To Nero Germanicus:
You should probably peruse this thread to get a taste for what *MOST* conservatives think of the Judiciary.
Nero is busy bending over for 0bama.
First and foremost, there is no such thing as binding precedent at the U.S. Supreme Court. The Justices of the High Court are not bound by “stare decisis,” only lower courts must follow the holdings of higher courts. Some of the most famous landmark decisions of the Supreme Court have overturned precedent.
While I will always take the points of view of other conservatives into account, I have my own points of view. I will not succumb to the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Just because a point of view is popular with some conservatives doesn’t make it the only valid point of view.
I can guarantee you that there will NEVER be a time when constitutionist conservative justices don’t consider and aren’t guided by original intent.
Originalism, strict constructionism and textualism are the philosphical foundations of conservative jurisprudence.
Originalism is the theory of interpretation by which judges attempt to ascertain the meaning of a particular provision of a state or federal constitution by determining how the provision was understood at the time it was drafted and ratified. That’s historical precedent.
Strict Construction means interpreting the Constitution based on a literal and narrow definition of the language without reference to the differences in conditions when the Constitution was written and modern conditions, inventions and societal changes. By contrast “broad construction” looks to what someone thinks was the “intent” of the framers’ language and expands and interprets the language extensively to meet current standards of human conduct and the complexity of modern society. That’s historical precedent.
Textualism is a theory of statutory interpretation which holds that a statute’s original meaning as evidenced in its word for word text should govern how judges interpret the statute, as opposed to alternative methods of statutory interpretation such as inquiring into historical sources in attempt to discover the intent of the legislative body that approved the statute.
Textualism is consistent with the “Plain Meaning Rule,” which says that interpreters of statutes ought to interpret what a statute says according to its “plain meaning.”
“Textualism” also refers to a set of practical techniques used by some noted jurists to nail down the meaning of a statute through close consideration of its text. That’s legal precedent.
Historical legal precedent is a factor that conservative judges take into consideration when looking for an understanding of original intent, narrow construction and textual considerations. Precedent can be a guide at the Supreme Court. It is not a legal straitjacket.