General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Clinton Schools Handmaiden Barrett on Originalism
Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton 10mAt the time the Constitution was ratified, women couldn't vote, much less be judges.
Link to tweet
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)StTimofEdenRoc
(445 posts)resident plus 2 for each state?
Lars39
(26,109 posts)volstork
(5,402 posts)was ever young?!?!
Lars39
(26,109 posts)I likely would never have noticed, had you not mentioned it.
Lars39
(26,109 posts)Harker
(14,024 posts)unblock
(52,253 posts)At least in some states. Not sure if any were at the federal level. There was one for d.c. family court so technically that was federally appointed
In 1884, the District of Columbia trial court appointed Marilla Ricker to the position of United States Commissioner. In 1886, the first woman to graduate from Pennsylvania Law School was appointed master in chancery for the city of Philadelphia. By 1907, Evanston, Illinois elected a woman, Catherine Waugh McCulloch to serve as a justice of the peace.
In 1914, Georgia Bullock was appointed the "woman judge" of Los Angeles, in charge of a court segregated by sex where "she would serve as a model of Victorian ideals of womanhood for female misdemeanants."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_judiciary
Coleman
(853 posts)A better example would be the 14th Amendments equal protection clause. The original intent was that applied only to male african americans. So according to her it cannot be used to support LGBTQ and women's rights. Or even white male rights.
Also look at the 2nd Amendment. Scalia, an originalist, believed this meant that a person can own any weapon that is carried by the basic infantryman. At one of his speaking engagements, he was asked if this included hand grenades and he answered "Yes."
CrispyQ
(36,478 posts)So we should revoke corporate personhood. A lot of ills in this country could be righted if we did that.
TryLogic
(1,723 posts)jmowreader
(50,559 posts)In the USA, only persons can be required to obey the law.
Revoke corporate personhood and theyll be like now we can do anything we want!
CrispyQ
(36,478 posts)and that includes natural persons, (humans), & all artificial persons (corporations, small businesses, labor unions, governments, civics groups, churches, and any other type of group formed by some type of legal process). Corporations, however, have claimed & demanded the same personhood rights as natural persons, unlike the other artificial persons, who just have the privileges that we (natural persons) grant them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person
So we have these powerful, wealthy entities that never die, competing with us for things like our natural resources, working against us on issues like clean water & safe medications. The framers never meant for corporations to have the same rights as living breathing people.
https://vault.sierraclub.org/sierra/200509/corporation.asp
Moostache
(9,895 posts)The 14th for equal protection is what prevents states from outlawing abortion NOW...but if abortion rights are upheld on a 13th Amendment (which states: "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) challenge, that could bar states from passing laws to limit access to abortion as an infringement on the involuntary servitude language of the 13th...
Shit, at this point, I believe ANYTHING that supports and maintains a WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE should be seriously on the table...ACB is going to be 100% across the board arch-conservative, period. We're wasting time asking her questions as if that fact were seriously in doubt.
CrispyQ
(36,478 posts)Why aren't the pro-choice groups using this argument?
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14285545
SergeStorms
(19,201 posts)when the Constitution was written and ratified? Seems like Scalia contradicted himself there on originalism.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,005 posts)area51
(11,910 posts)hypocritical face, that as a female, she should not have the ability to be a judge, and to take an SC position that could have gone to a man.
PunkinPi
(4,875 posts)Have to say I liked Mayor Lori Lightfoot's response as well...
Link to tweet
Reader Rabbit
(2,624 posts)Can someone add that to their line of questioning?
calimary
(81,312 posts)But that certainly would take care of the airlines that are yowling for more money, 'eh?
Well, at the time the Constitution was written, there were no airplanes. So by that logic, this is what should rule all things now, 'eh?
TryLogic
(1,723 posts)BKDem
(1,733 posts)Upthevibe
(8,052 posts)olegramps
(8,200 posts)Women were owned and men ruled. They either shut their mouth and got dinner or a fist. They were treated like shit in most cases. I wonder if she thinks that she can get in her Time Machine and go back totally understand the intent of the Founders.
wcollar
(176 posts)she'd better like barber surgeons, no antibiotics, no concept of bacteria and viri.
Better ask her how she feels about leaches and bloodletting.
RGTIndy
(203 posts)It's just a handy tool for reactionaries to be reactionary. But as anyone who reads cases knows, it is regularly abandoned (without acknowledgement or even comment) when it can't be used to reach an outcome that benefits the rich and powerful.
czarjak
(11,278 posts)Theyre favorite part?