Manifestor_of_Light
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-14-09 02:35 PM
Original message |
Repubs want to go back to pre-1857. Or pre-1803. |
|
If they don't want to consider race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other non-changeable characteristic in a Supreme Court case, they will have to go back to before Dred Scott.
Dred Scott was about a slave. That is considering 3 conditions: 1)slavery; 2)race; 3)condition of servitude due to geographical location.
They want to go back to rule by property-owning white males.
Or they want to go back to pre-Marbury v. Madison (1803), which states the concept of judicial review.
:wtf:
|
el_bryanto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-14-09 02:37 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Depends on the Republican. Some of them are fine with Blacks and Hispanics |
|
So long as they are good Dominionist Conservatives.
Bryant
|
Tansy_Gold
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-14-09 02:38 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I got the impression they'd prefer to go back pre-1215. |
Manifestor_of_Light
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-14-09 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. Oh yeah the Magna Charta. |
no_hypocrisy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-14-09 02:49 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Pre-Marbury would mean just have the Supreme Court explain what the law means |
|
and that's it. Not interpret. More or less correcting bad grammar and writing style of the legislators.
|
Manifestor_of_Light
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-14-09 02:56 PM
Response to Original message |
5. They want to turn back the Enlightenment and the Renaissance. |
|
They want to forget the idea of inalienable rights and such as expressed by Rousseau.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 09:38 AM
Response to Original message |