I would not expect someone with guaranteed upper class income for life and comes from an elite background, often graduating from Harvard, to have any clue what I need in my life. I didn't vote for them. They are not "experts" on my needs and I absolutely do not want to hear from them any more than I absolutely have to. I hope to hear less from a Justice Barret than I did from, say, an Earl Warren.
SO you're instead saying that Biden would better understand where you come from? Trump is who came from wealth, bribed and conned his way through education, and bought whatever he wanted. Even lost his Daddy's money so his Daddy gave him more and never had to earn anything in his life and is only an expert in scamming people.. Biden came from a middle class family who struggled and had to move into a multi family home to survive after losing their home. He had to actually earn what he has, which is till less than most in DC.
And if we go by Scalia, we can add the text itself to that list of items that won't stop a textualist from ruling based on their political opinion.
They don't need to know: they were born and bred to believe it was their right to rule over proles like you and me.
I think these "experts" built death camps, gulags and killing fields. They are not anyone you should be listening to.
As a recent example: https://www.npr.org/2020/06/15/863498848/supreme-court-delivers-major-victory-to-lgbtq-employees
I'm mean, it real easy to defeat communists. Just pay workers a decent and fair amount for their production. A lot of the issue arise because of one problem. Capitalists could have defeated them a long time ago but decided they needed another billion to spend on nothing productive. I'd point to 1848 and the general strike and how England didn't get riots etc while many countries on the continent had kings on the run
LOL you would have to separate all the cities from the states. The cities are all democrats and the rural is all republican. The fiercest fighting is actually from within the states themselves due to the electoral college and gerrymandering undermining democracy in their winner take all system meant to suppress the urban centers. How do you " split up anything" when the democrats who built their cities and population centers are not just going to hand them over? It's theirs they earned it, why let some county bumpkins take all their hard work? Separating the nation by states doesn't work when the fighting is WITHIN the states themselves and the reason this is as bad as it is. It is Rural vs Urban in just about every state instead of state vs state.
You really don't.
You would, of course, be obviously wrong, for any reasonable definition of the word "these". When reality makes it difficult to support Trump et al, you are allowed to abandon Trump, rather than reality.
Pol Pot was not just some boy next door. He was a "privileged" member of his society. And he helped murder about 1 out of every 3 of his fellow citizens. I'd rather protect my liberty and make my own choices in life than let someone like that decide whether or not they think me disposable.
Oh, so we shouldn't put people in power because they are privileged? Good idea, maybe we should go for merit instead, and listen to, I don't know, experts, instead.
There is a huge difference between learning from someone that is educated, and letting them treat you like property, making all of your choices for you. I'm writing, to the extent possible, I'll make my own choices about me myself, thank you.
Scalia (who you have said Barrett will follow) was objectively one of the most activist judges to be in the Supreme Court in recent history. His brand of textualism was nothing more than an excuse to cover his rulings which was thrown away at the first instance it was in the way of following his personal beliefs.
I can like the results of a ruling, like, for instance, Roe, but still call shenanigans on it. They made it up.
But then there would be no profit!
A less 'activist' court is likely to allow the government to be more intrusive on your personal decisions, not less. For example, the right of privacy recognized by Roe v. Wade protects people from government intrusion whatever you want to say about there being such a right in the Constitution or not. For all the talk of 'hallucinating preferences into law', an inactive court will allow the legislative and executive branches to simply write their preferences into law regardless of the Constitution.
USA
