Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 18:11:29 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <AbGcneZpLeuJ12f4nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> <17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-6D853D.13234321032024@news.giganews.com> <utjor7$2snlm$1@dont-email.me> <sR2dnWhJhaAPdGD4nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me> <atropos-F14D81.10561923032024@news.giganews.com> <17bf7c673026efe8$1900$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com> <WN-dnU5rfr8M_mL4nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-129D63.20130423032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net> <17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-5778AB.13373224032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net> <17bfcfe9ea63d6e9$41977$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-719576.15075324032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
Content-Language: en-US
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-719576.15075324032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 91
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:11:33 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 5329
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17bfd2ebcc6f342b$110$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 5708

On 3/24/2024 6:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <17bfcfe9ea63d6e9$41977$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>,
>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/24/2024 4:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>    moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/23/2024 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>>>     moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 7:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/24 4:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:08:21 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/24 4:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're comparing the text of an amendment to 200+ years of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Supreme Court jurisprudence interpreting an amendment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it was perfectly apt, and nothing you cited changed that.
>>>>>>>>>>>> SCALIA. Remember him?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because every time I bring him up to you about how no amendment is
>>>>>>>>>>>> sacrosanct (not even the second), you fall into that coma again.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. Every time you bring that up, I ask you whether you
>>>>>>>>>>> think that it'd be okay for the government to make exceptions to
>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment XIX and prohibit women from voting since "no amendment
>>>>>>>>>>> is sacrosanct", after all. Or since "no amendment is sacrosanct",
>>>>>>>>>>> it'd be okay for the government to prohibit black people from
>>>>>>>>>>> voting (Amendment XV) and allow people to be owned as slaves
>>>>>>>>>>> (Amendment XIII).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And that's when *you* go into a coma.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No amendment is above being regulated. Period.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the
>>>>>>>>> plain text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thrill us with your acumen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
>>>>>>>> for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall
>>>>>>>> exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
>>>>>>>> jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
>>>>>>>> article by appropriate legislation."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...could be amended to...
> 
>>>>>>> Any amendment can be amended or repealed completely. That's not what
>>>>>>> we're talking about. The issue is how a Court could interpret
>>>>>>> Amendment XIII in any way that wouldn't allow for the very thing it
>>>>>>> proscribes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, ANY amendment can be amended. What else are you imagining Scalia
>>>>>> to be saying?
>>>>>
>>>>> Scalia said regulation. He wasn't talking about the amendment process,
>>>>> since that's self-explanatory and obvious and hardly needed repeating.
>>>>
>>>> The claim I've been supporting is "No amendment is sacrosanct".
>>>
>>> Right. He meant no amendment is free from encroachment by congressional
>>> or judicial regulation.
>>
>> I'm loath to declare what someone else meant, or to think that I know.
>>
>> Regardless, it seems Scalia was talking specifically about the 2nd
>> Amendment ...
> 
> Yes, the subject was the 2nd, but as Effa loves to parrot, he
> specifically said no amendment, no freedom or right, was immune from
> such limitation.
> 
> To which I say, give me an example of how the 13th Amendment can be
> legitimately limited by the Judicial Branch.
> 
> And that's when Effa goes radio silent and slips into one his comas.

To interpret is to limit ...which, afaik, is what SCOTUS is all about.