Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (9482)	2/3/2017 8:57:54 PM
From: Dracin72	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 354334

Are they concerned that Gorsuch will be a textualist like Scalia advocated where the law is interpreted as it is written without regard for what may have been intended by the law as written?

To: one_less who wrote (9482)	2/3/2017 9:17:00 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 354334

How do you equate enlightenment philosophy and property rights? I am asking. << The philosophy underlying the Constitution is Enlightenment philosophy. Would you be opposed to more emphasis on property rights or other rights referenced in Enlightenment philosophy??

To: one_less who wrote (9482)	2/4/2017 7:33:34 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 354334

Would you be opposed to more emphasis on property rights or other rights referenced in Enlightenment philosophy?? Hadn't thought of it. My immediate reaction is to scratch my head re the Enlightenment and property rights. My interest in this issue is the notion that so many have that equality for blacks, women, gays, etc. represents an extension of constitutional rights either by judicial fiat or the generosity of nice, white, male Christians rather than a right that they already had but that had been denied from the beginning by the unenlightened (common parlance) dominant majority. As rights for the other have been recognized, it has been because the dominant society was more ready to accept them, most recently gays. Some seem to thing that those rights have been made up rather than having been there all along but suppressed. The notion that the constitution means what it says is compatible with that. The notion of the constitution meaning what ordinary people of the time understood it to mean is counter to that. Which is why Scalia was only half OK. Don't know why Will suggested that Gorsuch might be fully OK but now I know to watch for indications. The distinction is important as a matter of default. When arguing for some natural right, as I was in the earlier colloquy, it's hard to convince the dominant majority to be generous. Much stronger to be able to claim that they are violating the constitution by denying.