The Washington Post has been criticized for running a column by Aaron Tang, professor of law at the University of California at Davis, claiming an originalist basis for the right to abortion. The column makes highly dubious claims over the legality of early stage abortions and the likely understanding of the Framers of such a right. The suggestion is that, at least as to early abortions, the Framers and early legal commentators may have been technically pro-choice. I recently wrote a column on how abortions were treated as crimes at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. The assertions made by Professor Tang have been refuted by scholars like John Finnis, professor emeritus of Law and Legal Philosophy at Oxford University, and Robert P. George, McCormick professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University. The Supreme Court will hear one of the most important abortion cases in decades this week in in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Pro-choice originalism is about as incongruous as “advocacy journalism” but both seem evident in the effort to push this ill-conceived theory.
Professor Tang asserts “If the conservative justices wish to be faithful to the Constitution’s original meaning, they should not eliminate the right to abortion. Instead, they should restore it to the position that characterized American society throughout our early history, recognizing a constitutional right to abortion early in pregnancy.”
As previously discussed, early discussions of abortion refer to “the quickening” when a woman first feels the movement of a fetus in the womb. Yet, Tang makes the astonishing claim that Sir William Blackstone and the Framers understood that abortion was legal before the quickening. The claim is the outgrowth of his academic work, which notably was revised due to historical errors raised by Finnis and George previously.
The scholars objected that the Washington Post published many historical errors to suggest an originalist basis for abortion. They objected to 50 historical errors identified in the academic work and asserted that “Tang contested none of those errors, but accepted many of our charges silently, ignored many, confessed to a couple and replaced some with new ones awaiting yet another refutation. The Post op-ed relies on the errors that remain.”
One of the most striking claims made in the Washington Post column was the following:
“The importance of a state-law consensus is why antiabortion advocates have long rested their argument on the similar claim that when the 14th Amendment was ratified, 27 of the 37 states banned abortion throughout pregnancy. The state of Mississippi makes this claim in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the pending case, and no fewer than five amicus briefs repeat it.
This claim is wrong, grounded on a series of historical errors. The foundational mistake is the failure to grapple with the long-standing rule that abortion was legal so long as it was performed before quickening, the first noticeable fetal movement that often occurs at 15 or 16 weeks.”
Finnis and George slammed the statement as demonstrably untrue:
“States began to prohibit pre-quickening abortion in the 1820s, and accelerated through the 1840s and 1850s. By 1858 a majority of states had statutes criminalizing abortion at all stages. By the end of 1868, the year the 14th Amendment was ratified, a good three-quarters of the states had them. (By 1883, all but two or three, and eventually all, adopted such laws.) Tang’s claim that at ratification 21 of 37 states ‘recognized the lawfulness of pre-quickening abortion’ is simply false.”
The criticism is well-founded. I have discussed the quickening as a line drawn in earlier works, including Blackstone’s writings. However, Blackstone never said that pre-quickening abortions were legal. Here is the oft-cited key quote: “if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb…whereby… she is delivered of a dead child, this…was…homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is…[only] a very heinous misdemeanour.”
That quote does not say that early abortions were treated as legal. To the contrary, Blackstone often does not refer to the quickening in describing all abortions as unlawful. He stated, for example, that “if one gives a woman with child a medicine to procure abortion, and it operates so violently as to kill the woman, this is murder in the person who gave it.” The quickening may have helped establish the knowledge and culpability of a pregnant woman in early cases. It did not mean that abortion was embraced as legal before the quickening. It certainly did not mean that such a distinction was adopted at the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
Notably, the emphasis on the quickening would work against the challenge to the Mississippi law. That law sets the prohibition on abortions around the time of the quickening at around 15 or 16 weeks. That could be a compromise that many have suggested in upholding the law while also preserving Roe v. Wade.
I have no problem with newspapers publishing novel arguments that challenge common interpretations. Yet, this column states facts that seem demonstrably false. I credit Professor Tang for acknowledging some of his earlier errors in his academic work but the column does seem to replicate other errors.
The Washington Post has been previously criticized for publishing dubious claims that fulfill constitutional and political narratives. Indeed, it has published (and did not correct) erroneous statements on actual court holdings. There are simply some facts “too good to check” like Framers supported abortion rights. It is the type of opinion piece that is guaranteed a placement in a major newspaper, but creates widespread misunderstanding of the historical and legal context for important decisions.
The weird thing is that most advocates are not making originalist arguments. They are offering an alternative interpretive view of the Constitution as evolving in its meaning on issues like privacy. There is a reason why such originalist arguments have not been embraced for the last 50 years. They are based on a strikingly flawed and highly revisionist account.
Dobbs has rekindled our long and deep divisions over abortion rights. Underlying that debate are good-faith arguments on both sides of how to interpret the Constitution. Whatever may come from this decision, we need to build precedent on a historically and legally accurate foundation. While the Washington Post has decried “misinformation” and “disinformation,” it sometimes seems rather selective in how those terms are applied.
209 thoughts on “Were the Framers Really Pro-Choice? Not Likely”
OT: I know our non-credible leftists that first denied the laptop, then denied anything was important and then called this Russian misinformation will once again pass this aside. Then they will promote lies and disinformation themselves. That is why they are known as non-credible individuals.
For some quotes from the new book “Laptop From Hell” (Biden’s laptop)
“Bobulinski had passed the test. It was a crucial meeting, because for the first time, an outsider would see the extent to which Joe was involved in Hunter and Jim’s international business. Joe was the final decision-maker. Nothing important was done without his agreement. “ … continued
Alan, the name ‘Bobulinski’ is too comical to ever be taken seriously.
I can’t help it that you, Peter, who prowls the Hollywood bathrooms is always laughed at. That is his name whether silly or not. He has been productive, while you have not.
This is Johnathan Turley’s idea of free speech: ‘Letting slime bag stooges smear liberals with bathroom lies’. Then Turley wonders, of course, why mainstream media seems hostile to conservatives.
Are you still writing graffiti on the bathroom walls?
That would be you. You seem to spend a lot of time there.
No, I’m never in West Hollywood so the graffiti must be from Svelaz. He provides a lot of bathroom reading.
True, it must be a hoax.
Keep showing your ignorance. The person exists. Mom and dad cuddled you too much.
Apparently many Catholic nuns are small-government Republicans. Years ago I heard a Catholic nun in Virginia claim to be both “Anti-Abortion and Pro-Choice” using a conservative small-government argument. Those using abortion as a wedge issue to divide us don’t like to mention this third group.
The nun was strongly opposed to abortion but thought the “decider” should be the citizen (woman) not a male politician or government bureaucrat somewhere. Essentially her argument was that government bureaucracies don’t work well and don’t have the best longterm interests of the citizens. The woman (citizen) would make a better decision than a bureaucrat collecting a weekly paycheck with no skin in the game.
Most Americans can’t name one government bureaucracy that works well or serves the citizens well. Why would we trust them on issues like this?
So, should elective abortion be restricted to the first, second, third, or fourth trimester?
A woman and man have four choices and still weeks.
A fourth trimester would technically be AFTER the baby is born. It’s not an abortion if a baby is already born. It’s physically impossible to have an abortion in a fourth trimester because it’s no longer an abortion of a pregnancy. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before term.
A pregnancy is three trimesters. 9 months.
Yes, it is. Abortion is the termination of a process (e.g. life). Elective abortion is the termination of a human life for light, social, and fair weather causes.
“Were the Framers Really Pro-Choice? Not Likely”
– Professor Turley
“SEVEN TO EIGHT CHILDREN”
Looks like pregnancy, births and children were very popular, and women did their duty in 1776.
What was the average family size in 1800?
According to most census estimates, an American woman had on average seven to eight children in 1800. By 1900 the number dropped to about 3.5. That has fallen to slightly more than two today.
– historynewsnetwork.org, Feb 15, 2007
Yes, both women and men did their duty for “the People” and “our Posterity.” Women’s suffrage was a handmade tale in all but a minority of jurisdictions.
There may be a “Theocracy” element to this debate. The American system supports freedom of religion and freedom from religion – the opposite of theocracy. Theocracy is government imposing it’s religious interpretation onto it’s citizens.
If you happen to subscribe to the foreign concept of “Theocracy” and Christianity is your religion – using that measuring stick, you would also have to oppose the death penalty for convicted criminals, optional war (ie: Iraq War) and support outlawing divorce (ie: Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich). In marriage, the Bible also requires that the groom’s family pay the brides family with livestock (goats, cows, etc.). It’s curious that this group likes to cherry-pick the Bible to suit their needs but supports other sins in the Bible.
