The Three-Fifths Clause

[crazed_hoosier2]

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Micah Beckwith's. But I am a fan of people having a proper understanding of history, with all the requisite context.

Beckwith posted a video on social media that included this quote:

“(The Three Fifths Compromise) was a great move by the North to make sure that slavery would be eradicated in our nation,” Beckwith said in the video. “It actually limited the number of pro-slave representatives in Congress by 40%”.​

​

And he's being castigated for it. But he's mostly correct (his math is wrong). I imagine most people here are well-informed on the history. But for those who aren't....

The dispute was over apportionment -- ie, the number of House seats and Electoral Votes a state gets. Obviously, the slave states wanted to get as many as they could. So they advocated counting slaves as a full "person" in this (but no other) context. The last thing the abolitionists wanted was to empower slave states that much more. Their aim was to eventually end slavery. As such, the abolitionists advocated not counting slaves at all towards apportionment.

But delegates on both sides of slavery wanted the union to be formed -- and neither side wanted this issue to prevent that. We take the formation for granted these days. But the framers could not and did not. It was actually far more precarious than most people realize. And, long story short, the Three-Fifths compromise was the end result.

Many argue, understandably, that the compromise was dehumanizing. But slavery was dehumanizing. The compromise was just a reflection of its tragic existence. Would they have rather the slave state delegates gotten their way and had slaves counted fully?

Because the other option wasn't to form the union without slavery. The other option was for the union not to be formed at all.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Micah Beckwith's. But I am a fan of people having a proper understanding of history, with all the requisite context.

Beckwith posted a video on social media that included this quote:

“(The Three Fifths Compromise) was a great move by the North to make sure that slavery would be eradicated in our nation,” Beckwith said in the video. “It actually limited the number of pro-slave representatives in Congress by 40%”.​

​

And he's being castigated for it. But he's mostly correct (his math is wrong). I imagine most people here are well-informed on the history. But for those who aren't....

The dispute was over apportionment -- ie, the number of House seats and Electoral Votes a state gets. Obviously, the slave states wanted to get as many as they could. So they advocated counting slaves as a full "person" in this (but no other) context. The last thing the abolitionists wanted was to empower slave states that much more. Their aim was to eventually end slavery. As such, the abolitionists advocated not counting slaves at all towards apportionment.

But delegates on both sides of slavery wanted the union to be formed -- and neither side wanted this issue to prevent that. We take the formation for granted these days. But the framers could not and did not. It was actually far more precarious than most people realize. And, long story short, the Three-Fifths compromise was the end result.

Many argue, understandably, that the compromise was dehumanizing. But slavery was dehumanizing. The compromise was just a reflection of is tragic existence. Would they have rather the slave state delegates gotten their way and had slaves counted fully?

Because the other option wasn't to form the union without slavery. The other option was for the union not to be formed at all.

You are right on the compromise. However, being right doesn't currently fly. You can explain this, and someone will still not get it and just say it was total racism. You may even be called racist by some moonbat who will refuse to understand your explanation.

 

[Baller23Boogie]

My only issue was him saying it was a good thing.

I would have rather used the word necessary, but that's a small gripe.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You are right on the compromise. However, being right doesn't currently fly. You can explain this, and someone will still not get it and just say it was total racism. You may even be called racist by some moonbat who will refuse to understand your explanation.

It is only ignorance at play here -- or is there also some subterfuge from those who do know the history?

Obviously, there is a lot of ignorance about it. I explained it to a friend of mine -- in his 30s, UK grad, works in finance, soft Dem -- just a few weeks ago. He had never heard of this history before. He was familiar with the compromise, but not the context. And he said "That just paints it in a whole new light."

I know the Constitution has its critics. I was taken aback once when Ruth Bader Ginsburg had this exchange on 60 Minutes:

To Ginsburg, the Constitution evolves and should reflect changes in society; that going back to what was meant originally when they wrote, for instance, "We the People," makes little sense.​

​

"Who were 'We the People' in 1787? You would not be among 'We the People.' African Americans would not be among the people," Ginsburg tells Stahl.​

​

So, in Ginsburg's view, because the original Constitution as drafted and ratified in 1787-89 gave short shrift to women and blacks, anything from that period can be disregarded as needed? Even despite the amendments that have happened since then?

More recently, Harvard Law grad Elie Mystal said the Constitution was "actually trash."

I have to imagine people like Ginsburg and Mystal know this history. Are they and those like them deliberately propagating misinformation about it? If so, why?

