Active Now

my2cents
Randy D
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » "Medicare and social security are unconstitutional per ORIGINALISTS". Really? So they KNOW what framer's had in mind hundreds of years ago?
RosieG

"Medicare and social security are unconstitutional per ORIGINALISTS". Really? So they KNOW what framer's had in mind hundreds of years ago?

Originalists and Textualists KNOW what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote what they wrote? HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?

And ORIGINALISTS and TEXTUALISTS in the infinity of their unalloyed ARROGANT IGNORANCE can speak for the dead?

Do they read palms, hold seances and foretell the future FOR A PRICE? How nice.

Well the amy dame mentoree of Scalia IS AN ORIGINALIST AND TEXTUALIST TOO. She is of that ilk after less than 3 years as a judge? Is that she her herself alone or is that her big daddy mentor who brainwashed her and  did a SPOCK mind meld so the SCALIA mind/brain would live on in a viable body? HOW DO YOU KNOW?

Posted - October 14, 2020
Tags : None

Responses


  • 3719
    Is there any limit to the notion of an "~ist"?

    I don't suppose these "~ists" thought that the Founding Fathers could not possibly have considered health and social-security systems simply because such systems did not exist, anywhere, in their own time!
      October 17, 2020 12:19 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    I am beyond dumbfounded m'dear. Truly. We have the Founding Fathers' words. True. It is how we comprehend interpret those words that's the problem. These folks are so arrogant they want us to believe they and they alone KNOW what the intention of the Founding Father was. What they wre thinking when they created the Constitution. They and they alone can be trusted to interpret because we the people are too stupid to understand it. I am not a fan of arrogance. When coupled with IGNORANCE and power? It becomes INTOLERABLE!" I have spoke. There is naught beyond what I say is so." We are supposed to remain docile and awe-stricken at their brilliance and TRUST THEM to know because well we are so limited in our ability to discern evaluate decide they must do it for us! Utterly stupid dumb is what they are but they wear it so arrogantly some swallow all of it. I wish I knew why. Thank you for your reply Durdle and Happy Saturday to thee and thine. How are you doing m'dear? I read that London is locked down. Are you in a lock down zone? Take care and STAY SAFE! :)
      October 17, 2020 2:21 AM MDT
    1

  • 3719
    I thought a constitution is supposed to be clear and unambiguous so its meanings are obvious, but leaves room for later amending and for writing rules that support it.

    I have not read the USA's Constitution but I expect it complies with those qualities. I can't understand though how anyone can place a certain interpretation on it based on it omitting things its authors could never had experienced or envisaged!

    I am not sure what's happening in London as a whole but I don't think anywhere in Britain is under a full lock-down as we had back in March and April. Instead we have a lot of tighter local restrictions that affect certain things like bars and restaurants, and these being local are leading to peculiar difficulties and a great deal of confusion.

    It's hardly helped by the UK Government not even knowing what the simple word  "Medium" means! (It produced three classifications of risk of infection rate: Very High, High and Medium. Errr, I am  no statistician but even I know that can't be right!)  
      October 17, 2020 4:13 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Have you noticed how often the "definitions" or "explanations" often add to the confusion? "They" grab at words to appear to be informing you and as such any old word will do. I don't know what "medium" means either. I visual a line of X length and smack dab in the middle is "medium" or "Median" or middle. But we must know how long that line is to know where middle is. A steak that is "medium" is what exactly? Pinkish in the middle? RARE is bloody and just heated through? Well done is cooked till it is as tough as leather? It's a word rather like "interesting". What the heck does that mean? It captures your attention? Or do you say "that was interesting" to salve someone's feelings and what you really mean is "that was so boring"? Your intentions can be very honorable but you cannot control what meaning people affix to what you say so it's a definite crapshoot. Thank you for your reply Durdle! :)
      October 18, 2020 2:04 AM MDT
    0

  • 3719
    You are closer to knowing what "medium" means than you say- it is a rather vague word but does mean roughly the middle of a range.