There is no moral basis to restrict abortion (death penalty) for people who are convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of committing murder. The Iraq war was elective but waged in response to invasion of a neighboring nation, sustained through one presidency, and ended with the Bush administration, only to be saved and expanded to a transnational, transcontinental (global) war by the succeeding administration. Taking a life for light, social, and fair weather causes has always been a sin against Nature and God.
That said, there is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman and man have four choices and still six weeks. The Pro-Choice religion denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to a negotiable asset.
I suggest the so-called Pro-Lifers read “Medical Apartheid” by Harriet Washington. It’s the same moral argument as abortion but it crippled and killed African-Americans. There is a federal government chapter as well. Exact same moral argument.
The original “apartheid” was established to mitigate the progress of a conflict between two people of black groups (Mandela’s Xhosa, vs Zulu). So-called “medical apartheid” occurs through single/central/monopoly solutions that sustain progressive prices and availability, and advocacy for wicked solutions to deny women’s dignity and agency, and life for light, social, and fair weather causes.
WA-PO READERS DIDN’T BUY COLUMN
I just checked a sampling of Readers Comments from the WaPo column in question. It seems that WaPo readers are nakedly hostile to the entire concept of ‘originalism’. So Professor Turley misleads us by suggesting that the column was misleading. Apparently ‘no one’ was mislead.
That’s right. Some people see persons of black (i.e. color bloc), some see persons of white, most see people. Most people see babies, others label them fetuses for social distance. Originalism tolerated slavery, diversity, and abortion until they could be exposed to the light and extinguished.
I doubt that the Founders were pro-choice. They were misogynists who couldn’t even bring themselves to allow women to vote.
But we do know with absolute certainty that the Founders did not believe embryos and fetuses to be people, because the census specified in the Constitution requires an enumeration of “ALL … persons” (my emphasis), and embryos and fetuses were not counted at our founding or at any other time. Had the Founders believed them to be persons, they would have required them to be counted with all other persons.
That’s true to this day. Even the census doesn’t make a distinction on pregnant women counting as two or even three people if twins are involved. A person is only counted when they are born.
Plus according to originalist thought corporations are also deemed “persons” are they to be counted as well?
A person is counted in the census when they have a taxable basis. A corporation is conferred “personhood” by virtue of legal liability separate from its human composition. Ironically, a child is denied the right to life under reproductive rites legalized with the Twilight Amendment (“penumbras and emanations”) and normalized through the establishment of the Pro-Choice religion.
Oy, is this guy’s mind in trouble.
ATS who also posts with a generic icon, you have to remember your history. Even in colonial times some women did vote, because voting was based on different criteria than it is today. Polity develops and changes with time. In the future you will be seen as a racist, uncaring and supportive of repression.
That’s why they’re called “liberals.” (They’re not.) They interpret the constitution “liberally,” meaning they make it mean whatever suits their purpose.
Liberalism is, in principle, divergent, progressive (i.e. unqualified monotonic). Classical liberalism it is not.
Sort of like the verbatim words “…well regulated…” in the 2nd Amendment. What could that mean?
For purposes of a “well regulated” militia, the right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The original intent was for people to be familiar and train in their daily lives so that they would be ready and able to serve in a “well regulated” militia. The Second Amendment does not, other than in self-defense (not plausible, maybe imminent, likely probable, but certainly immediate risk), recognize a general right to abort human lives (e.g. planned parent/hood, planned protesterhood, planned paraderhood) by gun, scalpel, or other arms.
Tang was referring to this passage in determining the “legality” of an abortion according to the law back then.
“ Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the antient law homicide or manslaughter[o]. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so-126- atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemesnor[p].”
It only mentions it as a crime if a woman “is quick with a child”. It makes no mention of it being a crime before that. Apparently the “infant” had no rights at all until it began to “stir in the mother’s womb”.
So speculatively it is conceivable that any “abortion prior to quickening was not a punishable crime or offense. The interpretation is being debated on the literal meanings of the phrase legal. It is correct that it was “not legal” at the time. However it was not a criminal offense or punishable. If the “infant” was not a contemplation of law BEFORE quickening it can be therefore be considered “legal”.
Svelaz, you should read the Finnis and George article to which Turley links. That explains clearly and in detail Blackstone and other contemporaries’ view that abortion at any stage was unlawful, though not an indictable crime if it was pre-quickening. Pre-quickening abortion, since it was considered unlawful, was surely not a common law right later embodied as a constitutional right. And the states began to criminalise pre-quickening abortion starting in 1820. In doing so they were making what until then had been unlawful into an indictable crime, not criminalising conduct that was previously a right.
Daniel, I just finished reading the article you mentioned.
They are correct on the state issue. However there is a problem with their argument regarding the 14th amendment’s definition of “person”.
Here’s the particular statement from that article,
“ When the 14th Amendment said “nor shall any state deny to any person…the equal protection of the laws,” the word “person” had a settled public meaning for its drafters and ratifiers. That meaning certainly included, among “natural persons,” any child living in the womb—and among “artificial persons,” corporations.”
Here they are assuming that an unborn “child” was a person or further assume it meant “natural persons”. Any originalist would be hard pressed to agree with that assertion given that a “person” is one that has been born according to the constitution. Not someone who has not yet been born yet. It was universally recognized that rights were applicable to persons after being born. Not before.
The “natural persons” argument doesn’t hold water even by using originalist views. Many use the Declaration of Independence phrase of inalienable rights endowed by our creator that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (paraphrasing). The problem lies in the definition of natural rights which are understood to be rights commonly understood to be what people have always known to be according to ancient traditions and common knowledge at the time of their inception. This means the concept of “quickening” which was a common and accepted natural known that life was present when there was movement in the womb not before. So the rationale for abortions to be legal before 15 or 16 weeks is well founded.
The constitution defines persons to be that of adults because only those born are recognized as having natural rights.
Svelaz, I agree with you about the definition of person. I find it almost inconceivable that the commonly understood meaning of person at the time of the adoption of the 14th amendment included the not yet born. I think they were wrong about that, though I must admit to not knowing what they relied on for their conclusion.
A baby… fetus as a technical term of art and for social distance, is considered not as “our People”, or, later “person”, but as “our Posterity”, one of two parties to the social contract. Corporations are anthropomorphized as a matter of shared responsibility or liability under a legal construct.
Svelaz, if you are saying that because a foetus is not a person there was for that reason a common law or constitutional right to abortion you are wrong. It is absolutely clear from Finnis and George that pre-quickening abortion was considered under the common law to be unlawful though not a crime. Since it was unlawful it could not be a right. It makes no difference to this conclusion that the foetus was not considered a legal person.
While sex and conception was never a mystery, not really, with scientific and technological advancement, the child begins to “stir” when its tell-tale heart beats ever louder, and a woman’s “bodily sovereignty” is restricted to the first, second, third, and, in none but the most liberal sects, the fourth trimester. A woman and man have four choices and still six weeks to elect a wicked solution (planned parent/hood, selective-child, or one-child, delegated). Baby steps.
“ and a woman’s “bodily sovereignty” is restricted to the first, second, third, and, in none but the most liberal sects, the fourth trimester.”
There is no “fourth trimester”. They term “tri” in trimester means three. A pregnancy to full term is 9 months. The first “trimester” is literally the first three months. Second trimester means the next three months of a nine month gestation period. A “fourth trimester” would be a year long pregnancy.
Exactly. A woman’s Choice (i.e. planned parent/hood, selective-child or one-child delegated) is restricted to the first, second, or third trimester, and to the fourth in none but the most liberal sects. Fourth trimester abortion occurs in a minority of cases where a rite is unsuccessful and a baby is left on a metal slab then sequestered. Demos-cracy is aborted in darkness.
The ignorami make statements that look and sound foolish. You vehemently say THERE IS NO FOURTH TRIMESTER, but there is. That is the period of time from birth to three months coined not that long ago.
You are too sure of what you know. The truth is what you know is frequently wrong and is largely non-existent.
