Where are your papers

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

How the Amendment is written is less important than how the courts have found...in which case they have found that due process is entitled for undocumented immigrants.

And therein lies the heart of Progressive jurisprudence. In essence, what the Constitution says is irrelevant. What the Judges say is what counts. Spence, why would you be concerned, as you've implied, about how long the Constitution exists? For you it's the Judges that matter. There doesn't seem to be any danger of the Judges disappearing. Quite the contrary, they are stronger and more important than ever. Long live the Judges. Who needs the Constitution?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And therein lies the heart of Progressive jurisprudence. In essence, what the Constitution says is irrelevant. What the Judges say is what counts. Spence, why would you be concerned, as you've implied, about how long the Constitution exists? For you it's the Judges that matter. There doesn't seem to be any danger of the Judges disappearing. Quite the contrary, they are stronger and more important than ever. Long live the Judges. Who needs the Constitution?

Not progressive jurisprudence just common sense.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Not progressive jurisprudence just common sense.

Common sense would dictate that Judges should interpret and apply the law as it is written, not as they choose.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Common sense would dictate that Judges should interpret and apply the law as it is written, not as they choose.

I’m not sure you understand how the judicial branch works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I’m not sure you understand how the judicial branch works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I understand how it works under Progressive jurisprudence, which gives Judges the ability to "interpret" law according personal opinion and according to some institutionally created principles that are expressive of various supposedly higher principles but are not expressed nor inherent in the Constitution.

And I understand how it should work. That is, Constitutional Judges are to apply the law, as it is written, no matter how inconvenient that might be for some parties in the dispute. If a law is not deemed by a Judge to be "just," that Judge, or Judges, can recommend that Congress fix it. But, constitutionally, the Supreme Court Judges are not given the power to do the fixing. They certainly are not given the power to judge by personal whim.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And I understand how it should work. That is, Constitutional Judges are to apply the law, as it is written, no matter how inconvenient that might be for some parties in the dispute.

If that was really the case we wouldn't need judges. Hell, think of the savings.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I’m not sure you understand how the judicial branch works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

appears as though neither you, nor Sotomayor, understand how the American judicial system is supposed to work