Marianne Williamson

Rank 9 of 47
|
Score 237
7/2/2024, 3:40:52 PM
X
In reply to:
┴┬┴ 𝕋𝕒𝕪𝕝𝕠𝕣 𝕆𝕨𝕖𝕟𝕤 ┴┬┴
@anukasan1977
·
106d
@marwilliamson Court-packing in to circumvent a Supreme Court constituted through normal order, which is devoted to faithful textualism/originalism instead of judicial activism, is constitutionally abhorrent.

SCOTUS made the *only rational decision* in the Trump case.
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
106d
When asked on the campaign trail if I would expand the Supreme Court, I said it would depend on whether or not it continued to move in the same corporatist direction we've seen in many of their recent decisions. If they were to do so, there might be a point where they had crossed…
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
106d
When asked on the campaign trail if I would expand the Supreme Court, I said it would depend on whether or not it continued to move in the same corporatist direction we've seen in many of their recent decisions. If they were to do so, there might be a point where they had crossed…

The statement 'What they did here was not “faithful textualism/ originalism”' is a critique of the Supreme Court's decision, suggesting that the decision did not adhere to the principles of textualism or originalism. This statement is part of a broader discussion on the Supreme Court's role and decisions, which constitutes public discourse as it engages with significant public issues related to judicial philosophy and constitutional interpretation.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but it is critical of the Court's decision, which is a legitimate part of public discourse.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others, focusing on the decision rather than personal attacks. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by engaging in a discussion about judicial philosophy, though it is critical in nature. [+1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism of the Court's decision, without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]