” If the “infant” was not a contemplation of law BEFORE quickening it can be therefore be considered “legal”.“
Svelaz, you are known for making crazy statements only to run away when proof was provided about how wrong you were. That is understandable, since you base everything you say on shallow knowledge, logic and thinking. I will remind you of just one place where you ran away by texting at the same spot again. No one would care about your mistakes except that after running away you come back to repeat the same nonsense. Anyone on that thread can see where it came from. There are plenty of others.
S. Meyer, it’s always entertaining when you keep confusing “running away” with being busy with other things besides being on this blog 24/7 like you. I didn’t run away. I simply disengaged from the “discussion”’ when it became clear you were deflecting and moving the goalposts as fast as you could “rationalize” an argument.
I doubt you even understand the statement I made given your past mistakes and obfuscations.
The only thing you are busy at is engaging in a new argument that you also run away from. Why do you think I am on the blog 24/7? I can write most responses in one to three minutes and go through most postings in a day in about half an hour. Sometimes I post only once or twice a day. Other times I post when I am finished with something else and then leave the rest. The actual numbers don’t amount up to your stupidity.
Do I care what you think? No, but I want to inject a bit of sanity into your thinking process. I think we should reveal each and every discussion you ran away from. People can recognize that you aren’t too smart. Those that actually read the serious things I say will recognize the truth. They can judge for themselves. You cannot. You are a pea brain.
“The Washington Post has been previously criticized for publishing dubious claims that fulfill constitutional and political narratives. Indeed, it has published (and did not correct) erroneous statements on actual court holdings. There are simply some facts “too good to check” like Framers supported abortion rights. It is the type of opinion piece that is guaranteed a placement in a major newspaper, but creates widespread misunderstanding of the historical and legal context for important decisions.”
As the Good Professor has said before in other blog entries….”False in some…False in all.” or words to that effect.
WaPo, NYT, and all of the other Leftist media are all guilty of intentional acts of journalism malpractice to the extent they are only fit for lining Bird Cages.
Ralph: “WaPo, NYT, and all of the other Leftist media are all guilty of intentional acts of journalism malpractice to the extent they are only fit for lining Bird Cages.”
My bird won’t even crap on them. Too picky.
The megalomaniac Lord Fauci speaks, again: “And if you’re attacking me, you’re really attacking science.”
The science has confirmed that restricting immunity, and denying or stigmatizing early treatment, to non-sterilizing “vaccines” serves to increase hospitalization, death, and transmission (e.g. masks other than respirators following strict protocol in greenhouse environments), symptom suppression and silent spread).
Medical science recognizes that everyone, who can be infected with the Covid virus, will eventually be infected even if they don’t know it. Medical science also knows that most of the deaths occur in the aged. Fauci is preaching his false religion and perhaps belongs in jail for the part he might have played in the development of the Covid virus.
Those that are vulnerable can increase the odds of staying alive with the vaccine. Those infected will have T cell protection and more quickly obtain the antibodies needed to fight the infection than those who were never infected. So far, medical science is leaning towards an agreement that immunity from new infection is greater with those who had the virus and developed T cell immunity.
The government is preaching garbage, and they have since the start. I am not saying politicians are preaching garbage, for they are just ill-informed trying to garner votes., Instead, some of the supposed leaders with M.D. after their names are knowingly deceiving the American public.
I do hope the SCOTUS will allow the voters in states to decide how their states will restrict abortion, how else can bad law ever be challenged? But more than that, I hope individual hearts and minds will be changed to see the horror of abortion – a permanent solution to a temporary problem that results in the death of an innocent victim. If lies go unchallenged, they take root. I’m thankful for these thoughtful men in positions of influence who speak out against misinformation in our news media regarding the issue of abortion.
“. . . allow the voters in states to decide how their states will restrict abortion . . .”
In a constitutionally limited republic, laws are not based on “the will of the majority” (irrespective of their geographical boundaries). That is tyranny of the majority, just as anti-American, and just as horrifying, as is tyranny of the few.
@Sam: Not that I disagree with you that tyranny can come from from many directions, but I submit that the American Experiment holds Federalism to be the test group rather than the control.
Rightly or wrongly, laws are indeed based on the wishes (whims?) of the majority. That is, ostensibly, why terms run 2/4/6 years according to the office. Such terms are supposed to serve as a check to the majority’s tyranny, at least in principle. Likewise, the structure of the Senate: In order to form a majority with which to inflict tyranny, one side must either hold enough seats or compromise with the other.
But again, I do agree that *any* tyranny is horrifying.
Based on your rationale, wouldn’t anti-abortion be a tyranny of the majority?
Given that abortions are a procedure chosen by a statistical minority of the population, shouldn’t the “tyranny of the majority” apply?
@Svelaz: Conversely, as you note, would you prefer the “statistical minority of the population” dictate what is legal and what is not? Would that not be tyranny as well?
Rightly or wrongly, laws are indeed based on the wishes (whims?) of the majority. That is the system we the people chose, with the checks I mentioned and many others. Should that be is a separate question, but that is the system under which we find ourselves. If you find it unacceptable, the system also provides a way to alter it: the amendment process. That is, unless you’d rather revolt than redress.
Yes, which is why abortion rites from conception through parent/hood should not be restricted, right?
No, in all but a minority of the most extreme liberal sects of the Progressive Church, Corporation, Clinic, etc., elective abortion, diversity (i.e. color or class-based judgment), inequity, and exclusion etc. are restricted to the first, second, or third trimester, and generally in self-defense.
I won’t bother with trying to correct Svelaz. It is hopeless. I will quote from a news article.
“According to U.S. census data, there were 18,871,831 black American citizens in 1960. Since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973, abortion has killed an estimated 20 million black babies — more than the entire black population of 1960.”
One wonders how they would have voted. One can get an idea by asking those that escaped abortion and are alive today. What does one call it when in our lifetimes see the deaths of more than the population of that group was when we were born or young?
I know: I’ve had conversations with Svelaz before. I keep holding out hope that he’ll, well … you know: the thing.
Brain tissue doesn’t regenerate.
I will take those words of your personal experience to heart.
Yes, ATS, I personally know people with brain damage. In your case I only know you virtually, but you seem to have met the same fate.
“[L]aws are indeed based on the wishes (whims?) of the majority.”
Not under a “government of laws, not of men.” (Adams)
Properly formed, laws are based on certain principles, i.e., on rights (not on the wishes, urges, feelings of the community — no matter what its size). For example, laws against trespassing are based on the individual’s right to property. Self-defense laws are based on the individual’s right to life.
Principle-free “law” gives license to tyrants, who — claiming to be “the voice of the people” — issue diktats to usurp individual rights. (See the pandemic lockdowns, et al.)
One of the most horrifying examples of this modern, principle-free approach to the law came from the governor of NJ. He was asked what in the Bill of Rights gave him the authority to issues his diktats. His response: “That is above my pay grade.” (Quoting from memory.)
When one desires “laws” based on the will of the majority (irrespective of its size), one is throwing the Bill of Rights into a dumpster.
@Sam: Thank you for the valid correction. You are right to point out that laws are to be a function of the government’s pursuit of upholding and securing the rights of individuals — the rights with witch we are endowed by both the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God: our Creator. Those rights provide a foundational touchstone for the principles that should guide the formation of laws.
It should be noted that those rights include life, liberty, and the ability to pursue one’s happiness. The list is not exhaustive, but is presented in a natural order. For the case at hand, the argument should end with the first: the right to live: not just from interference by the State (which infringes on the second, liberty), but also to enjoy the actual granting of life itself. Once an aborted life is snuffed out, the can be no redress in the realm of Man. The dead have no liberty nor do they have the ability to pursue anything at all, much less happiness. Therefore, by absolute definition, our government has utterly failed them.
I was imprecise and inartfully chose the phrase “based on.” Again, thanks for pointing that out. Perhaps a better choice would have been “enacted by.” Hopefully, that majority will consider the rights-and-principles basis you point out as their main (only?) guide.
“Again, thanks for pointing that out.”
You’re welcome. And thank you for having the intellectual honesty and self-esteem exemplified in your reply.
I do not agree with your application of the meaning of the “right to life.” But at least you have offered a reasoned, principled argument.
The democratic/dictatorial duality, thus Nature, our God-given rights, and a Constitution that constrains government.
