Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
As a judge, when she has the robe on, she's not supposed to "push for" anything except the law.
As a legal advocate, that's fine. It's a horrible quality in a judge. They aren't supposed to side with who they are personally rooting for.
|
You are spot on. His "Constitution was not designed as a document to protect existing conditions" ignores that its designed to protect existing conditions from the federal government if they are constitutional. If the conditions exist within communities and states that have the responsibility to oversee and adjudicate their legality, and if the conditions are matters of individual rights vs some notion of fairness, the SCOTUS must protect the local government power and the individual rights over some personal idea of fairness.
What Pete did was to show his Progressive social justice view of the Constitution, and his ignorance that the Constitution is not a social policy document but is a delineation of government power. Of course, Progressives don't want a delineation of government power. They want undelineated, unlimited central government power. Judges deciding by personal morality outside of the scope of the Constitution are a means to unchain government from constitutional limits.
Threaded Mode