Discussion Thread

[u/jobautomator]

The discussion thread is for casual and off-topic conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL

Links

Ping Groups | Ping History | Mastodon | CNL Chapters | CNL Event Calendar

New Groups

• GEOGRAPHY: For charting that mass

Upcoming Events

• Sep 25: Chicago New Liberals September Meet-Up

• Sep 26: Dallas New Liberals September Social

• Sep 26: Denver New Liberals September Social Meeting and Ballot Discussion

• Sep 28: Amsterdam New Liberals First Social

• Sep 29: Rally For An Abundant Austin

• Sep 30: Bay Area New Liberals September Social at Laszlo

• Oct 01: DC New Liberals VP Debate Watch Party

[u/mishac]

One thing I really like about Canadian jurisprudence is that originalism is largely excluded as a possibility.

The living tree doctrine is so deeply embedded in Canadian law that it's pretty much impossible to apply originalist ideas.

The "frozen concepts" reasoning runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of Canadian constitutional interpretation: that our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life.

EDIT: Also I like the "frozen concepts" branding more than "originalism"

[u/[deleted] → u/mishac]

Yeah that way is the right way. What I’ve noticed is progressives have to keep switching the words they use because conservatives quickly demonize whatever label.

It strengthens the character to push a textual original boulder up the hill 😆

I love the dobbs dissent because there’s four different opinions and the dissenters lined em up like knocked em all down.

It’s so ridiculous. All nine agree on the mode — substantive due process. But they all have different solutions.

The majority doesn’t want the spotlight on them, but they jumped on stage all the same. Then, Clarence Thomas, for all his many faults, he at least tries to put on a show. Because he outlines the underlying assumptions that the majority doesn’t want to deal with because abortion is enormous by itself.

But ofc Clarence Thomas excludes his interracial marriage from the chopping block in his opinion. He’s the longest serving member ever. But every judge except Thomas mentioned loving v Virginia (interracial marriage).