Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
Seems you have a skill you suggest like many other of the faithful constantly suggest what has come from his mouth or what in written by him is somehow misinterpreted..
In many cases (I'd say most) the misinterpretation is not "somehow" but is deliberate. Case in point: Trump was "somehow" proving that he is an alt right or NAZI or white nationalist sympathizer when he said there were good people on both sides of the Charlottesville protests. "Somehow" he was saying that there are good NAZIs.
First, he was obviously referring to the divide between those who wanted to tear down the statues and those who wanted to preserve them. That was the reason for the demonstration. There were, as Trump said, good people on both sides of that issue.
Second, if he had been referring to the NAZI/Antifa conflict, then he would been saying that not only were there good NAZIs, but there were also good Antifa (good people on "both sides"). I don't think it's reasonable to believe that Trump is sympathetic to Antifa, nor that he would be sending dog whistles to them in order to embolden and support them.
Yet, to this day, his Charlottesville comment is intentionally held up by those who oppose or hate him as evidence of his far right, extremist, NAZI and alt right leanings and as a signal that he supports them.
you seem to hold the same views on the constitution anyone who disagrees with parts of it are twisting and misinterpreting its intent .... seems like a familiar trend or just another fiction
|
Disagreeing with a part of the Constitution does not give a judge the license to ignore it. Judges must uphold the law and apply it as written. If the law is faulty, it is up to Congress to change it, it is not up to a judge to do so. Otherwise, there would be no need of law. Judges would determine on the spot the right and the wrong of every case. Possibly depending, if not on their personal or political beliefs, on which side of the bed they woke up on the day of judgment.
The intent of the Founders can only be applied to interpretation of the law if the intent was stated in the writings and discourse of those Founders. Otherwise, intent is merely a fabrication of the Judge. What is left to the Judge to interpret is the language of the text. When judges stray from that language into various explications of their notion of social justice or equity then they are not interpreting the law, they are creating it.