It’s funny, but the insistence on the methodological mediation is always funny. Why not just say, “I just want my contemporary policy preferences upheld which oddly comports with this thing called originalism re an often ambiguous late Enlightenment document.”
On standing, if a federal law makes your conduct illegal, I think you have standing to challenge that. But you seem unaware that the reason people see it as a weak case is severability, which is where I think the plaintiffs come up short.
-
-
No, of course I understand that the key part of the case. But I’m trying to get you to concede that all justices are political, but they need to try to be fair because the community constrains what, in any given era, a “reasonable” argument is. It’s God’s tablets.
-
Everybody's political. The question is whether or not you recognize an external constraint in the text & history of the Constitution. Only one side does. This is why this is not symmetrical.
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.