 

[Bloom.]

I understand what you're trying to say, but being the lesser of two evils isn't a hill I'd want to climb up, let alone die on. It just means it was good for the white people in power. And in that slavery didn't end for another 80 years, I'm not sure it can be framed as something that helped get rid of slavery, which is his assertion.

It was then used against them in an attempt to gain freedoms and rights, as the morons of the 1840s-Civil War era cited our Founding Fathers as sage men who understood the *negro's* place in society.


Beckwith is part of this self-marginalized white man, in that he thinks white men are being attacked for being white. Truly, it's just the white men who are still bigots. He just can't bring himself to admit what and who he is. He's trying to position this, as well as any and all pieces of history that reflect poorly on our white ancestors, especially our Founding Fathers, who of course famously kicked the slavery can down the road.

It's like those morons who try to argue that bringing the slaves over was good because it eventually introduced them a more progressive culture and religion.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

My only issue was him saying it was a good thing.

I would have rather used the word necessary, but that's a small gripe.

OK, I get that. And I do have some sympathy for it. I think that was kind of Braun's take too -- that he just wouldn't have used those precise words.

But Beckwith can make a good enough argument that it was "good" in the sense that it:

-- Enabled ratification to happen with all of the colonies at the Convention
-- Limited the power of slave states in the federal government
-- Included a poison pill on slavery that would eventually lead to its eradication

I don't think he meant it was "good" in the sense that it kept slavery in place for the time being or codified the notion that enslaved blacks were less than human.

 

[Bloom.]

You are right on the compromise. However, being right doesn't currently fly. You can explain this, and someone will still not get it and just say it was total racism. You may even be called racist by some moonbat who will refuse to understand your explanation.

We can't pretend there weren't racists among our Founding Fathers, even the ones from up north.


It's easy to call this racism because it was. It may not have been perpetrated by a single person, thereby making him a single target, but it's still racist. Anything not ending slavery was racists. We still formed a country that wasn't free for all. That's bigotry and discrimination.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I understand what you're trying to say, but being the lesser of two evils isn't a hill I'd want to climb up, let alone die on. It just means it was good for the white people in power. And in that slavery didn't end for another 80 years, I'm not sure it can be framed as something that helped get rid of slavery, which is his assertion.

It was then used against them in an attempt to gain freedoms and rights, as the morons of the 1840s-Civil War era cited our Founding Fathers as sage men who understood the *negro's* place in society.

Oh, I do think it can be framed that way. It would've been that much harder to have ended slavery had the slave states had more representation in Congress and more influence over presidential elections.

Would Lincoln have won in 1860 had the slave states had more Electoral Votes than they had? I don't know -- but it seems entirely possible that he would not have.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

We can't pretend there weren't racists among our Founding Fathers, even the ones from up north.


It's easy to call this racism because it was. It may not have been perpetrated by a single person, thereby making him a single target, but it's still racist. Anything not ending slavery was racists. We still formed a country that wasn't free for all. That's bigotry and discrimination.

True enough. But, given the broad understanding of what Western civilization was at the time, I think we have to celebrate any steps taken in the right direction...instead of judging them in modern context.

Anyway, this swerves away from my point -- which is that I honestly don't think a lot of people have any grasp of what the Three Fifths Compromise was....let alone what the alternatives were.

Again, should the framers have accepted the slaves states' proposal that slaves count as a full person? The abolitionists -- the enemies of slavery -- wanted them not to count at all. Wouldn't that have been the best outcome....of the ones available?

I realize that the ideal outcome would've been a new nation free of slavery. But that simply wasn't within the realm of possibility.

 

[Bloom.]

True enough. But, given the broad understanding of what Western civilization was at the time, I think we have to celebrate any steps taken in the right direction...instead of judging them in modern context.

Anyway, this swerves away from my point -- which is that I honestly don't think a lot of people have any grasp of what the Three Fifths Compromise was....let alone what the alternatives were.

Again, should the framers have accepted the slaves states' proposal that slaves count as a full person? The abolitionists -- the enemies of slavery -- wanted them not to count at all. Wouldn't that have been the best outcome....of the ones available?

I realize that the ideal outcome would've been a new nation free of slavery. But that simply wasn't within the realm of possibility.

I don't mind judging them in their time, but I also have no desire to whitewash it, acting like slaves were done a solid. This was about political power.

 

[mattndallas]

Who cares about slavery circa 1840 when we have modern day slavery to deal with...