At a time when those on the left see racism and white privilege in everything, they are surprisingly silent about the racial aspect of abortions. The statistics readily are available. In 2020, white women accounted for approximately 60% of the female population but only 39% of all abortions. Among “women of color” the numbers are reversed: Black women accounted for approximately 12.9% of the population but 28% of all abortions; Hispanic women made up 18% of the population but had 25% of all abortions. In an article published in the journal of Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology the authors opined: “Black women have been experiencing induced abortions at a rate nearly 4 times that of White women for at least 3 decades, and likely much longer… In the current unfolding environment, there may be no better metric for the value of Black lives.” We see further proof in Chicago, for example, given the murder rate in the Black community. Among the left and “progressives” Black lives do not seem to matter much, presumably because racism cannot be the reason so many Blacks are shooting each other. I hope not, but perhaps the same uncaring ethos applies to conception?
THANK YOU to the good professor for summarizing this issue and pointing out WaPo’s misinformation. There are many who assume that because Washington Post is a major news source, it is reliable information. They fail to understand that owner Jeff Bezos and WaPo have used media to (sometimes subliminally) promote their far-left agenda and racial/political nonsense. Reading WaPo is like watching Jerry Springer on television.
Great analogy and true. Those not interested in credibility tune into the Washington Post and Springer
To summarize: The Washington Post provides misinformation, so if one relies on the Washington Post, one cannot be credible.
Yes, but it’s misinformation held by people of high status.
The same can be said about Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN.
Not true, at least about Fox News. They are careful about their facts and they do correct them. You will quote from Hannity who is not news. Your mind has been so distorted by the MSM that you do not know what news is and what it isn’t.
Is Fox News perfect? No, but it is a far better reporter of accurate news than the MSM.
Accurate in only to those who disagree with reality.
“ Not true, at least about Fox News. They are careful about their facts and they do correct them.”
If they were careful they wouldn’t be embroiled in a lawsuit from dominion about Fox News spreading misinformation about the election. They not only stopped when it became apparent that they were not exactly in a good position to justify it. They ended up having to tell the truth on camera after being legally threatened.
“ Is Fox News perfect? No, but it is a far better reporter of accurate news than the MSM.”
Fox News has a history of manipulating photos and video falsely depicting stories they air.
“ In June 2020, Fox News’ website published digitally altered photographs of Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone to include a man armed with an assault rifle from earlier Seattle protests; also added to the photographs were smashed windows from other parts of Seattle. In a separate incident, the Fox News website ran articles about protests in Seattle, with accompanying photos of a burning city actually being from Saint Paul, Minnesota, the previous month. Although the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone was peacefully occupied, “Fox’s coverage contributed to the appearance of armed unrest”, stated The Washington Post. The manipulated and wrongly used images were removed, with Fox News stating that it “regrets these errors.””
“ In July 2020, Fox News aired a photo that edited out then-president Donald Trump from a photo where he was seen posing with Melania Trump, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at Mar-a-Lago which was shown during a segment about Maxwell’s arrest at the time. Fox News later apologized for the edit, claiming it was a mistake.”
These “mistakes” were only corrected when they were called out on them. These were no mere “mistakes”. They were deliberate.
“ On September 18, 2009, Fox News took out full-page ads in The Washington Post, the New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal with a prominent caption reading, “How did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN miss this story?” with pictures of a Tea Party movement protest on the U.S. Capitol lawn from September 12. A still picture in the ad was in fact taken from a CNN broadcast covering the event. The veracity of the ad was called into question on the air by then-CNN commentator Rick Sanchez, along with others pointing to various coverage of the event.”
Clearly It can be said that Fox News engages in misinformation and is liberal with the facts.
News organizations are run by humans that make mistakes, and some do it by design. Take note of how Fox News corrects its errors. The NYT won’t even give back the Pulitzers that were given for reporting that was false. Take note of Sandmann, where the Washington Post doubled down and had to pay.
What one needs when errors are provided is to see how those errors are corrected. The Times tries to avoid taking responsibility and has rightfully been sued by Project Veritas. They wish to delay discovery as long as possible, so they have attempted to extend the legal process. The Times is going to court and will lose as the case is a clear case of abuse. In the meantime, we see the MSM retracting false articles. It is now over 350 retractions that had to be made to a small company. That proves one cannot trust the MSM.
That is the small stuff. The MSM is guilty of the Russia Hoax, the Steele Dossier hoax, the Ukraine hoax and continuous misleading news daily. We just finished Rittenhouse and found that people using those left-wing sources didn’t know any of the truth. That lack of knowledge is acceptable for you, Anonymous the Stupid, but it isn’t sufficient for intelligent people.
Concerning the errors made by Fox News that you provide above, you have taken quotes from the same places accused of doing this to many, have been sued for defamation and lost.
Everything is in the details that you conveniently leave out because you are a trickster and a liar. That is why you are known as Anonymous the Stupid.
“ News organizations are run by humans that make mistakes, and some do it by design. ” Like Fox News.
“ To summarize: The Washington Post provides misinformation, so if one relies on the Washington Post, one cannot be credible.”
So by your own logic Fox News which you admit is just as guilty of spreading misinformation so those who rely on it cannot be credible.
“ Take note of how Fox News corrects its errors. ”
Yes they do, but only after either being threatened with a lawsuit or being called out on their mistakes.
“ They are careful about their facts and they do correct them.”
Obviously they are not careful about their facts by the examples I pointed out.
“ Concerning the errors made by Fox News that you provide above, you have taken quotes from the same places accused of doing this to many, have been sued for defamation and lost.”
You forget that the quotes are of Fox News own and they are accurate. Fox News settled on those lawsuits and in others it has been forced to admit its errors thru threat of litigation. That’s not the character of an organization that is honest in its reporting. It’s only honest when it’s under legal threat or has been called out for blatant obvious misinformation. Of which you deem anyone who relies on as not being credible.
Yes, Fox News makes mistakes, but for the most part attempts to correct them. The Washington Post doubles down and doesn’t care about the truth or accuracy of anything. Fox News would not exist but for the one sided behavior of the MSM that lied continuously.
“ Yes, Fox News makes mistakes, but for the most part attempts to correct them. The Washington Post doubles down and doesn’t care about the truth or accuracy of anything. Fox News would not exist but for the one sided behavior of the MSM that lied continuously.”
Your admission that Fox News engages in disinformation, aka “mistakes” is all that needs to be said. Based on your own admission and logic anyone relying on Fox News is not credible. For the most part they “attempt” to correct their mistakes. That still doesn’t mean they don’t engage in misinformation or ensures accuracy. They continued to spew misinformation about the claims being made of dominion machines for months until they were threatened by a lawsuit. Only then did they “realize” their “mistakes” and corrected them.
“Your admission that Fox News engages in disinformation, aka “mistakes” is all that needs to be said.”
As usual, ATS, you are playing word games. EVERYONE makes mistakes, but not EVERYONE makes mistakes that can clearly be seen as lies. That type of mistake is left up to you and your ilk.
Fox has a conservative slant while ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and CNBC plus NYT and WaPo have an extreme bias towards the progressive side. Fox keeps the op-ed outside their news division. The others do not.
All make mistakes, but Fox does a much better job of correcting those mistakes. Can a rogue news article be distributed? Yes, that can happen anywhere, but rogue reports are commonplace on the left and proven to be so. Just look at the Rittenhouse case.
Fox News is reasonably credible but should not be taken alone. The other news media I mention are not credible at all because they mix their biases with the news. One can rely on Fox News, for the most part, understanding their slant. One cannot rely on the other news media already named because they lie by omission and commission. We saw this in the Rittenhouse case, a simple case where the details were on video.
The one question you have is Dominion voting machines, and that is something all should widely question. We can note some western nations will not use that type of voting mechanism because they are afraid that liars can manipulate the results. Even prominent Democrats in this country felt the same way before the 2020 election. If I assumed that all working for Dominion were sincere, I would still not trust their process.
Fox is being sued, but I am not sure for what. They have a right to have people discuss the Dominion voting machines. They also have a right to be wrong. They have a right to permit differing opinions on their network.
The trivial issues about Dominion might be not about how the machines function but the claim that those machines were used in foreign countries to change outcomes. It appears there were reasons for people to believe this. The question before the court will be, were those reasons good enough.
More claims have been made, but I wanted to provide just one example, along with being open and honest about what I believe. I doubt Fox will lose, but it could happen. When Fox was shown where they were getting too close to a line, Fox backed away. I’d like to know more. I probably would have backed away at that point because the election was over, and there didn’t seem to be a reason to be repetitive.
