coney is a british term for rabbit
Amy Coney Barrett
- Thread starter sculptor
- Start date
Also - were her parents aware of the bible connection, or perhaps name picked from a book of names
*****
Hyrax, (order Hyracoidea), also called dassie, any of six species of small hoofed mammals (ungulates) native to Africa and extreme southwestern Asia. ... The term cony (coney) as used in the Bible refers to the hyrax, not to the pika (“true” cony).
www.britannica.com › animal › hyrax
*****
Nicknames for Coney
Meanings and history of the name Coney
The boy's name Coney (KAH-nee or KOH-nee) is of Middle English origin, and the meaning of Coney is "rabbit".
https://www.babynamewizard.com/baby-name/boy/coney
Interesting
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.br...sland-brooklyn-neighborhood-name-origins/amp/
Dutch too apparently
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yes it's from the Latin, cuniculus. Also Italian coniglio, Spanish conejo.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
The hyrax is not part of the rabbit family though. Its closest living relative is............... the elephant!!Also - were her parents aware of the bible connection, or perhaps name picked from a book of names
*****
Hyrax, (order Hyracoidea), also called dassie, any of six species of small hoofed mammals (ungulates) native to Africa and extreme southwestern Asia. ... The term cony (coney) as used in the Bible refers to the hyrax, not to the pika (“true” cony).
www.britannica.com › animal › hyrax
*****
Nicknames for Coney
Meanings and history of the name Coney
The boy's name Coney (KAH-nee or KOH-nee) is of Middle English origin, and the meaning of Coney is "rabbit".
https://www.babynamewizard.com/baby-name/boy/coney
But wait: the elephant is the symbol of the Republican party. So all is explained.
I'm not going to go through Democratic names looking for a assThe hyrax is not part of the rabbit family though. Its closest living relative is............... the elephant!!
But wait: the elephant is the symbol of the Republican party. So all is explained.
"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) after the 2016 death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia telling participants during a Senate meeting to "use my words against me."
At the time, the senator said he was against picking a justice right before a presidential election, stating that if then-candidate Donald Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) were president and a vacancy were left at the end of the their first term, the choice should be left to the winner of the next election.
"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."
Lying filthy conservative rats.
At the time, the senator said he was against picking a justice right before a presidential election, stating that if then-candidate Donald Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) were president and a vacancy were left at the end of the their first term, the choice should be left to the winner of the next election.
"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."
Lying filthy conservative rats.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
If the legislation is found to be unconstitutional
the supreme courts(state and federal) strike it down
It is then up to the legislatures if they wish to try again, or abandon the legislation
an example comes to mind
The Tenure of Office Act passed by congress in 1867 to impeach president Andrew Johnson
wherein congress sought to usurp the power/duties of the executive branch
20 years later, the supreme court heard Myers v. United States and found the tenure of office act to be unconstitutional
the constitution clearly sets out the 3 separate branches of government
the legislative
the executive
and
the judiciary
..................................
often, the judiciary will not bother to consider unconstitutional laws
an example comes to mind
In order to get federal highway dollars, the Illinois legislature passed a law requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets.
The Illinois constitution forbade mandating specific clothing.
So one could be arrested for not wearing a helmet, but not prosecuted for not wearing a helmet.
There are many such examples----(I know that one because I grew up in Illinois and had a motorcycle.)
Last edited:
The Constitution says the right of the people to bear arms so free non-whites should have been included in the people. Since some states emancipated after 1790 I assume those states would have allowed them to have guns. Gun control is more a thing of the 20th century.
no it isn't. that is a gross misrepresentation of history
Yeah, funny thing about that.
When Ronald Reagan was governor of California, and the legislature was mostly republican, no one talked about gun laws. Open carry was legal and no one minded much. Second Amendment and all that.
Then in 1966, there was a lot of unrest in Oakland. Members of the Black Panthers started patrolling streets with their weapons prominently displayed. Suddenly republicans couldn't pass gun control laws fast enough. Within a few months republican assemblyman Don Mulford introduced a bill outlawing open carry. Ronald Reagan signed it as fast as his shaking hands could push the pen. And gun control had come to republican California.
So whenever you ask yourself where the roots of gun control (at least in California) come from - it was racist fear.
Last edited:
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Quite interesting admission. It nicely illustrates the anti-constitutional nature of the modern left.
