The problem with Amy Coney Barrett's nomination isn't timing. It's her views | Nathan Robinson
The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the US supreme court has been controversial in large part because Republicans…
Originalism is not fundamentalism
Certainly do not believe that Canada and Europe are culturally 50 years ahead of the US
Umair always has a lot to say but I think he really misses it on this one but he is not alone. Our very own bastion of liberty who Jason Bourne leaked American secrets to, says very much the same. They both seem to ignore that Amy Barrett is recognised as 'exceptional' as much by her judicial opponents as her friends much as the late Justice Ginsberg and Justice Scalia recognised and respected one another though their core legal beliefs were very different.
To make the point:
Malcolm told [them] those kinds of smarts earned the judge [Barrett] praise for her brilliance from every single clerk who was at the Supreme Court at the same time she also clerked there back in 1998 and 1999.
And he added, “One of her biggest supporters has been Noah Feldman, who is a very, very liberal law professor at Harvard, who clerked at the same time that she did. He said, ‘I may disagree with every ruling that she ever comes out with, but she is certainly smart enough and has the integrity to serve as a justice on the Supreme Court.’”
After the vote to proceed, a witness from the American Bar Association explained to the Judiciary Committee why Barrett received the ABA’s highest rating, reading positive comments she received about the judge.
“One said ‘the myth is real: she has a staggering academic mind.’” lead Barrett evaluator Pamela Roberts read.
This is an excerpt from my own perspective on it as a European looking at it from across the water that you can find in my simple response to another leftist writer who I feel is rather more temperate than Umair.
However, I think he commits three worse sins than this (as we are talking theocracy) in this passionate rant. First, the American Constitution is one of the most powerful documents ever written on the planet and has at its very heart the desire to prevent a tyrannical government or state church from lording it over the individual.
First, the American Constitution is one of the most powerful documents ever written on the planet and has at its very heart the desire to prevent a tyrannical government or state church from lording it over the individual.
People went to the Americas, and it is still the number one location for immigrants, legal or undocumented, for the very reason that they are seeking freedom from oppression. Though you find some, you do not find many Florida Hispanics campaigning for Cuban (or for that matter Venezuelan) versions of communism. I, personally, belong to a generation that lived with communism and was glad to see the Wall come down between East and West Germany — trust me, when you are kicking that monstrosity down, virtually breaking your feet in the process and then running across that no-mans land where countless people had been shot when they were too stupid to realise they were fleeing from the more advanced political system of the socialist paradise, to meet your familiy members you had not been able to see for half a century, you realise how precious freedom is.
Second, you have obviously never lived in Canada or Europe if you think they are culturally more advanced that the US. Central to the traditional US culture was freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to worship. Really fredom to live your life without government interference. It is true that the snowflake generation of the US has been attacking these freedoms by equating disagreement in words or speech with violence and oppression. You dare criticise one of my “deeply held beliefs” and you are a fascist committing violence against me and so I can commit violence against you. Now that is ignorant and that is fascism.
I was having a disagreement with a Canadian online I think it was about something Jordan “antichrist” Peterson (might not have spelled that correctly!) had said but one thing he did agree with me about was that “the Canadian code sucks”. There are now so many restrictions on what you can and cannot say without it being deemed to be offensive to someone else and therefore unacceptable, it is not funny.
Third, we in Europe have been defenceless against our governments and their COVID tyranny. Questions are even banned at our “scientific briefings” regarding the way the government sees it and we have absolutely no choice as a nation, unless we want to be rendited off the street to unknown “re-education” centres (yep, scary but true — i can only speak for the UK atm but am pretty sure it is as bad elsewhere in Europe). With our so-called opposition politicians not even moving to debate “Emergency Legislation”, centuries of hard-one common law that safeguarded our liberty has been wiped away in the name of “keeping us safe”.
Trust me, you do not want the benevolent form of West European socialism in your nation, be glad you are Americans and guard your freedom. Vote for those who are commited to your American way.
Fourth, “originalism” and “fundamentalism” are entirely separate categories. Someone can be either, neither or both. Though there is a technical definition of fundamentalism, it is wasted here as it was used in Umair’s article as a term of derision and slander, roughly translated as “religious nutter”. Similarly, “Originalism” reflects a particular judicial philosophy that has at its foundation that the constitutional documents of the American republic mean something and that that something is worth defending. Umair obviously considers it nothing but a “slavocracy” charter — yet one of the earliest acts of the Boston settlers which was considered “seditous” by King George III and overruled by him and served as a precursor to the eventual civil war betwwen loyalists and settlers for freedom, was an attempt to outlaw slavery in the new colonies. The religious perspective of the Puritans and the political pluralism they struggled to implement in fleeing from religious and political oppression, is what “originalism” is trying to guard.
“Originalism” reflects a particular judicial philosophy that has at its foundation that the constitutional documents of the American republic mean something.
For those of us in Europe who are banned from “singing” at Church in worship at the threat of $2000 fine (rising to $15000 for “repeat offences”) and with the threat of doing jail for exercising our religious rights free of government interference, you should be jealously guarding your freedoms and appreciating the foundations of your nation.
Think long and hard before you vote them away this November thinking Europe and Canada are better places to live, they are not.