American Hustle, by Alexandra Starr

How elite youth basketball exploits African athletes

harpers.org

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/04/06/397822833/a-lesser-known-human-trafficking-problem-teenage-basketball-players

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I don't mind judging them in their time, but I also have no desire to whitewash it, acting like slaves were done a solid. This was about political power.

I don’t think recognizing the compromise for what it was is whitewashing it. It’s just important to understand what options faced the framers and why.

You’re certainly right that it was about political power — and the fact is that the apportionment counting of slaves as less than one had the effect of reducing the political power of the advocates of slavery.

Isn’t that better than them having received more political power?

 

[DANC]

Who cares about slavery circa 1840 when we have modern day slavery to deal with...

American Hustle, by Alexandra Starr

How elite youth basketball exploits African athletes

harpers.org

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/04/06/397822833/a-lesser-known-human-trafficking-problem-teenage-basketball-players

Interesting that a poster in this thread is heavily involved in this.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

There are two different debates here. 1) Did the compromise serve a larger purpose? Yes. 2) Was it wrong that we were put into a position to be forced into the compromise? Yes. Why so many in the South refused to believe that chattel slavery was wrong is its own point. Yes, it was profitable. But for so many who claimed to be pious to just flat out accept chattel slavery just for profit seems to call into question their piety. The fact that we had to have the compromise is the abomination.

 

[Mark Milton]

This is the only 3 5ths conversation to be had

https://www.blackwellswines.com/products/highland-park-25-year-old-single-malt-whisky

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

This is the only 3 5ths conversation to be had

https://www.blackwellswines.com/products/highland-park-25-year-old-single-malt-whisky

Lord, how I love Highland Park. I have an earlier version of the 25Y that I’ve never cracked open.

Just snapped this photo…

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Micah Beckwith's. But I am a fan of people having a proper understanding of history, with all the requisite context.

Beckwith posted a video on social media that included this quote:

“(The Three Fifths Compromise) was a great move by the North to make sure that slavery would be eradicated in our nation,” Beckwith said in the video. “It actually limited the number of pro-slave representatives in Congress by 40%”.​

​

And he's being castigated for it. But he's mostly correct (his math is wrong). I imagine most people here are well-informed on the history. But for those who aren't....

The dispute was over apportionment -- ie, the number of House seats and Electoral Votes a state gets. Obviously, the slave states wanted to get as many as they could. So they advocated counting slaves as a full "person" in this (but no other) context. The last thing the abolitionists wanted was to empower slave states that much more. Their aim was to eventually end slavery. As such, the abolitionists advocated not counting slaves at all towards apportionment.

But delegates on both sides of slavery wanted the union to be formed -- and neither side wanted this issue to prevent that. We take the formation for granted these days. But the framers could not and did not. It was actually far more precarious than most people realize. And, long story short, the Three-Fifths compromise was the end result.

Many argue, understandably, that the compromise was dehumanizing. But slavery was dehumanizing. The compromise was just a reflection of its tragic existence. Would they have rather the slave state delegates gotten their way and had slaves counted fully?

Because the other option wasn't to form the union without slavery. The other option was for the union not to be formed at all.

Just to be clear, we can still castigate him for the poor math, right?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Just to be clear, we can still castigate him for the poor math, right?

Absolutely, castigate away.

I carry no brief for that man - even if his math was correct.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Absolutely, castigate away.

I carry no brief for that man - even if his math was correct.

It was honestly the first thing I noticed, before I even finished your post. "Man, that doesn't add up right at all."

 

[Mark Milton]

It was honestly the first thing I noticed, before I even finished your post. "Man, that doesn't add up right at all."

 

[UncleMark]

View embedded media

COH math

 

[Baller23Boogie]

COH math

All-time favorite

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Micah Beckwith's. But I am a fan of people having a proper understanding of history, with all the requisite context.

Beckwith posted a video on social media that included this quote:

“(The Three Fifths Compromise) was a great move by the North to make sure that slavery would be eradicated in our nation,” Beckwith said in the video. “It actually limited the number of pro-slave representatives in Congress by 40%”.​

​

And he's being castigated for it. But he's mostly correct (his math is wrong). I imagine most people here are well-informed on the history. But for those who aren't....

The dispute was over apportionment -- ie, the number of House seats and Electoral Votes a state gets. Obviously, the slave states wanted to get as many as they could. So they advocated counting slaves as a full "person" in this (but no other) context. The last thing the abolitionists wanted was to empower slave states that much more. Their aim was to eventually end slavery. As such, the abolitionists advocated not counting slaves at all towards apportionment.