There are, obviously, two responses to a constitution which was written originally for white property-owning men. One is to extend the rights given by the constitution to other people too, the other one to remove these rights from white property-owning men, so that nobody has any rights, and the government becomes almighty. The left actually seems to prefer the latter.
Probably not only actually. The constitutions in communist countries were always only laughable. Not because of the text (which was funny too) but because of the complete disagreement with reality. "Originalists" had no power at all in these countries. The very point of constitutions is to force the state to accept the rights of the citizens against the state, and such restrictions of state power are foreign for the left. Ok, in the very beginning this was different. At that time, constitutions restricted the monarchies, and they were too far from power to care about a time when they will be restricted by constitutions themselves.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
That is an incorrect conclusion.
Witness your following statement.
Are you saying that the "left" is anti-constitutional or that the left is pro-constitutional, by declaring "all men are created equal" and that a hierarchy of democratically elected governments, provides adequate "representation" to protect this equality.
Freedom can only exist within an orderly pattern of social engineering with consideration of the human "foot-print" on Earth.
What few seem to understand or accept is that rich white men have destroyed the planet by exercising their unlimited freedom of "natural rights" and their wanton plunder of the earth's resources and ecology.
I believe we are beginning to witness the Earth's response to human unlimited exploitative practices without any regard to natural ecological balance and/or regularity.
But in the end it is Earth that imposes it's limitations to unrestricted use of natural resources. All human rights are subservient to the Earth's ecological balance.
Perhaps we should recognize the Earth's natural restrictions in our constitutional considerations of "human rights".....
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
What is a bit ironic about this drive to pack the Supreme Court with conservatives, young enough to be around for 30 years or more, is that it looks as if the Republican party is taking its cue from Iran!
Iran has a Guardian Council, packed with conservatives, whose job it is to rule on constitutional matters - and to snuff out attempts at reform. Maybe we should take to referring to SCOTUS as "The Moollahs".
Christ, do you even pay attention to your own freakin words?
There's obviously a third option, which I already described--that of the originalists. The originalist says, if the Constitution was written, originally, for property-owning white men, then keep it that way!
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
wrong
and
wrong again
................................
Do you know the race of the first American colonist to own a black person for life?
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
In other words, freedom is slavery.
There are, of course, thousands of other options, I listed only the most relevant ones in the context of this discussion. Your third option seems quite irrelevant. Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism I find some version of originalism named "original intent theory", but nobody is even mentioned defending this view, it seems to be only a minority view mentioned simply for completeness. The version which is the relevant one is obviously the "original meaning theory", given that Scalia, which appeared here in the thread already as an originalist close to Barret, is mentioned as a proponent of this original meaning theory. This theory does not care about the intent. The point that it was written for property-owning white men (which is anyway only funny leftist polemics) makes sense only as a statement about intent. So, neither "citizen" nor "person" can be interpreted as meaning only white property-owning people, because the meaning of these words at that time did include also people without property and non-whites. So, the text contains the phrase "... whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed ..." that means, it seemed necessary to exclude Indians from persons explicitly, and therefore it follows that Indians are persons.
Given the actual Orwellian redefinitions of many words, the insistence of the originalists to care about the meaning of the words at the time when they became part of the constitution makes sense.
You consistently betray yourself as a (presumably) Russian troll, but that bolded portion is just golden--the average American high school student knows better than that.
And, not coincidentally, Scalia is almost universally regarded as the most racist, homophobic and misogynistic Supreme Court Justice in modern history--I think one of his colleagues even described him as "Archie Bunker." (I probably ought to provide a link for you for that one.). Did you even bother to review any of Scalia's rulings on matters of gender, race, etc. to see just how well they lined up with the absurd nonsense you posted above?
Edit: That said, I could never quite figure how exactly Scalia--or anyone else, for that matter--saw himself as a proponent of this "original meaning" theory. Of course, I also know that I am not alone in thinking that many of Scalia's decisions were determined more by his theocratic bigotry and "conservatism" than any original meaning theory--the others thinking that also being uniquely more qualified than myself.
Also, how on earth does a guy who attended university in the 1950s/1960s not encounter, uh, certain texts and such which expose the sheer absurdity of this "original meaning" nonsense anyway? I know that legal discourse is pretty far removed from philosophy departments, but still...
Last edited: