23 ms·

Fair point of course - but the devil really is in the details - of how far we stretch, how often, which way we change - towards correcting or regressing, and on

Fair point of course - but the devil really is in the details - of how far we stretch, how often, which way we change - towards correcting or regressing, and on what is open to debate vs what is not. This combined with the other things opened up for debate - same sex marriage, inter-racial marriage, contraception etc. makes one feel like everything including slavery being illegal/immoral can be soon up for discussion.

cryptonector 4y ago
You think think that Clarence Thomas would declare the 13th and 14th Amendments null and void? What?
- blinkingled 4y ago
  Well they can "return it to the states" to decide after a creative re-interpretation. Nothing is settled after all. And what I was really saying was that even if 13th and 14th aren't voided in our lifetime, there are other easier targets - same sex marriage and contraception namely that would further cement the idea that everything is hackable to your beliefs (without even needing unanimous SCOTUS decision to undo long established precedents) using this recipe - when what one would treat settled and what one wouldn't is never clear everything is unsettled and open to hacking away. Sounds ridiculous but look at gun rights - Scalia said Second Amendment applies to individuals, but the decision would not affect other gun safety regulations. Now we have the SCOTUS expanding gun rights at the expense of states' rights and their safety regulations. Could Congress maybe make a law stating precedents will not be overturned unless there is unanimous assent? That might make some things somewhat better for the foreseeable future.
- banannaise 4y ago
  They've already declared significant limitations to the Fourth Amendment that apply to nearly every major city in the US. What's stopping them from going after others?

23 ms·

Fair point of course - but the devil really is in the details - of how far we stretch, how often, which way we change - towards correcting or regressing, and on

by blinkingled 4y ago

cryptonector 4y ago
You think think that Clarence Thomas would declare the 13th and 14th Amendments null and void? What?
- blinkingled 4y ago
  Well they can "return it to the states" to decide after a creative re-interpretation. Nothing is settled after all. And what I was really saying was that even if 13th and 14th aren't voided in our lifetime, there are other easier targets - same sex marriage and contraception namely that would further cement the idea that everything is hackable to your beliefs (without even needing unanimous SCOTUS decision to undo long established precedents) using this recipe - when what one would treat settled and what one wouldn't is never clear everything is unsettled and open to hacking away. Sounds ridiculous but look at gun rights - Scalia said Second Amendment applies to individuals, but the decision would not affect other gun safety regulations. Now we have the SCOTUS expanding gun rights at the expense of states' rights and their safety regulations. Could Congress maybe make a law stating precedents will not be overturned unless there is unanimous assent? That might make some things somewhat better for the foreseeable future.
- banannaise 4y ago
  They've already declared significant limitations to the Fourth Amendment that apply to nearly every major city in the US. What's stopping them from going after others?