    Using it in cooking is even more vague because it depends on the skill or ideas of the cook; but somewhere half-way from rare to "well-done" is about right. 

    I don't think statisticians use the word. Their nearest terms are probably "mean", "average" and "median", all closely defined and giving different aspects of ranges of things;  but I don't know those definitions.


    How an adjective like "interesting" is used - or misused - colloquially depends very much on context; and the speaker might mean it literally, as a gentle put-down or as perhaps a euphemism such as "It was an interesting experience" for one that was actually awful or terrifying.

    Colloquial meanings can be a minefield, especially in text messages where you do not have the instant emotional links normal in face-to-face conversation.
      October 18, 2020 3:12 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    When one says "it was interesting" one might mean "it was gawd awful". Same thing with saying "it has potential". I think those are white lies. I mean most folks do not want to hurt others. They take no pleasure in it at all and so they try to avoid it without feeling like a phony. What others impute to interesting is up to them. You know what drives me bonkers Durdle? When I ask a question and someone responds with "It depends". But they never tell me upon what does it depend or why. "It depends" superficially gives the impression the person is really smart and needs more information to settle on a reply. Such folks put the ball in your court without ever committing themselves to anything. Or those who say "who cares?" Obviously I CARE or I would not ask the question. Or those who say "I don't know" and that's it. Now what am I supposed to do with that? How do I respond to that? However if someone says "it depends" and then outlines upon what or says "I don't know but here's what I think" that I can use and do. There used to be folks who would tell me I had already asked that question. I don't remember what I ask or when but my concerns are the same and I am the same so of course I'd do that. I appreciate answers I can do something with and pursue further conversation. Long ago I'd get answers that were apologetic. Example. "Sorry Rosie but your questions are just too hard for me to answer". I always told them there was nothing to apologize for and I appreciated their touching base with me. I ask about what I'm curious about and that covers a wide range of things. Anywhere from the Marianas Trench to black holes. From quantum entanglement to good versus evil. I go everywhere and I'm really happy when some pals/friends go there with me. Years ago on Answerbag I had a pal named Kevin who no matter how absurd or abstruse or mundane my question he was always there on the same plane ready to play. Wow. I don't know where all of this is coming from but I guess I feel safe sharing it with you.

    Heard that Paris and London are on LOCKDOWN. It seems we are in the third wave of the virus which may be the worst. When did we have the second wave? Was I sleeping or something? Take care m'dear! Thank you for your interest and the good conversations we have. Much appreciated! :) This post was edited by RosieG at October 19, 2020 3:08 AM MDT
      October 19, 2020 3:05 AM MDT
    0

  • 3719
    Oh, I know what you mean about evasive answers. Sometimes, people use words like "It depends" to give them thinking time, or because the answer actually is a lot less straightforward than it might seem; but if the respondent does not know he or she should be honest and admit it. No-one knows everything!


    I think the restrictions in Paris are a lot tighter than in London, and I heard on the News this evening that Brussels at least has re-imposed a 4-week lockdown; but London itself has not gone that far. Some areas around it have done so, locally, though.

    Also Wales' own government has announced a 2-week lockdown to start on Friday, under which only essential shops can open, employed people must work at home if possible (the Government does recognise that many can't); and perhaps hardest, everyone is to stay at home! I am not sure just how strict or operable that last clause is. Under the first, national lock-down in the UK, we were allowed out alone or with other members of our own households for exercise such as walking or cycling. 

    That provincial lock-down will be very hard for all those who live in Wales but work, go to school, go shopping, etc. in England, and vice-versa, and there are very many towns and villages along the Welsh / English border; and a huge number of roads across it.

    I am not convinced by the talk of "waves", in a pandemic that has spawned an unholy mess of both real technical terms and mere jargon, complex statistics and policies changing almost weekly and very locally. I would expect the rate of progress of a pandemic to be highly variable naturally, depending very much on the seasons of the year, the nature and operation of restrictions, and general behaviour of the public at large. 
      October 19, 2020 4:05 PM MDT
    0