2 ms·

>>The problem when you rely on unclear laws that haven’t been modified for 250 years is they haven’t been modified for 250 years. The Constitution gives you so

• hdgvhicv 2mo ago
  As you snipped out > The US has famously failed to update its legal framework via the legislative branch, so It’s upto the judicial branch which seeks to be about interpreting…
  • bluecalm 2mo ago
    Yes but it's still not the job of the judges to do that for them.
    • suburban_strike 2mo ago
      Our judicial system is modeled after Judaic precepts (shoftim/shotrim/shomrim) outlined in Deuteronomy 16:18. There, shoftim refers to judges who interpret and apply the law, requiring deep literacy in the Torah to ensure righteous judgment without favoritism or bribery. Shotrim are the enforcers of the court (sheriffs, etc.). I don't know where people get the idea that the role of a judge is not to interpret the law. This is literally the only thing SCOTUS does.
      • bluecalm 2mo ago
        It's their job to interpret but not to invent new laws or ponder which laws "make sense". In particular just because it "makes sense" to extend 4th amendment reading doesn't justify judges just going for it. That would be legislating from the bench.
        • fn-mote 2mo ago
          And this is a particular opinion you hold, not necessarily an agreement in the community / nation or even a belief of the legal system about itself.
          • hdgvhicv 2mo ago
            Fortunatly there are ways to codify the agreement of the community/nation through the passage of laws and constitutional amendments. Something the US fails to do, as it’s more convenient politically to allow the judges to do it.
        • krapp 2mo ago
          Every time SCOTUS makes a decision they invent new laws or nullify existing laws. Every case they take is a question about whether certain laws "make sense," and that determination is based entirely on learned, but subjective, personal opinion. Take for example laws which depended on Roe V. Wade being a Constitutional right no longer existing, and laws created after that right was repealed, because said right didn't make sense to the current Justices (despite being established law for nearly 50 years.) Did the wording of the Constitution change over those intervening years? No. Justices who agreed that Roe was a right died or retired, and were replaced by justices who disagreed, and the Constitution means whatever a majority of Justices say it does. Or the Supreme Court deciding that the 2nd Amendment's definition of "militia" included every American citizen, thus creating a right to personal firearm ownership where none existed before. Or more accurately, the Constitution means whatever a majority of Justices decide that the hypothetical ghosts of the Founding Fathers, if summoned into a pentagram, would themselves decide. It just happens to be the case that the original intent of the Founding Fathers always correlates to the political bias of the majority. Crazy how that works. And of course the Supreme Court's power of judicial review itself was never granted by the Constitution. They just made it up because it made sense to them.
      • onjectic 2mo ago
        > Our judicial system is modeled after Judaic precepts (shoftim/shotrim/shomrim) outlined in Deuteronomy 16:18. This does not appear to be true. “Judicial” is etymologically unrelated to “Judaic” fyi.
• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• usumgallu 2mo ago
  [dead]
• RHSeeger 2mo ago
  https://www.rightsprotection.org/the-united-states-constitution/constitutional-rights-and-government-limits-subtitle/the-ninth-amendment-the-unwritten-rights-of-the-people https://www.rightsprotection.org/the-united-states-constitut... If the constitution doesn't take away a right from you specifically, then you have that right.
  • hdgvhicv 2mo ago
    Not if the government allows that. The constitution doesn’t take away your right to build or own a nuclear weapon.