kavanaugh

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

even fox news polls say kavanaugh has public trust issues. lucky for him that he’s not running for office. if nothing substantial comes out that we don’t already know, i am very confident he gets confirmed. i can’t believe you feel otherwise. mitch mcconnell is nobody’s idea of a conservative warrior, but even he’s fired up. it’s going to take more to derail him i think. could come down to pence breaking a tie with one defector. mcconnell is saying very explicitly that his vote will be soon, he has no reason to say that if he doesn’t have the votes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What is really scary here is that he is not running for office, he has been nominated for a lifetime position. That should be longer than any elected position, although in the case of the Senate it doesn't seem so. Ultimately he could have more effect on our government than any elected official other than the president and for life.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What is really scary here is . . . Ultimately he could have more effect on our government than any elected official other than the president and for life.

Yet you still believe that SCOTUS Justices should "interpret" the Constitution by personal opinion rather than textual limitation.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yet you still believe that SCOTUS Justices should "interpret" the Constitution by personal opinion rather than textual limitation.

I see, so judges are binary. Some rule by textual limitation and others rule by personal opinion. There's nothing in between.

Right.

[detbuch]

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

So originalist judges are robots? What do they do when the code doesn't build?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So originalist judges are robots? What do they do when the code doesn't build?

No, they are judges not legislators nor enablers of unconstitutional legislation.


What code? Judges don't build. And they don't create building codes. They judge by applying existing codes. If those codes don't "build," it is up to the builders to change them.

A good overall government code provides for change. As does the U.S. Constitution--which does not give the judicial branch the power to change the code.

If judges create the laws which they adjudicate, that should surely be a system that Pete F would think is scary. Are you suggesting we should have such a system?