But delegates on both sides of slavery wanted the union to be formed -- and neither side wanted this issue to prevent that. We take the formation for granted these days. But the framers could not and did not. It was actually far more precarious than most people realize. And, long story short, the Three-Fifths compromise was the end result.

Many argue, understandably, that the compromise was dehumanizing. But slavery was dehumanizing. The compromise was just a reflection of its tragic existence. Would they have rather the slave state delegates gotten their way and had slaves counted fully?

Because the other option wasn't to form the union without slavery. The other option was for the union not to be formed at all.

On a more serious note, I do take exception with Beckwith on one point, and you kind of already cover it without explicitly highlighting how your interpretation and his interpretation are different. Beckwith's characterization makes it sound like the 3/5 compromise was created with the purpose of eradicating slavery. But of course, that's not the case. As you point out, the purpose was to balance two sets of competing interests in a way that would preserve the union. I'm not sure I would even agree that the 3/5 compromise played a role in the eradication of slavery at all, to be honest. So I do think Beckwith missed the mark. But he also needn't be attacked for it. The purpose of the compromise certainly wasn't to dehumanize slaves, either.

 

[Bloom.]

I don’t think recognizing the compromise for what it was is whitewashing it. It’s just important to understand what options faced the framers and why.

You’re certainly right that it was about political power — and the fact is that the apportionment counting of slaves as less than one had the effect of reducing the political power of the advocates of slavery.

Isn’t that better than them having received more political power?

It wasn't good. Stating it for what it was educating. Trying to act like it was a good thing is whitewashing it. You're not changing my mind on this. We don't know there wouldn't be a union if the slavery issue was pressed more. We earned our independence without having a union.

For all we know the War of 1812 unites us even more, and given the strength of the US navy by that point, a vast majority of which were built in northern shipyards, it was clear then which direction the economies of the North and South were headed. The South was going to need those ships to defend their land.


What you do is you call the slave owners for what they were -- owners of property. Bartering political headway on the backs of slaves with this compromise was doubling down on their lack of rights and lack of voice.

Slaves didn't have rights, and by extension weren't represented in any legislation. You don't insult them by this 3/5th compromise. Why would a slave without rights and without representation welcome being counted to any degree? Especially when later, that they were judged as merely 3/5th of a person was used against them in continued legislation.

Do you think slaves were happy they were counted as 3/5th in a debate over legislative representation? Why should the south had gotten any credit for representing slaves when they weren't representing slaves?

Then we have the Fugitive Slave Act. Two of them right?

It was a disgusting means to an end. Nothing good came of it that we don't know wouldn't have eventually happened.

 

[BradStevens]

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Micah Beckwith's. But I am a fan of people having a proper understanding of history, with all the requisite context.

Beckwith posted a video on social media that included this quote:

“(The Three Fifths Compromise) was a great move by the North to make sure that slavery would be eradicated in our nation,” Beckwith said in the video. “It actually limited the number of pro-slave representatives in Congress by 40%”.​

​

And he's being castigated for it. But he's mostly correct (his math is wrong). I imagine most people here are well-informed on the history. But for those who aren't....

The dispute was over apportionment -- ie, the number of House seats and Electoral Votes a state gets. Obviously, the slave states wanted to get as many as they could. So they advocated counting slaves as a full "person" in this (but no other) context. The last thing the abolitionists wanted was to empower slave states that much more. Their aim was to eventually end slavery. As such, the abolitionists advocated not counting slaves at all towards apportionment.

But delegates on both sides of slavery wanted the union to be formed -- and neither side wanted this issue to prevent that. We take the formation for granted these days. But the framers could not and did not. It was actually far more precarious than most people realize. And, long story short, the Three-Fifths compromise was the end result.

Many argue, understandably, that the compromise was dehumanizing. But slavery was dehumanizing. The compromise was just a reflection of its tragic existence. Would they have rather the slave state delegates gotten their way and had slaves counted fully?

Because the other option wasn't to form the union without slavery. The other option was for the union not to be formed at all.

Devils advocate.

Let's play it out, on your last point: so what?

It's not true that a union would not be formed at all--the northern, non-slave states just would have had a smaller union. Maybe the southern slave states would have had their own union, maybe not. Why is a bigger union of American colonies in the late 18th century more important than taking a stand against legitimizing a "tragic existence?"

