Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I see, so judges are binary. Some rule by textual limitation and others rule by personal opinion. There's nothing in between.
Right.
|
Almost right. A judge cannot do both at the same time. It is only "scary," a la Pete F, that "he could have more effect on our government than any elected official other than the president and for life" when judges interpret by opinion than by original text. There is no in between.
Interpreting by text proscribes the desire to interject ideas and opinions outside of the text. It denies the ability of the judge to impact government other than limiting it to its constitutional powers.
Interpreting outside of the text eliminates the text (the Constitution), brushes it aside as an impediment to arriving at a desired judgment. And thereby gives a judge the ability to create policy or to support otherwise Congressional unconstitutional legislation. That is the scary that Pete F, perhaps inadvertently, refers to.
The two methods of interpretation cannot be used in conjunction with each other. They are opposing methods.