3 ms·

> People dispensing justice want to see that you're making strides in their movement. Since when was that the case? The "people dispensing justice" are judges

> People dispensing justice want to see that you're making strides in their movement. Since when was that the case? The "people dispensing justice" are judges - and separation of powers takes away the interest of the judiciary from being minded in advancing politics, ideology, and 'movements'. The "people dispensing justice" have no business in the politics of their day -- their business is strictly concerned with law and evidence, not the fashionable ideology of a particular era - especially in the originalist and constitutional context. Any attempt by "the people dispensing justice" intentionally to advance a cause is malpractice and an abuse of process, not sound law. It is especially worse now that the 'people defining injustice' are now being asked to jump to conclusions and assign culpability upon sand - i.e. upon allegations, rather than upon evidence. That is not the legal system of America that we know of.

krapp 5y ago
> their business is strictly concerned with law and evidence, not the fashionable ideology of a particular era - especially in the originalist and constitutional context. Constitutional originalism is the fashionable ideology of a particular era - the belief that only the inferred opinions of a closed circle of white slaveowning gentry from the 18th century are relevant to any Constitutional question, and that the centuries of social, political and cultural progress from then onward must be disregarded as "radical" and "revisionist."
- knighthack 5y ago
  No, originalism is not about fashionable ideology. Originalism is about the *original intent* of laws, at the time when they are made. The whole idea is rooted in stability of construction/interpretation of laws. Why this is important: if the meaning of a word of law can change so radically based on current events, then judges would find it very difficult to issue decisions and make just judgments based on precedents/stare decisis. (And judges in any event are not to interpose their personal beliefs, or current events onto the interpretation of existing law.) Parliament makes laws, and amend laws, according to the will of the people - and judges then enforce those laws and changes. Even in the most liberal of (say common law) legal systems, judges are not to make up their own ideas of what the law means as they like. I have no idea why you're misleading this discussion, that "Constitutional originalism is the fashionable ideology of a particular era". Originalism is not about orthodoxy, or being conservative, or the "inferred opinions of a closed circle of white slaveowning gentry", nor is it against revision - originalism is a strong way to ensure the stability of the legal system (which is the point of the article), and respect for the separation of powers, a key point of modern democracy.
- eadmund 5y ago
  Fortunately those 'white slaveowning gentry from the 18th century' provided a means of changing the Constitution. The problem is that many folks, including many judges, do not wish to do the hard work of actually changing it, but simply pretend that it says things it simply never says.

krapp 5y ago

> their business is strictly concerned with law and evidence, not the fashionable ideology of a particular era - especially in the originalist and constitutional context. Constitutional originalism is the fashionable ideology of a particular era - the belief that only the inferred opinions of a closed circle of white slaveowning gentry from the 18th century are relevant to any Constitutional question, and that the centuries of social, political and cultural progress from then onward must be disregarded as "radical" and "revisionist."

knighthack 5y ago
No, originalism is not about fashionable ideology. Originalism is about the *original intent* of laws, at the time when they are made. The whole idea is rooted in stability of construction/interpretation of laws. Why this is important: if the meaning of a word of law can change so radically based on current events, then judges would find it very difficult to issue decisions and make just judgments based on precedents/stare decisis. (And judges in any event are not to interpose their personal beliefs, or current events onto the interpretation of existing law.) Parliament makes laws, and amend laws, according to the will of the people - and judges then enforce those laws and changes. Even in the most liberal of (say common law) legal systems, judges are not to make up their own ideas of what the law means as they like. I have no idea why you're misleading this discussion, that "Constitutional originalism is the fashionable ideology of a particular era". Originalism is not about orthodoxy, or being conservative, or the "inferred opinions of a closed circle of white slaveowning gentry", nor is it against revision - originalism is a strong way to ensure the stability of the legal system (which is the point of the article), and respect for the separation of powers, a key point of modern democracy.
eadmund 5y ago
Fortunately those 'white slaveowning gentry from the 18th century' provided a means of changing the Constitution. The problem is that many folks, including many judges, do not wish to do the hard work of actually changing it, but simply pretend that it says things it simply never says.