Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:00:21 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship
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>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 15:07:53 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-719576.15075324032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
Lines: 86
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-vq6kElY4HeJvpkjXuUtYsVKq7GZ6NtT6GsU9unVrwMSQtiabqB6bemZhGSSXwG3S4xqmfmBPsMdiGSl!/5ZBBfvc+JQBLTQWOwDTvfQMCoMRjYUEu74l/3YUVoqzzb9odyRtB/f8tcvxVUY3hP4DdPNMZkyW!TtLLdWzK8UBfe+2DXWuG3L/y
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 5561

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.