Instead, the question was why Democrats have been so afraid of permitting an audit that is open to the public. Why so many things have been reported to have happened, since the election, continue to remain unexplained. Lots need to be known, but the MSM refuses to delve into any of this just like they refused to delve into Hunter’s laptop, Biden’s involvement in Ukraine and the Biden family involvement in China and Russia. The MSM talks about lies yet leaves Biden alone though we hear lies or contradictions from his office continuously.
The MSM went after Trump based on wrong anonymous sources and FBI activities that should be illegal. They disregarded the FISA applications riddled with lies. All of that tells us that the MSM engages in the misinformation you talk about and your hatred of Fox is that Fox revealed the lies the MSM promoted.
“ Your admission that Fox News engages in disinformation, aka “mistakes” is all that needs to be said.”
As usual, ATS, you are playing word games. EVERYONE makes mistakes, but not EVERYONE makes mistakes that can clearly be seen as lies.”
That’s hilarious, blaming on word games by playing word games too. Calling deliberate misinformation “mistakes” is playing word games.
Fox News engages in misinformation just as other news organizations that you mention do too. Your claim that those who rely on such a network are not deemed credible. By your very own logic AND rationale and in addition to the examples I showed you those who rely on Fox News are not credible. You have already made it quite clear that you agree, based on your own logic.
You clearly are using the word ‘mistake’ as a euphemism for misinformation. Nobody is fooled on that.
“… but not EVERYONE makes mistakes that can clearly be seen as lies.”
Fox does. I showed you earlier how they manipulate photos and videos. That can’t be them being “careful with the facts.” Not after being repeatedly called out on such manipulation. Can you come up with multiple examples of CNN, MSNBC, NYT being called out for manipulating video or photos?
Fox News seems to be the lone exception here, of course there’s project veritas editing video to portray a false narrative.
“ When Fox was shown where they were getting too close to a line, Fox backed away. ”
They crossed the line. That’s why they are getting sued abs why they stopped. They were spreading the false claims about dominion for months.
It was deliberate, it wasn’t an innocent “mistake”. That’s why they are not pushing any of it and why they canceled some shows that were peddling it constantly.
It was misinformation on a large scale. That’s why your own logic that those who rely on networks who spread misinformation cannot be credible. At the end of the day you have already admitted to that fact. That was after you made the claim that Fox News doesn’t engage in misinformation, “mistakes”, according to your own word games.
“ The trivial issues about Dominion might be not about how the machines function but the claim that those machines were used in foreign countries to change outcomes.”
It wasn’t a trivial issue. It was a serious case of defamation resulting in a billion dollar lawsuit. Fox News spent months spreading the lie that dominion was conspiring with a foreign country to cheat in the election.
“ It appears there were reasons for people to believe this.”
People were believing this because Fox News was spreading the claim for months. They kept repeating Sidney Powell’s discredited clams without ever fact checking them. Obviously they were not being “careful with their facts” as you claimed.
ATS, the issue I provided is trivial. This issue is a claim about Dominion’s use in foreign countries and how that could have occurred here during the election. Fox permitted people to comment on things they had reason to believe were true. That claim will be decided in court. It will turn out NOT to be trivial if what was said is proven true.
Provide your evidence why those statements made by guests on Fox were not true. I’m here to learn and listen, but you have to prove your case or wait until it is decided in court. You can do it under this anonymous icon or the green one.
“ Fox News is reasonably credible but should not be taken alone. The other news media I mention are not credible at all because they mix their biases with the news.”
News flash. Fox News mixes their biases with the news too. That’s the “slant” you mention. All news organizations do this. Again, by your own rationale Fox News is not credible either. It’s funny how you keep undermining your own arguments.
“ Fox is being sued, but I am not sure for what.”
It seems then that you are making arguments out of ignorance. It’s not difficult to find out why Fox News is being sued. Even Fox News itself is stating why.
“ All of that tells us that the MSM engages in the misinformation you talk about and your hatred of Fox is that Fox revealed the lies the MSM promoted.”
I don’t have any hatred for Fox. I’m just pointing out the fact that Fox News itself is just as guilty of engaging in misinformation as everyone else. You just euphemistically call their misinformation “mistakes”. Fox was promoting lies about dominion and smartmatic machines and now they err being sued because of defamatory statements that Fox was forced to acknowledge were not true.
“News flash. Fox News mixes their biases with the news too.”
Choosing the news to print means that bias will enter all news media. Not providing information on Hunter’s laptop demonstrates the media has gone above and beyond the expectations of leaning to one side or the other. Calling the Biden laptop Russian disinformation places one’s op-ed on the news page.
The Rittenhouse case was based on VIDEO. Not talking about what is seen on the video and calling Rittenhouse guilty of murder when the video clears him is placing the op-ed on the front page.
You are too involved in your ideology to see the truth, even if your intellectual disabilities have disappeared.
I am waiting for you to justify what the MSM did to Rittenhouse and how they handled the Hunter laptop.
“It seems then that you are making arguments out of ignorance. It’s not difficult to find out why Fox News is being sued.”
Despite your ability to make this claim, a stupid claim at that, you don’t bother providing your points and evidence as to why they should be sued. Instead, you let Stupidity talk for you.
“I don’t have any hatred for Fox. ”
Right, but your prejudice is just like those who state they aren’t anti-Semitic when all they want to do is demolish the State of Israel and kill all the Jews.
“You just euphemistically call their misinformation “mistakes”.
I call many things written by MSM and Fox mistakes. Still, when the MSM engages in an op-ed mixed in with front-page news pushing opinion based on the illegal or fraudulent material gathering, I no longer call such news a mistake.
Let us hear your justification for the MSM reporting on Rittenhouse and the Hunter laptops. Both are recent enough that you should be able to provide a quick list filled with solid data, not the pi-s you usually engage in.
“So by your own logic Fox News which you admit is just as guilty of spreading misinformation”
No, Anonymous the Stupid. Fox News tries to be more honest. The Washington post is purely political and exists to further Jeff Bozos’s ego and companies. It did a good job and I think last year Jeff Bozos walked away with $75 Billion extra, while the small businessman went bankrupt. That is what you are Anonymous the Stupid (Green Anonymous Icon), a person who hates the middle class and wishes to place blacks into a new type of slavery.
I trust logic. That is why I have significant trust for the words said by Hayek, Milton Friedman, Bastiat and others. Though you won’t mention his name you have trust in Marx and a liking for the tactics of Hitler.
I’ve never met anyone with grey-green color blindness, but I guess there’s a first time for everything.
You are responding to someone with a grey icon and claiming that the person is “Anonymous the Stupid (Green Anonymous Icon).”
You are trying to make people believe that you don’t use the green icon and the gray icon. That won’t wash. Anonymous the Stupid, you are always trying to hide who you are, but no matter how much you hide and how many names you are willing to use, you remain Anonymous the Stupid.
Based on what you do on this blog almost everyone understands why you want to hide.
Ha! The green Anonymous ignores you. I prefer not to let you troll with impunity.
That is understandable as the green anonymous wants his PRETEND friends to do it for him.
“ No, Anonymous the Stupid. Fox News tries to be more honest. The Washington post is purely political and exists to further Jeff Bozos’s ego and companies. It did a good job and I think last year Jeff Bozos walked away with $75 Billion extra, while the small businessman went bankrupt.”
Tries? That’s cute. Fox News has always been purely political itself. It’s own creation is a counter to the liberal media. Jeff Bezos is obviously very successful. Much more successful than Roger Ailes founder of Fox News.
“ It did a good job and I think last year Jeff Bozos walked away with $75 Billion extra, while the small businessman went bankrupt. That is what you are Anonymous the Stupid (Green Anonymous Icon), a person who hates the middle class and wishes to place blacks into a new type of slavery.”
You make no sense. You’re saying I’m like Jeff Bezos the anonymous green icon who hates the middle class and wishes to place blacks into a new type of slavery? Wow, you’re certainly nuts.
“ I trust logic. That is why I have significant trust for the words said by Hayek, Milton Friedman, Bastiat and others.”
Well of you trust logic. Then you trust that your own logic dictates that those who rely on Fox News are not credible because by your own admission they too spread misinformation. You have a very weird way of acknowledging your own conclusions.
“Fox News has always been purely political itself.”
No one claims otherwise. The MSM was fully committed to the left, so a business opportunity opened up. The idea was to start a network that would be truthful but slanted to the right. The news division could have pure news without the op-ed seen in the MSM news. They could have shows providing views from the right and left, such as Hannity and Colmes, or shows showing a variety of slants (mainly towards the right) with guests from all sides of the aisle. That was and remains a great business model.
Yet your statement becomes trashy, which is usual with you as you compare Jeff Bezos to Roger Ailes, which has nothing to do with the topic. It’s a distraction you use when you have neither the facts nor the intellect to back your side of the debate up.
“You make no sense. You’re saying I’m like Jeff Bezos the anonymous green icon who hates the middle class and wishes to place blacks into a new type of slavery? Wow, you’re certainly nuts.”
No, what I said was that Jeff Bozos walked away with 75Billion while the small businessman went bankrupt. He is a superb businessman who I have little objection to in the business sphere. I have no grief with Bezos except when he uses his powers and newspaper to augment his business model (intentionally or not), especially through the Washington Post newspaper.
You, green and gray anonymous, support everything on the left, whether moral or not. Your ideology was realized, and small business people went bankrupt. I don’t think you have the intellectual capacity to understand why I said this. I will clarify it. When the Washington Post, combined with leftist forces and other leftist news media, closed down the nation (Covid), they supported the giant corporations at the expense of small businesses. When the WP and the rest support open borders, they support the destruction of the middle class, pushing them into the entitlement class. That is destructive to any democracy since even known democracies in ancient times relied on the middle class. I won’t go further, but this idea is essential to a nation’s survival as a democracy.
“Well of you trust logic. Then you trust that your own logic dictates that those who rely on Fox News are not credible because by your own admission they too spread misinformation.”
You don’t understand what logic provides. It tells one when something makes sense or doesn’t. Of course, that involves critical thinking skills of which you have none. I am not in lockstep with Fox News or any one news source. My views are far more complex than that. How to get that across to you remains an unknown to me for dealing with one who lies, deceives and has no critical thinking skills means that I have no way to adequately assess what you say even though most of what you say is based on your ideology rather than the truth.
“ I don’t think you have the intellectual capacity to understand why I said this.”
Actually it’s your own inability to structure sentences properly that made you look quite stupid in the first place. You meander into a nonsensical ranting when trying to make an “argument” it seems.
“ It did a good job and I think last year Jeff Bozos walked away with $75 Billion extra, while the small businessman went bankrupt. That is what you are Anonymous the Stupid (Green Anonymous Icon), a person who hates the middle class and wishes to place blacks into a new type of slavery.”
This particular paragraph mushes together two very disparate and nonsensical statements leading anyone to believe that you’re conflating Me as Bezos. “That is what you are Anonymous the stupid (green anonymous icon), a person who hates the middle”…blah blah blah.
After mentioning Bezos and then adding in the very next sentence “That is what you are” in the same paragraph qualifies the statement that I am Like Jeff Bezos which makes no sense.
Clearly you’re the one who had intellectual capacity issues. Not I.
“ You don’t understand what logic provides. It tells one when something makes sense or doesn’t.”
Since your own statements don’t make sense according to your very own “understanding” of logic obviously critical thinking is not your cup of tea.
“ I am not in lockstep with Fox News or any one news source. ”
That’s great. But that still doesn’t change the fact that you admit by your own logic that those who rely on Fox News are to be deemed not credible.
The bottom line is you concede that Fox News also engages in misinformation or “ mistakes” as you euphemistically call it and agree that those that rely on it are not deemed credible.
“ My views are far more complex than that.”
Complex is not what your views demonstrate, more like nonsensical attempts to look smart.
Anonymous the Stupid, when your argument fails, you rely on changing the subject. You blame your lack of intellectual capacity on commas, spelling or grammar. You are a dunce who can only regurgitate what a bottom feeder provides for you.
“This particular paragraph mushes together two… ”
The paragraph tells us what Jeff Bezos’s underlying motive is, business. At the same time, it discloses that your motives are political but end with the same small business people going bankrupt. However, you get an additional perk. You can pretend to care about racism, but all your actions place many blacks into a new type of slavery. The rest are productive citizens, but they become your enemy if too productive like Sowell or Thomas.
There is no need to deal with the remainder of your remarks that continue to say nothing. They should be taken out and dumped in the trash.
“ Fox permitted people to comment on things they had reason to believe were true.”
Those “people” were Fox News employees. Fox News pundits who were not “being careful with the facts” as you say. Being careful with the facts means they would have vetted those claims. They didn’t do that because they were deliberately promoting those claims. They were doing that for months which means they had plenty of time to fact check those claims. This is why Dominion has a good case against Fox News for defamation.
“ That claim will be decided in court. It will turn out NOT to be trivial if what was said is proven true.”
Problem is the claim was already proven to be a lie when Fox News itself was forced to admit on air that the claims were not true once the lawsuit was filed in court. Fox News was forced to debunk its own reporting on the smartmatic machines after being sued. Dominion machine’s suing Fox News forced them to admit on air the claims they were peddling for months were not true. It will be very difficult to prove that they didn’t know. Because that would mean they were incompetent or deliberate. Neither of which is a good defense.
“ Provide your evidence why those statements made by guests on Fox were not true.”
“ After legal threat, Fox airs news package debunking election fraud claims made by its own hosts”
Anonymous the Stupid, you don’t know what was vetted or not. Fox vets far better than the Washington Post which uses anonymous sources that seem to start in the janitorial services. You draw your conclusions before the facts are in. That is a problem. That is why your facts proved to be wrong in virtually every major hoax.
I don’t know what happened and am not afraid to say so. Fox has been the best of the MSM so though I might not always agree with Fox, I find them preferable to the liars you promote daily.
If people did not do their news reporting correctly because they wanted to pull a Blair (NYT), they should be fired.
Now list your proof, not what is under question.
“Yes they do, but only after either being threatened with a lawsuit or being called out on their mistakes.“
That is a lie. Fox News has corrected mistakes even when no suit was pending. In the end green anonymous and anonymous the stupid has to resort to lies.
“ That is a lie. Fox News has corrected mistakes even when no suit was pending.”
Ah, but you left out, only when they make “mistakes” as well. You say they are careful with facts. But obviously the evidence provided doesn’t support your assertion. So it’s no lie. Nice try though.
ATS, you make no sense. All humans make mistakes and so do the entities humans run. For the most part Fox News has been reasonably accurate by today’s standards imposed by the MSM. Fox corrects its mistakes. That is not true with the MSM.
Any time you wish to prove your case, do so. I have no loyalty to Fox so I am interested. But make sure your rules include the MSM.
“ Fox corrects its mistakes. That is not true with the MSM.”
Of course it is true. They issue corrections all the time. It’s standard practice in journalism.
Here are some examples,
“ Washington Post, New York Times, and NBC News retract reports on Giuliani”
“ CNN Corrects a Trump Story, Fueling Claims of ‘Fake News’”
Can’t say it’s not true when they obviously made corrections. Even you have admitted to it far up thread.
Fox corrects its “mistakes” only when being sued or being called out after perpetrating the “ mistake” for months. That’s not a honest “mistake”.
Anonymous the Stupid (aka Green anonymous), you have been proven wrong so many times that I can’t make you look more foolish no matter what I do.
Example: The NYT still refuses to return the Pulitzer it got for lying. The Washington Post got Pulitzers for untrue stories. They retract only minimal amounts of erroneous reporting and use their news page as an op-ed page.
Tell us where Bret Baier, I think the main newscaster on Fox, lied or didn’t correct a mistake?
Take all the reporting of the hoaxes, including the Steele Dossier and Hunter’s laptop and show me where these two newspapers have set the record straight. They haven’t.
“ Anonymous the Stupid, when your argument fails, you rely on changing the subject. You blame your lack of intellectual capacity on commas, spelling or grammar.”
LOL! You are the one who brought up Jeff Bezos and showed poor grammar skills. It seems you’re describing yourself more, not I.
Speaking of intellectual capacity. The fact that you failed to recognize your gross grammatical error in structuring a paragraph demonstrates a clear failure of intelligence.
You already conceded that you were wrong to claim Fox News is credible and that those who rely on it are credible. You undermined your own argument far back in the conversation.
“Obviously they are not careful about their facts by the examples I pointed out.”
You pointed out statements made by liars like yourself, ATS.
“ You pointed out statements made by liars like yourself, ATS.”
I pointed out facts that you have already admitted to be true. Can’t be a liar if you already admitted that Fox News engages in disinformation, “mistakes”, as you put it. Even acknowledging the fact that Fox News is being sued for defamation because of that misinformation it has been spreading. So again, I pointed out using your own logic which you certified you believe without a doubt that relying on Fox News makes one not credible.
“I pointed out facts that you have already admitted to be true.”
Your problem is that you stretched the point to such an extent that you are lying.
“Fox News engages in disinformation, “mistakes”, as you put it. ”
Disinformation is the use of sources that do not exist or shouldn’t be sources in the first place. That is what the MSM intentionally did with their news coverage where Trump is concerned. Lying by omission is what the MSM does where Biden is concerned though they also lie through commission.
We take note of how you use a suit as the fact that someone lied. That is the level you are stuck at. Opinion rules your facts, and facts don’t matter if they are contrary to your opinion.
“ Disinformation is the use of sources that do not exist or shouldn’t be sources in the first place.”
Like Fox News manipulating video and photos as pointed out before. You keep confirming what I’m pointing out to you. They too intentionally made those “mistakes”.
“ We take note of how you use a suit as the fact that someone lied. That is the level you are stuck at. Opinion rules your facts, and facts don’t matter if they are contrary to your opinion.”
It WAS a lie that was being spread by them. They didn’t fact check the claims. They just kept spreading it for months. Therefore they were complicit in spreading a lie.
You never disputed the fact that Fox News is being sued and that they stopped spreading misinformation about dominion as soon as Dominion showed it was being serious. They are facts. Even you admit it. It seems you are desperately trying to avoid further admission but somehow you keep doing it.
ATS, I am sure Fox has made mistakes. I accept errors and the fact that humans sometimes have bad judgment. Though it occasionally happens at Fox, it is continuous in the MSM.
Look at the Rittenhouse case where the videos were available to be looked at. You want to play dumb. So be it.
“You never disputed the fact that Fox News is being sued and that they stopped spreading misinformation about dominion as soon as Dominion showed it was being serious. They are facts. Even you admit it ”
Your statement is bizarre and demonstrates profound ignorance. I know Fox is being sued. That means the question goes to court. If the court finds in favor of Fox, then Fox did nothing wrong. You are assuming Fox will lose. That is what you base much of your thinking on, assumptions. Most of those assumptions have been proven false.
“ You pointed out statements made by liars like yourself, ATS.”
I pointed out facts that you acknowledged to be true when you didn’t dispute the validity of the claims. Can’t call me a liar when you acknowledge the claims are not false.
True, Fox is being sued, but you are pretending that they already lost. That is what makes you a liar.
Wait until this guy hears about the Press claiming that the President was an intelligence asset of Russia cultivated for decades, and under the control of the Kremlin. He’s going to flip!
El-Cid, this guy, Anonymous the Stupid, (AKA ATS) who also uses a green icon with the anonymous name has believed almost every hoax but never admits he was wrong about important things. He loved Cuomo and was all excited about Cuomo’s Emmy. Don’t expect much from him because his links frequently are meaningless, out of date etc. He frequently uses a link in argument but doesn’t understand or know what the link said. He denies all of this and blames it on one of his pretend (anonymous friends). He has used other icons as well.
S. Meyer, you are one seriously deluded fella. I have no idea who this “green icon” guy you’re referring to is.
“ El-Cid, this guy, Anonymous the Stupid, (AKA ATS).”
‘AKA’ is an acronym for “according to police”. Which makes no sense when you use it in this sentence. There’s no meed to use the term “AKA” at all. It’s pretty stupid in itself. Pretty ironic coming from a guy who calls someone else… stupid.
“I have no idea who this “green icon” guy you’re referring to is.”
He is a liar and Stupid, just like you are. I know you want to separate the green anonymous from the gray, but they are linked and known to be linked by Anonymous the Stupid’s own admission. Is it possible that occasionally someone else acts as Stupidly as Anonymous the Stupid? Maybe, but then he is as Stupid as Anonymous the Stupid and has a right to the title. For the most part, Anonymous the Stupid uses more than one icon and even a different name in the past. In any event, being anonymous makes you non-credible and a non-entity.
“‘AKA’ is an acronym for “according to police”
ATS, it is hard to know when you are Stupid or acting Stupid, so I will simplify the statement made. “El-Cid, this guy, Anonymous the Stupid,” (AKA ATS) Also Known as Anonymous the Stupid. Now even you can understand what is being said. I probably should have placed AKA in small letters, but I was emphasizing a point. When dealing with you, I take the blame for having to be very careful to keep things simple. You are intellectually challenged.
Another view is that the Framers supported “unpredictable outcomes” and were more concerned on the constitutional “means” (process) more than the end results. The Framers trusted the American people (limited in action by the U.S. Constitution) more than they trusted government bureaucracies.
Women’s rights also didn’t exist back then but the constitutional process created that outcome. Madison was concerned about the “tyranny of the majority” so he did want citizens to operate within constitutional legal boundaries along with government officials. The Jim Crow era is a great example of Madison’s “tyranny of the majority” and constitutionally oath-sworn officials not protecting the least among us.
Some (not all) of Framers also opposed slavery and left lots of ambiguous language in the U.S. Constitution so America could eventually abolish it. If the U.S. Constitution were written a different way, neither women nor African-Americans would have any rights today.
We have politics today resulting in short-term tyranny. Presidents of both parties haven’t closed Guantanamo Bay gulag. Both parties still allow unconstitutional blacklisting (ie: Cointelpro) for 70 years now. This lack of integrity and courage is largely due to politics, hopefully constitutional due process will end the tyranny that voters of both parties have ignored for several decades. It’s easy to judge past tyranny but what about today’s tyranny?
“Women’s rights also didn’t exist back then but the constitutional process created that outcome.”
The Constitutional process created the franchise for women. Subsequently, women have been able to vote for representative governments, many of which outlawed or regulated abortions. Roe and Casey are not the “constitutional process,” they were a way around it.
In any event, you’re revealing a prime fallacy of our age. Rights are “antimajoritarian” in their enforcement, not their creation. The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments were created democratically. Their value is that they may be enforced when majorities oppose their enforcement – i.e., you have a right to dissident political speech, because the right to speech and petition is universal. You don’t have a right to speech simply by virtue of holding dissident views.
It’s hard to conceive of abortion in a preindustrial, agrarian society in which children are generally perceived as a source of low cost labor and a retirement plan as anything approaching the issue that it is in the modern United States having suffered three waves of feminism. My surmise is that abortion was likely the purview of (male) knaves and rakes, and not a common enough practice regardless of legal status to warrant widespread public discussion.
Nevertheless, I don’t see how one gets from, arguendo, “early abortion was not outlawed in the colonies of pre-Revolutionary America” to “abortion is a right protected by the United States Constitution which is impervious to democratic regulation.” Whatever that is, it’s not originalism. To the extent that this was true, and that the Founders spent any mental energy on abortion themselves, you’d presume that it would be a matter for the States’ police power. Perhaps Tang is engaging in a sort of reverse textualism – the Founders did not outlaw abortion in the Constitution, therefore it is a right protected by the Constitution.
“There is a reason why such originalist arguments have not been embraced for the last 50 years. ”
There are more than a couple reasons why originalist rationale should be avoided around the issue of abortion, not the least of which is the being ‘in for a penny, in for a pound’ aspect of it all…
Many of the framers owned slaves and impregnated them. Thereby ‘owning’ their children in an amplified way. This let them increase their slave holdings for sure…, but don’t you think they would’ve favored abortion by and large in order to cover up their dirty goat imipulses??? Let’s come correct and factor in the reality that many of these framers would’ve loved to have obscured the work of mr. happy in the slave quarters.
I’m not sure if your failure to consider all sides of an issue is driven more my natural shortsightedness or rather because you work for an organization dedicated to mis and disinformation, Turley. But it certainly seems to be a chronic problem of yours.
Other than as rumor and speculation (which would be loosely employed as to political rivals) how do you know that the Founders fathered children with slaves? Washington had no legitimate issue of his body, and it is widely believed that he was infertile due to illness or injury in his youth. Are you proposing that he had a second family of mulatto children with a slave or two?
