Posted on 07/03/2022 7:36:27 PM PDT by DeweyCA
We need a divorce 🤪
Constitution bookmark.
JAMBOG.
There Are Two Fundamentally Irreconcilable Constitutional Visions
07/02/2022 6:54:30 AM PDT · by MtnClimber · 51 replies
Manhattan Contrarian ^ | 1 Jul, 2022 | Francis Menton
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/4075583/posts
Scalia and Thomas, for example, although both staunch originalists differed at times. In the latter phase of Scalia's tenure he sometimes described himself as a "textualist" in preference to the term originalist due to the risks of getting lost in the weeds of often poorly documented original intent. As Justice Hugo Black emphasized in an earlier era, the text of the Constitution itself is the best and mot powerful guide to what the Framers intended.
Scalia saw constitutional precedents of long tenure of 75 years or more as having acquired a reliance interest that made them near untouchable because they had become part of the country's understanding of the Constitution. Thomas though would accord no value to long tenure and would overturn precedents if they were shown to be wrong.
Notably, the "living document" theory of the Constitution suffers from an inherent contradiction in that, just as changes in tide and current can reshape a coastline, so also is a living Constitution subject to reinterpretation that erodes or abandons old precedents. This reduces all liberal victories to being little more than jottings on sand when a determined conservative majority is installed on the Supreme Court.
Another dimension of Constitutional law often missed by the public is that some Supreme Court decisions are bad because they are badly reasoned or set out unsound or unworkable rules of decision for specific cases. Should the Court establish a hard and fast rule with no exceptions? Or if there should be exceptions, should they be few or many? Should there be a balancing test, or a bright line?
In practice, out of a sense of restraint, the Court usually leaves as much as it can to be elaborated in later cases so that experience may help to illuminate those kinds of issues and build support for the Court's approach.
Some justices are lunkheads about those sorts of issues, or are bad writers, are unpleasant personalities, are shady operators, or just seem lost as to how the Supreme Court works in concept and in practice. Those with great reputations in their day may fade over time or even be exposed as unethical after they are dead.
As much as the Left hates Justice Thomas, they seem to be recognizing just how influential he has become, both intellectually and in the respect and liking that he enjoys with his colleagues. Justice Thomas has become the dominant Justice on the Supreme Court. The Republic may yet be saved.
Great article
Why do you think they keep talking about "democracy"?
Imagine there is no constitution. You are allowed to own firearms. A school shooting takes place and in the heat of emotion, but by popular vote, the weapon used is banned and ordered to be confiscated.
That is democracy
Imagine a fire hits a refinery. With capacity constrained, the price of fuel spikes. By simple popular vote, the people lower the price at the pump. Fuel must be sold at a loss until the supply is depleted.
That is democracy.
Imagine an allegation is made that the POTUS colluded with Russia. By a simple vote, they are removed from office without a trial, just from media reports.
That is democracy
Under democracy, the nation would have no stability. It would be jerked left and right to whatever a simple majority feels in the moment.
Business law, criminal law, social norms would all be uncertain and a moving target. Some people would be in prison for a crime that was later repealed. Businesses would not know how to invest in case someone creates a scandal over them that eliminates their profit.
Everything we know would break down rapidly and the nation would be plunged into chaos.
Only a handful at the top would have stability and full control....which is what they want.
READ LATER.
The leftists on SCOTUS have all clearly stated:
“Our seat is a political one, and our arguments are purely political. The Law, the Constitution, mean nothing to us.”
The dissenting comments are legislative arguments, not judicial arguments.
Pretty cut and dried.
The “Equal Rights Amendment “ was a good example of how the process worked.
Two (or more) groups can have different opinions. But, not on facts. Or truth. There is no “your truth”, there is simply truth/fact.
If one side of an argument bases its opinions on a falsehood, make no compromises with them. They are WRONG!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.