Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
If it were a giant sphere, the surface on which it roles along would have no center. There would be no "middle" for people to inhabit. And the universe through which it rolled would have no left or right. Those are relative terms.
And the time which we have now reached is one in which we are divided by classical views and post modern ones--the classic view being that there is objective reality, and the post modern view that realities are merely fictions or social constructs.
Our Progressive jurists are closer to the post modern view than to the classical, and the Originalists, vice versa. That is one of the reasons that the Constitution, for a Progressive, is a fiction to be molded into whatever the current social constructs decree.
|
I'll stick with this, change the names as you wish. I am assuming that they will be Good and Evil.
The sphere is not a physical sphere but a description of how our society moves and changes and apparently too hard to comprehend.
"That by whatever name you call the two sides of the argument about Constitutional Law, they are both important. That while the Constitution is a largely static document, it can change thru amendment and interpretation. The interpretation part is controlled politically by the appointment of Judges for life so that a political party gets to choose and it has a long term effect but not a permanent one.
One may choose to select Originalist appointees or Living Constitutionalists, but neither is prohibited or required by the Constitution."