Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship

In article <17bfe17f860291f4$112$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
  moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
 

On 3/24/2024 6:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <17bfd2ebcc6f342b$110$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>

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Any amendment can be amended or repealed completely.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

>
Nope. An amendment can easily be interpreted to give *more* freedom than
the plain text indicates, which is what the gun grabbers claim the Court
has done with the 2nd: that they've interpreted it to mean an individual
right of gun ownership rather than the limited right of militia members
to own guns.

>
Relaxing a limit is still setting one.

 Nope.
 If I write a law that says, "Everyone's allowed to own guns except
moviePig" and the Court comes along and says that's an illegal bill of
attainder and strikes the last two words, the Court hasn't set a limit.
It has removed one.