Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court Hearings

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
8,984
1,768
1,743
I'm no democrat but the concept of the constitution being a living document doesnt bother me so much. Otherwise we wouldn't have 27 amendments and a lot of people wouldnt be able to vote. It's intentionally difficult to amend for good reason, but is amendable all the same. There's just no way they could have thought of everything in the 1780's that may impact future generations. They knew this and it's why it's amendable which makes it a living document.

I also like the idea of judges applying the law in terms of what the framers had in mind at the time, to how it it applies today. Although at the end of the day it's an opinion of the judge. But, It's not a document we abide by word for word, there must be wiggle room for interpretation in the changing values and circumstances of modern culture.. i.e. Constitution grants the congress to raise and support the army and the navy. No mention of air force, space force, coast guard, or some other branch of the military that doesnt exist yet. But we can still interpret the intent behind the words in the constitution to meaning the military as it was understood then and applies today. A problem with originalism though is that some people think differently about it- i.e. is it the intend behind the authors? the ratifiers at the 1st convention? Perhaps the public that elected those ratifiers? or just the understanding of a reasonably educated reader?

One thing we dont have- any law that dictates how the constitution must be interpreted. One can be an originalist, or one can be otherwise. There's no impetus to be one way or the other. Me, personally, i do prefer a pragmatic approach, giving weight to precedence and consequence.

And another thing to consider- were the framers of the constitution originalists themselves?
I agree with you that the Constitution should be a living document that can be amended, but I disagree beyond that. The separations of power are clear. The legislative branch enacts laws, the executive branch carries them out, and the judicial branch interprets them. Judicial interpretations shouldn't change with time. If a law becomes outdated, it should be amended or repealed by Congress. It shouldn't be "reinterpreted" by an activist judge.
Unless of course that interpretation benefits you. Then you probably don’t have such a problem with it I bet. The term activist judge is also just an opinion, just because you think such and such judge is an activist doesn’t make it so. And is it not their job to Interpret as they see it? That’s their job. Meaning folks won’t all agree with that interpretation. Of course the only opinion that matters is the judge.
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,592
3,759
1,743
Unless of course that interpretation benefits you. Then you probably don’t have such a problem with it I bet. The term activist judge is also just an opinion, just because you think such and such judge is an activist doesn’t make it so. And is it not their job to Interpret as they see it? That’s their job. Meaning folks won’t all agree with that interpretation. Of course the only opinion that matters is the judge.
I disagree. I don’t want an activist judge to legislate from the bench, regardless of whether or not I benefit from their ruling. That’s a dangerous precedent that should never be accepted.

Let me give you an example. There’s no doubt that the 2nd amendment was intended to apply to individuals, because several of the framers of the Constitution said so. But there have been many activist judges rule that it only applies to the military. They know they’re interpreting it improperly, but they don’t care because they think it’s outdated and society would be better off without guns. That is unacceptable.

Another example is the ACA. I’ve never liked it, but I wouldn’t want the SCOTUS to throw it out unless it truly is unconstitutional. That would be unacceptable as well.

I want the judicial branch to interpret the law to the best of their ability, regardless of whether or not they agree with it or feel like it’s outdated. There should be nothing “pragmatic” about their rulings.
 

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
8,984
1,768
1,743
I disagree. I don’t want an activist judge to legislate from the bench, regardless of whether or not I benefit from their ruling. That’s a dangerous precedent that should never be accepted.

Let me give you an example. There’s no doubt that the 2nd amendment was intended to apply to individuals, because several of the framers of the Constitution said so. But there have been many activist judges rule that it only applies to the military. They know they’re interpreting it improperly, but they don’t care because they think it’s outdated and society would be better off without guns. That is unacceptable.

Another example is the ACA. I’ve never liked it, but I wouldn’t want the SCOTUS to throw it out unless it truly is unconstitutional. That would be unacceptable as well.

I want the judicial branch to interpret the law to the best of their ability, regardless of whether or not they agree with it or feel like it’s outdated. There should be nothing “pragmatic” about their rulings.
You dont want what you perceive to be an activist judge. Belief in something doesnt make it real is all i am saying.

Pragmatic judges are the only judges I would ever want, personally. I highly value pragmatism in an individual whose assessment of a situation is legally binding.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
53,292
17,930
1,743
Unless of course that interpretation benefits you. Then you probably don’t have such a problem with it I bet. The term activist judge is also just an opinion, just because you think such and such judge is an activist doesn’t make it so. And is it not their job to Interpret as they see it? That’s their job. Meaning folks won’t all agree with that interpretation. Of course the only opinion that matters is the judge.
I've always wondered how many ways this could be interpreted?

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."