Because that's what the northern states did-- legitimize and legalize an evil institution with their compromise through their allegiance to a Constitution that upheld that institution.

 

[BradStevens]

It is only ignorance at play here -- or is there also some subterfuge from those who do know the history?

Obviously, there is a lot of ignorance about it. I explained it to a friend of mine -- in his 30s, UK grad, works in finance, soft Dem -- just a few weeks ago. He had never heard of this history before. He was familiar with the compromise, but not the context. And he said "That just paints it in a whole new light."

I know the Constitution has its critics. I was taken aback once when Ruth Bader Ginsburg had this exchange on 60 Minutes:

To Ginsburg, the Constitution evolves and should reflect changes in society; that going back to what was meant originally when they wrote, for instance, "We the People," makes little sense.​

​

"Who were 'We the People' in 1787? You would not be among 'We the People.' African Americans would not be among the people," Ginsburg tells Stahl.​

​

So, in Ginsburg's view, because the original Constitution as drafted and ratified in 1787-89 gave short shrift to women and blacks, anything from that period can be disregarded as needed? Even despite the amendments that have happened since then?

More recently, Harvard Law grad Elie Mystal said the Constitution was "actually trash."

I have to imagine people like Ginsburg and Mystal know this history. Are they and those like them deliberately propagating misinformation about it? If so, why?

You're getting carried away and strawmanning Ginsburg's position.

And lumping together Ginsburg and Mystal on legal theory is akin to lumping together Friedman and Trump on economics.

 

[BadWakeboarder]

Truly, it's just the white men who are still bigots.

Imagine thinking you’re intelligent and then saying this.

 

[UncleMark]

Beckwith posted a video on social media that included this quote:

“(The Three Fifths Compromise) was a great move by the North to make sure that slavery would be eradicated in our nation,” Beckwith said in the video. “It actually limited the number of pro-slave representatives in Congress by 40%”.

What was the reason and/or context of this video? No one with any (political) sense would touch this subject outside of a purely academic setting, and even then he would have to know it would get people riled up. I know Beckwith is a douchebag, but I didn't think he was moron too.

 

[Bloom.]

Imagine thinking you’re intelligent and then saying this.

Talking about that group of individuals, moron.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

On a more serious note, I do take exception with Beckwith on one point, and you kind of already cover it without explicitly highlighting how your interpretation and his interpretation are different. Beckwith's characterization makes it sound like the 3/5 compromise was created with the purpose of eradicating slavery. But of course, that's not the case. As you point out, the purpose was to balance two sets of competing interests in a way that would preserve the union. I'm not sure I would even agree that the 3/5 compromise played a role in the eradication of slavery at all, to be honest. So I do think Beckwith missed the mark. But he also needn't be attacked for it. The purpose of the compromise certainly wasn't to dehumanize slaves, either.

It would be an interesting question to explore.

I certainly wouldn’t say you could draw a short straight line from one to the other, the way he did. And, at the end of the day, it took 80 years, secessions, and a catastrophic civil war to finally drive a stake through its heart.

But there were other important steps along the way where numbers in Congress mattered - such as the law banning the Atlantic slave trade in the early 1800s.

The Convention battle over apportionment was a key event in the timeline of slavery in colonial America and the United States. And that they had the fight at all was clearly some kind of step in the right direction.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

But there were other important steps along the way where numbers in Congress mattered - such as the law banning the Atlantic slave trade in the early 1800s.

There were also times, such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act, when the extra Southern representation helped push slaveholding interests and perhaps prolong the institution.

Of course, if they don't make the compromise, then history could have gone in a radically different direction, anyway. If the union collapses, what do you end up with? Two nations, one north, one south? Who buys Louisiana? Who gets Texas? Who fights Mexico? Or perhaps Mexico wins? Perhaps America, split in two, stops at the Mississippi River forever?

That might make a fun jumping off point for an alternative history novel.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You're getting carried away and strawmanning Ginsburg's position.

Am I? I respectfully disagree. She basically implied that what the framers wrote and ratified doesn’t have to be held to…because “We the People” didn’t include women and blacks.

Here’s the clip - let it go for a couple minutes and you’ll get to her comments. I started it at a point to give the context in which she made the comment.

And lumping together Ginsburg and Mystal on legal theory is akin to lumping together Friedman and Trump on economics.

My point was simply to say that there are people who don’t hold the text terribly sacred - which is to say they’d like to see it changed, by hook or by crook. Call it “evolving” or “living” or “letting the law catch up”. There are lots of ways to express the same general idea.

 

[BradStevens]

It would be an interesting question to explore.

I certainly wouldn’t say you could draw a short straight line from one to the other, the way he did. And, at the end of the day, it took 80 years, secessions, and a catastrophic civil war to finally drive a stake through its heart.

But there were other important steps along the way where numbers in Congress mattered - such as the law banning the Atlantic slave trade in the early 1800s.

The Convention battle over apportionment was a key event in the timeline of slavery in colonial America and the United States. And that they had the fight at all was clearly some kind of step in the right direction.

I'm not sure the 3/5th rule would have mattered for banning the Atlantic slave trade. It had already been banned in every state except South Carolina by the time it was passed in Congress. I can't find a role call of the vote, though.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[BradStevens]

Am I? I respectfully disagree. She basically implied that what the framers wrote and ratified doesn’t have to be held to…because “We the People” didn’t include women and blacks.

Here’s the clip - let it go for a couple minutes and you’ll get to her comments. I started it at a point to give the context in which she made the comment.

View embedded media

My point was simply to say that there are people who don’t hold the text terribly sacred - which is to say they’d like to see it changed, by hook or by crook. Call it “evolving” or “living” or “letting the law catch up”. There are lots of ways to express the same general idea.

Yes, you are. You're using one video clip of a woman who wrote a lot, and applying your own ungenerous interpretation.

I hope all of our judges don't hold the Constitution to be sacred. It's not a religious document. Although, ironically, the Bible--a supposed sacred text--sure has had a lot of evolving interpretations over the last 2000 odd years.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Yes, you are. You're using one video clip of a woman who wrote a lot, and applying your own ungenerous interpretation.

I hope all of our judges don't hold the Constitution to be sacred. It's not a religious document. Although, ironically, the Bible--a supposed sacred text--sure has had a lot of evolving interpretations over the last 2000 odd years.

The point is not about the text’s infallibility.

The point is that the text is formally ratified. And that ratified text, not a judge’s outcome preference, is what should always take precedence.

Judges are to the law what umpires are to baseball. They are not the rules committee. The rules committee is either Congress legislating within their scope…or, failing that, the two procedures we have to amend that scope.

 

[BradStevens]

The point is not about the text’s infallibility.

The point is that the text is formally ratified. And that ratified text, not a judge’s outcome preference, is what should always take precedence.

Judges are to the law what umpires are to baseball. They are not the rules committee. The rules committee is either Congress legislating within their scope…or, failing that, the two procedures we have to amend that scope.

Oh god not the balls and strikes analogy.

That’s not how it works at the SCt level. The law is indeterminate in many areas.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Oh god not the balls and strikes analogy.

That’s not how it works at the SCt level. The law is indeterminate in many areas.

Sometimes I feel like a lot of conservatives would be happier if we were a civil law jurisdiction.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Oh god not the balls and strikes analogy.

That’s not how it works at the SCt level. The law is indeterminate in many areas.

Use football then.

The point is that judges are not above the ratified text. To bounce off of Marshall’s way of putting it…if the law hasn’t “caught up” to support the outcome that he “thinks is right” then he simply can’t get the outcome he thinks it best. Why? Because the law says what it says, not what he thinks it ought to say.

His point wasn’t about laws being “indeterminant” when he said that. He clearly said that his guiding principle was whatever he thought was right.

I give him points for candor. But it’s a terrible philosophy for being a judge…

…so terrible, in my view, that it was worth it for me to vote for a cretin like Donald Trump to keep such people as far away from judicial power as we could.


But, as to your point, obviously two different judges making a good faith interpretation and application of the meaning of a law as it was drafted and passed/ratified can come down in two different places on a particular question. That’s not my issue. My issue is the belief that outcome should be guiding reasoning, instead of the other way around.

You and I will never agree on this. It’s not the first time we’ve had this conversation.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Oh god not the balls and strikes analogy.

That’s not how it works at the SCt level. The law is indeterminate in many areas.

Also, I’d be remiss not to point out that the person who most famously used the balls/strikes analogy to describe the proper role of the judiciary in our body of law is now the Chief Justice of the United States.

So I’m not exactly in bad company there, am I?

 

[BadWakeboarder]

Talking about that group of individuals, moron.

White men?

Why don’t you try rereading your nonsensical scribble and tell me how you’re saying what you think you’re saying…

Hack.