Post by houstoncat on Jan 8, 2019 14:14:24 GMT -5
YOU have the progressive view--the constitution is a "living entity, to be changed according to the times".
Sadly, the changing constitution is exactly what activist judges and progressives want. Many seek to "write a new GUIDELINE" and decry the obsolescence of the Constitution. Those are the judges nominated by clinton and dermarxist.
sadly, both of the bush presidents nominated some weenies to the court also. roberts is a prime example. roberts is the only justice to have re-written a law---obamacare, calling required payments a tax. That is NOT the job of the courts--but progressive judges make law--rather than interpret law, and send back bad law to meet constitutionality.
rr
I think Streeter in the ideal world you might be right but identity politics is to prevailing now. One wants judges that are textural constitutionalist's. The job is to test the argument against the tenants of the constitution without inserting your own more's (spelling) and values. Good example would be the imposition on Sharia law on a US Muslim in lieu constitutional law simply because you believe that as a muslim they are subject to that law in the course everyday US life and not constitutional law. A prime example of what I think is a perversion of the intent of the law is again in religious beliefs as to providing i.e. paying for free birth control for employees as part of a health package. Its not really a significant cost but it may be a moral / religious issue with the employer forcing him or her to provide the service may infringe on his or her religious beliefs and how they conduct their life inclusive of their businesses.
In the short and long term the Constitution is a brilliant document, it can be changed but much civil discourse is required and it can take years to change, it has to be persuasive on its long term merit and not just a bare majority which comes from short term thinking in the here and now.