To the extent that they are outcome driven, yes, absolutely.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Greg651 @EdWhelanEPPC and
To the extent that those are imposed as free-floating super checks on the meaning of text and law, Panda find purely by reference to a particular judges personal views? Yes
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Greg651 @EdWhelanEPPC and
I know that's not what he said. But in the absence of some settled common understanding of what the common good means, that's what it means in practice
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Greg651 @EdWhelanEPPC and
Maybe. As for me, I continue to believe that judges who do their jobs correctly often - or at least sometimes - reach conclusions that they don't personally like. And to assert that that condition is necessary to the rule of law
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AkivaMCohen @Greg651 and
Strictly from the perspective of getting conservative results, I don't see how the alternative to a textually based constitutionalism will play out in practice as anything but an empowerment of the legal elites of the Left. It's a mug's game.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @Greg651 and
Agreed. Though I am probably more amenable to some of those results then you are. But to me that's secondary to basic rule of law concerns
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I agree that the rule of written law is valuable in & of itself.
My suspicion of the @Vermeullarmine project as practical politics is not allayed by the difficulty anyone has in concisely explaining what its rules are, who is supposed to rule whom, or how it comes to be.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.