by majority rule, the kind of question that is to be determined by the citizens of each state through their legislatures.

The right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions, which is why it's now at the state level.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[CJD]

(07-23-2022, 04:10 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You make this too easy.

Basically, the the ruling to overturn Roe v Wade symbolizes that the constitution is an original reading, and not a living reading.

I already know that you're an originalist and I already know the conservatives on the SC are as well.  I already addressed this in my previous post. That doesn't mean that it's the correct reading. It' just means it's a possible reading. And if we're living our lives based on the beliefs of the people in the 1700s, then we got a lot of other rights that we need to eliminate as well. The idea that we should live by the laws that a bunch of slave owners came up with is asinine at best and downright absurd at worst.

Quote:The right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions, which is why it's now at the state level.

I'm aware that's the excuse the conservatives gave, but it doesn't mean anything. What does it mean to be deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions? Is it a number of years thing? Is it a puritanical Christian thing? Is it just a "I know it when I see it" thing? It has no consistent bearing. you could apply that logic to, literally, anything that isn't in the actual constitution. Abortion was a right for 50 years. Interracial marriage has been a right for 55 years. Contraception has been a right for 57 years. Gay Marriage has been a right for 7 years. Using this logic, every single one of those rights should be overturned.
Which I really hope you know is silly. 

Quote:hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Haha, this was funny though. It really emphasizes how childish you are.

[BFritz21]

(07-23-2022, 04:22 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I already know that you're an originalist and I already know the conservatives on the SC are as well.  I already addressed this in my previous post. That doesn't mean that it's the correct reading. It' just means it's a possible reading. And if we're living our lives based on the beliefs of the people in the 1700s, then we got a lot of other rights that we need to eliminate as well. The idea that we should live by the laws that a bunch of slave owners came up with is asinine at best and downright absurd at worst.

Comparing this to slavery is what’s absurd.

I’m comparing the nuts and bolts of the Constitution and what it actually does, and you’re bringing up points about things like slavery.

That’s another way you’re proving yourself wrong.

(07-23-2022, 04:22 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I'm aware that's the excuse the conservatives gave, but it doesn't mean anything. What does it mean to be deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions? Is it a number of years thing? Is it a puritanical Christian thing? Is it just a "I know it when I see it" thing? It has no consistent bearing. you could apply that logic to, literally, anything that isn't in the actual constitution. Abortion was a right for 50 years. Interracial marriage has been a right for 55 years. Contraception has been a right for 57 years. Gay Marriage has been a right for 7 years. Using this logic, every single one of those rights should be overturned.
Which I really hope you know is silly. 
are.

The whole point of this thread was discussing the legality and why it was legally wrong on the federal level, which it wasn’t protected through the Constitution, therefore illegal.

Using things like gay marriage and interracial marriage isn’t a good comparison because do any of those take another life?

However, if you want to use those, those issues evolved and are now legal, so, by your suggestion of evolving laws, isn’t it right that abortion is now illegal on the federal level?

(07-23-2022, 04:22 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Haha, this was funny though. It really emphasizes how childish you are.

You really are clueless. I posted hahaha making fun of you for posting ha like your points are somehow superior to mine and like I shouldn’t be taken seriously.

You have done it in multiple posts like it somehow strengthens your point, as people who try and present a weak argument often do.

[CJD]

(07-23-2022, 06:14 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Comparing this to slavery is what’s absurd.

I’m comparing the nuts and bolts of the Constitution and what it actually does, and you’re bringing up points about things like slavery.

That’s another way you’re proving yourself wrong.


The whole point of this thread was discussing the legality and why it was legally wrong on the federal level, which it wasn’t protected through the Constitution, therefore illegal.

Using things like gay marriage and interracial marriage isn’t a good comparison because do any of those take another life?

However, if you want to use those, those issues evolved and are now legal, so, by your suggestion of evolving laws, isn’t it right that abortion is now illegal on the federal level?

You really are clueless. I posted hahaha making fun of you for posting ha like your points are somehow superior to mine and like I shouldn’t be taken seriously.

You have done it in multiple posts like it somehow strengthens your point, as people who try and present a weak argument often do.

1. Didn't compare anything to slavery. Just mentioned slavery as something that was within the tolerance of the founding fathers' moral code.

2. Legality is a matter of interpretation which is subjective, for the 3rd time now. Please re-read my posts. I can't explain it any more clearly to you. 

3. Taking another's life is irrelevant to the reason they overturned Roe v Wade. Interracial marriage, gay marriage and contraception are, literally, perfect parallels because the rulings were based on the right to privacy afforded via the 9th and 14th amendments. 

4. Do you have any other insult other than "clueless?" I know your vocabulary isn't great, but you could at least Google some synonyms for it just to keep it fresh. 

5. "Haha" is not the same as 100 Ha's. One is an expression of amusement, the other is a child having a tantrum. 

[BFritz21]

(07-23-2022, 06:43 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: 1. Didn't compare anything to slavery. Just mentioned slavery as something that was within the tolerance of the founding fathers' moral code.

2. Legality is a matter of interpretation which is subjective, for the 3rd time now. Please re-read my posts. I can't explain it any more clearly to you. 

3. Taking another's life is irrelevant to the reason they overturned Roe v Wade. Interracial marriage, gay marriage and contraception are, literally, perfect parallels because the rulings were based on the right to privacy afforded via the 9th and 14th amendments. 

4. Do you have any other insult other than "clueless?" I know your vocabulary isn't great, but you could at least Google some synonyms for it just to keep it fresh. 

5. "Haha" is not the same as 100 Ha's. One is an expression of amusement, the other is a child having a tantrum. 

1. It really has nothing to do with the comparisons because we were talking about the substance of the Constitution, its purpose, and its authority, which you once again ignored.

2. You're going in circles. We're talking about legality and how the Constitution was incorrect one Roe v Wade.

3. I can't believe how wrong you are about this:

Quote:Biden is correct that the court should restore the Ninth Amendment. Enforcing it would not protect abortion, as he claims; rather, it would reduce the federal government to its constitutional limits. I don’t think the president would much care for that.

4. 

Your attempted insults (which, by the way, as I have recently been warned about, yet you have thrown out so many so far. I wonder what will happen to you?), are pretty bad! I am a public "speaker," and people constantly compliment me on my vocabulary and spelling abilities since I have to type to communicate! I also studied communications in college, which I'm not saying that people who didn't go to college are stupid, but a lot of communications is vocabulary and you have to be knowledgable in vocabulary to do well in college, especially in communications.

5. I was posting that many hahas to show how amused I was at your usage of even one like it added anything on any substance to your post.

[CJD]

(07-23-2022, 07:50 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: 1. It really has nothing to do with the comparisons because we were talking about the substance of the Constitution, its purpose, and its authority, which you once again ignored.

2. You're going in circles. We're talking about legality and how the Constitution was incorrect one Roe v Wade.

3. I can't believe how wrong you are about this:


4. 

Your attempted insults (which, by the way, as I have recently been warned about, yet you have thrown out so many so far. I wonder what will happen to you?), are pretty bad! I am a public "speaker," and people constantly compliment me on my vocabulary and spelling abilities since I have to type to communicate! I also studied communications in college, which I'm not saying that people who didn't go to college are stupid, but a lot of communications is vocabulary and you have to be knowledgable in vocabulary to do well in college, especially in communications.

5. I was posting that many hahas to show how amused I was at your usage of even one like it added anything on any substance to your post.

You're right about one thing. We're definitely going in circles at this point. 

I will say I'm not surprised you were warned about insults. You're a very mean person. 

[*pally*]

(07-23-2022, 04:10 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: The right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions, which is why it's now at the state level.

Actually, abortion was legal up until quickening (abt 15-20 weeks) in every state up until about the 1860s and only became illegal everywhere after Congress passed the Comstock morality laws in 1873.  So as abortion was legal during colonization and during the first 90 years of independence,  there is far more a tradition its legality than its illegality.  But the truth didn't work for Scalia's religious zealously disguised as shakey legal scholarship..

The Bill of Rights made a point of stating rights infringed upon by the British during their rule.  What it doesn't articulate, other than in the 9th amendment, are rights that were never limited or infringed upon during colonial rule...because they were already legal....the Founders didn't need to deal with them.

[Belsnickel]

I think I just realized something. Conservatives are opposed to the idea of a liberal arts education. A liberal arts education promotes the idea of critical thinking. Originalist/textualist constitutional interpretations rely on a lack of critical thinking. Coincidence? I am beginning to think not.

[GMDino]

(07-24-2022, 08:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think I just realized something. Conservatives are opposed to the idea of a liberal arts education. A liberal arts education promotes the idea of critical thinking. Originalist/textualist constitutional interpretations rely on a lack of critical thinking. Coincidence? I am beginning to think not.

Just now?  

Here's a political comic posted back in 2017:




And of course there is the late great George Carlin from 1996:

(Obviously NSFW...language)

[Belsnickel]

(07-24-2022, 11:35 AM)GMDino Wrote: Just now?  

Here's a political comic posted back in 2017:




And of course there is the late great George Carlin from 1996:

(Obviously NSFW...language)

I mean, I get all that. I am talking specifically about these constitutional interpretations. Like, they are pretty much saying "**** critical thinking, what's written is as it is!" Ridding our higher education of this idea that thinking critically about things, not accepting an answer given just because it is what was given, that is contrary to originalism and textualism. So teaching future lawyers and judges that they should question things just means that they are less likely to accept their bullshit that they shovel at you and tears down those schools of thought.

[CJD]

(07-24-2022, 08:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think I just realized something. Conservatives are opposed to the idea of a liberal arts education. A liberal arts education promotes the idea of critical thinking. Originalist/textualist constitutional interpretations rely on a lack of critical thinking. Coincidence? I am beginning to think not.

I'm glad someone got something out of this conversation. All I got was frustration and a little less faith in humanity. 

[GMDino]

(07-24-2022, 12:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I mean, I get all that. I am talking specifically about these constitutional interpretations. Like, they are pretty much saying "**** critical thinking, what's written is as it is!" Ridding our higher education of this idea that thinking critically about things, not accepting an answer given just because it is what was given, that is contrary to originalism and textualism. So teaching future lawyers and judges that they should question things just means that they are less likely to accept their bullshit that they shovel at you and tears down those schools of thought.

Totally agree with you. The bold is the part I don't get with the people who espouse it. But if they understood critical thinking we wouldn't have this conversation I suppose.

[GMDino]

The Republican War on Teachers continues to escalate: “You would not trust these people to babysit your children for 20 minutes, why should we let them educate millions of American students? .. We must liberate these children from the captivity of these marxist teachers.” pic.twitter.com/mmInZc03K5

— Ron Filipkowski ?? (@RonFilipkowski) July 24, 2022

 

[*Nately120*]

(07-24-2022, 03:27 PM)GMDino Wrote:

The Republican War on Teachers continues to escalate: “You would not trust these people to babysit your children for 20 minutes, why should we let them educate millions of American students? .. We must liberate these children from the captivity of these marxist teachers.” pic.twitter.com/mmInZc03K5

— Ron Filipkowski ?? (@RonFilipkowski) July 24, 2022

 

As someone who went to a private Catholic school I can assure you I felt very little liberation for it.