3 ms·
This is why supreme court conclusions (and law in general) MUST base themselves on the constitution. The more interpretation involved, the wider the door to inf
by nonethewiser 3y ago
This is why supreme court conclusions (and law in general) MUST base themselves on the constitution. The more interpretation involved, the wider the door to influence pedaling becomes. The constitution needs to be strictly interpreted and there should be no place for "updating" its meaning based on shifting cultural trends.
The threat of influence pedaling is also a good reason to keep the justice count small. Increasing the justice count increases the attack surface and also makes it harder to track. In addition to granting the executive branch more influence over the courts.
- whatshisface 3y agoThe Constitution is not written in a way that is specific or clear enough to take interpretation out of it. To be quite frank, neither is the legislation in any common law system.
- nonethewiser 3y agoI'm not talking about that. There is a difference between interpreting ambiguity in the constitution and reinterpreting clearly stated aspects to satisfy recent cultural trends.
- bediger4000 3y agoWhich recent decision(s) count as reinterpreting clearly stated aspects to satisfy recent cultural trends?
- whatshisface 3y agoRoe v. Wade is a typical originalist example because they came up with first and third trimester lines for regulating a medical procedure that the authors of the document they were interpreting did not know existed. A much older example is the authority of the supreme court to interpret the constitution. It's actually a self-assigned power that built up over the first fifty or so years of the United States' history as they grew bolder in challenging the legality of laws. It is not conferred in the constitution.
- bediger4000 3y agoRoe v. Wade is 50 years old. The interpretation thing is hundreds of years old. These aren't reinterpretations satisfying recent cultural trends.