>...Scalia famously pushed originalism, but even he essentially writes out slavery, Native American disenfranchisement, and the chattel status of women in the 18th century, and other originalists are even less consistent.
I am no legal scholar by any means, but wasn't Scalia's argument that if the people don't like the social contract (i.e. the constitution), the people should change it via amendments vs having judges change it? I think he would say he did not "essentially writes out slavery..." but rather the 13th, the 19th amendments etc. wrote those out of the constitution.
Their service to institutions might have been good at one point, but their service to consumers was horrendous. I bought a PC from them at around their height and about 1 month later the hard disk died. It took a few customer service calls (each requiring a wait of 45 minutes to an hour to talk to someone) before they agreed the hard disk was bad. They send out an empty hard disk and I had to take the time to re-install all the software from a huge number of floppies. I also had to take time to package up the old drive, go to UPS and pay the postage to ship the broken drive back to them. (I remember they preemptively billed my credit card for the hard disk and later credited me. I guess they assumed their customers were scum bags like themselves.) I realized that when taking my time into account, I would have been much better off just paying for the hard drive myself and ignoring the warranty. Companies like they deservedly belong in the ash heap of history.
>...libertarians believe there should be no regulation about what data companies can collect and how they process it.
Such an overly broad statement is wrong. The libertarian position is more nuanced than that with people (at least in their minds) generally trying to balance privacy without hurting innovation. See for example
>...There is a difference between mass surveillance and law enforcement.
There is a difference between Facebook collecting data about its users and Homeland Security/FBI/NSA/etc etc collecting data about citizens exercising their constitutional rights.
The original context here was
>...But if it gets deployed against George Floyd protestors... Ehhh... nbd)
Mass surveillance by the government is a big deal to libertarians and always has been.
>...In 1971, the fledgling Libertarian Party (L.P.) called for "the repeal of all 'crimes without victims' now incorporated in federal and state laws," such as the prohibitions on drug use that have driven so much of the escalation in aggressive police tactics. The same platform declared itself opposed to "so-called 'no-knock laws'" of the sort that got Breonna Taylor killed by cops this year when they crashed through her door at night, unannounced, looking for illegal drugs.
>..."We support full restitution for all loss suffered by persons arrested, indicted, tried, imprisoned, or otherwise injured in the course of criminal proceedings against them which do not result in their conviction," the L.P. proposed in 1976. "Law enforcement agencies should be liable for this restitution unless malfeasance of the officials involved is proven, in which case they should be personally liable."
I am no legal scholar by any means, but wasn't Scalia's argument that if the people don't like the social contract (i.e. the constitution), the people should change it via amendments vs having judges change it? I think he would say he did not "essentially writes out slavery..." but rather the 13th, the 19th amendments etc. wrote those out of the constitution.