No. Justices have the legitimacy that the legal interpretive community gives them—that’s why the political salient cases are just two more or less plausible readings of a complex text supported by endless appendages of case law.
-
-
Ha! And that’s the joke of your position. That’s the laugh. As if Shelby County is careful. Of course there are constraints. I said that earlier. Every legal theorists understands that. Just like you can’t say the whale in Moby Dick is blue and Ahab has two good legs.
-
But that doesn’t get one very far. As you are certain that your interpretations, supported by a highly political organization that didn’t exist in 1960, let alone 1810, miraculously produce exactly the outcomes in every major, complex case that conform with your politics.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think you'll find that idiosyncratic amateur opinion in philology and political history mixed with a dash of creative telepathy and a sprinkle of confirmation bias isn't actually an external constraint.
-
If you take a disciplined empirical approach to historical meaning (e.g., do a massive of corpus analysis of a critical phrase) and discover a fairly clear answer about the public meaning at the time, NO ONE will care if it doesn't line up with a contemporary partisan agenda.
- 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.