Certainly all of the Founders didn’t father Black children. The jury is out on Washington, he is alleged to have fathered a Black son, West Ford, whose descendants have passed down that history through oral tradition in the same dogged fashion that followed Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Washington is thought to have been impotent because he didn’t have any children with Martha who had mothered four children previously. That too is not proof. In Jefferson’s case, DNA evidence ultimately proved his rape. Madison’s case could have been proven one way or the other but male descendants of Madison refused to take DNA tests. It’s claimed there isn’t enough DNA to test Washington though his teeth reside in a museum. Oops, my bat, those aren’t his teeth, they were dentures that included teeth pulled from the mouth of slaves.
We do know some Founders fathered slaves, their mixed children were valued more and were raised to perform inside work or girls to be “fancies” to serve their masters, friends, and paying customers. One of the reasons given that Washington couldn’t have fathered Ford is because he was too concerned about his image and never would have done such a thing. Such bs, I will add that he also told lies if you believe he would never tell one.
Originalism is based on maintaining the beliefs of those who though it proper to enslave, rape, brutalize, and kill Black people at whim. The Founders gave us Partus Sequitur Ventrem which meant children of slave women were slaves as well, while making rape legal and waiving any responsibility for the fathers. (Portugal thought it was a good idea too and copied it for their slaves). Jefferson wrote Washington a letter outlining the profitability of slavery and why a woman was worth much more than the best male field hand. Before you give credit to Jefferson for ending the International Slave Trade, know that he did it as a protectionist measure to raise the raise the price of domestic born slaves (often the product of rape and forced breeding) to help Virginia plantation owners like himself (with Maryland and Delaware as a biproduct) because they had excess slaves having ruined their tobacco fields from not rotating crops and following other known best practices of the time.
I can give credit to some Founders including some that owned slaves like John Jay who were trying to make progress. Many of the first Supreme Court Justices owned slaves and some fathered Black children as well. It would be interesting to know if they felt abortion of slave children was treated as anything other than destruction of property?
Constitutional originalism means that the constitution should be interpreted based on the founder’s intent including the right of the people to amend the constitution when necessary.
The alternative is the idea of a ‘living constitution’ which, for example, finds the right to abortion, a right not specified by the constitution, to be ‘inferred’ by the fourth amendment’s right to privacy. No amendment by the people is necessary to change a ‘living constitution’, all that is needed is a pliable, and inventive, judiciary willing to find whatever right they seek ‘hidden’ between the lines of the original text.
The founders did adopt the practice of Partus Sequitur Ventrem which, by modern standards, is considered to be an abhorrent practice. However, they did not invent this practice. Partus Sequitur Ventrem finds its roots in ancient Roman law. Slavery was practiced from ancient times through the 19th century in much of the world, including the US, and is still practiced in some parts of the world to this day.
However, slavery was abolished in the US over 150 years ago. While the founders, by modern standards, did get this point wrong, the constitutional system that they set up did, through constitutional amendments, subsequently get it right.
Finally, it is apparent that some of the founders may have had children with slaves. However, to the point of the article that we are commenting on, did any of the founders abort a child, whether free or slave? The answer appears to be an emphatic no.
This being the case, any attempt to create a ‘living history’ where such a thing can be inferred to be true is just as wrong as believing in a ‘living constitution’ where any right that one desires can be read between the lines.
The Founders intent in the Constitution was to protect slavery and empower property owning white men. Originalism only reinforces those things. The Supreme Court is made up of people selected generally by rich white men who ensure they will always be protected. It’s how we end up with corporations being people. The Second Amendment was partially about slave patrols. The Constitution gave us the Electoral College (which protected slavery) and the three-fifths clause (also protected slavery). Originalism is meant to do the same things now as it did then.
This might be an argument for throwing the whole thing out. It is not, however, an argument for keeping only the parts that you like and ignoring the remainder.
Insisting on originalism is to keep from improving on it. I’d say throw the whole thing out but current politicians are little different than the Founders.
The Founders intent in the Constitution was to protect slavery and empower property owning white men.
Your 1619 project view of history is rejected.
The Framers intent was to form a union of 13 colonies…period. They needed all of them. The DoI stated without, any equivocation, that all were created equal with certain unalienable rights. That would be the vision for the “more perfect” union. With the cultural norms of the time, that union would never of happened if slavery were required to be ended, if women and non-landowning citizens were allowed to vote. Securing the union, with a ratified constitution, was priority one. Then and only then would they be able to put this country on the path we ultimately followed.
Originalism is meant to do the same things now as it did then.
BS. Progressivism (regressivism) is doing the same things now as they were pre-1860 and the Democratic party is the face of this regressivism. Originalism is about interpretation of the founders constitutional intent. And the intent of the constitution was to form a more perfect union based on the DoI’s self-evident truths.
Olly, Enigma has succumbed to the idea that perfection should lead us into an unknowing future. He forgets not to let the perfect get in the way of the good.
The Left only seems to think strategically when it involves gaining power. Once they have the power, they then resort to tactical thinking. 10 months of the Biden administration proves this point. Everything they’ve done, from Keystone, the border, supply chain, Covid, Afghanistan, and on and on. To claim any of their policies to be tactical success, you’d have to conclude they want this republic to fail.
Tactically, the framers could have insisted on the end of slavery and voting rights for all citizens. That would have guaranteed there would have been no union of 13 colonies and we would have likely functioned like Europe, with countries at war with each other.
“you’d have to conclude they want this republic to fail.”
They do. See Krauthammer’s video Decline is a Choice. That is what the left has chosen.
The DoI was never intended to mean everybody as evidenced by the main writer who obviously believed none oif it.
That’s your evidence? 57 men signed it knowing they were committing everything to what that documented envisioned. Not all of them were slaveowners. They knew who wrote it and they signed it knowing he meant it. That document wasn’t telling the world this was the current state of things in America. It was telling the world these were the principles this country would aspire to become. Anyone that does strategic planning goes through this process. They know when they create their vision statement that they are telling everyone this is what we want to become in 5, 10, whatever number of years in the future. In most cases this will require a change in culture. Companies can do that in a comparatively short period of time to that of an entire country. Look how long it’s taken the Marxists to transform the culture in this country.
Enigma is correct in ascertaining that the constitution’s original intent was to protect slavery. The British empire was in the process of abolishing the slave trade and the colonies relied on the slave trade because it was extremely profitable, especially in the south. While trading in slaves was diminishing the market for slaves in the colonies up until the civil war was hugely important.
The constitution’s protections for slave owners was apparent until the 14th amendment was ratified.
Enigma is correct in ascertaining that the constitution’s original intent was to protect slavery.
That is an absolutely narrow view of original intent. There were 13 colonies that each had issues that needed to be addressed before they would commit to being a part of this constitutional republic. The best single indicator of what their original intent was is the DoI. That document defies the argument the framers intended to protect slavery. They needed ratification of all 13 to begin transforming the culture towards equality for all.
Olly, your response was very convincing to anyone who does lie by commission or omission.
SM, did you mean to say: …to anyone who does not lie by commission or omission.
Thank you Olly, I goofed.
You have been told about the 3/5ths clause before and how you have it backwards.
I am still waiting to hear from you whether sub-Saharan [black] Africans ever accomplished anything like writing, mathematics, cities, and civilization. So far that part of the continent is a black hole of culture. Worthless.
I suppose it only makes sense that to be racist you also have to be ignorant.
Send miserable, America loathing blacks like you to Africa, one way ticket, at expense of US Treasury. Watch what happens to them, albeit from afar. Africans would throw you on the first boat back to America
Rid your ilk of us, and rid us of your ilk, its a win win situation.
Of course we love, celebrate, gain much from American blacks like Condi Rice, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, et al. You, OTOH, are just a miserable frack.
Buh bye, hello Africa, good luck with your survival then ROFLMAO
Enigma– ” I suppose it only makes sense that to be racist you also have to be ignorant.”
Is that your excuse for your blatant racism?
The media, that once took pride in accuracy is gone. The new media takes pride in carrying the water for certain viewpoints, regardless of truth or factual support. A media, that once was the protector of the people, is now the protector of those who want to rule over the people. A once proud bastion of truth and freedom, is no longer…
I think we need to conceive of an outlet like the WaPo as fan service for its subscriber base rather than a proper Press outlet. This piece reinforces the worldview of the professional managerial class, which makes it correct if based in false factual and legal assumptions.
Lefties lie to us, they lie to each other, and worst of all, they lie to themselves.
Living in the world of non-reality, which you clearly do, than everything that is not in your reality would be a lie.
The Darkness that WaPo decries appears evident in this publication of demonstrably false story that seeks to advance a particular agenda.
Comments are closed.