Yes, sad and scary. But...who is actually surprised? It is noteworthy that this fits most of the symptoms of schitzophrenia:
I am personally pro-choice, as such I’m biased and personally do not want Roe vs Wade over turned. I don’t want my SCJ using bias in his decisions. I want him interpreting the constitution the way it was intended when it was written. My preference would be to have this addressed in Congress with an amendment to the constitution.
No of course it wasn't fair and just by our standards of today. I'm sure for the Slaves of the 1810's the 13th Amendment didn't come anywhere quick enough too. All this says is that the courts aren't always perfect in their timing. But courts also reflect the times they live in. Ultimately, what is considered "fair and just" is HEAVILY INFLUENCED by the culture of the present. There is a school of thought that abortion is one of those "morality" questions. Today, its considered "ok" by many. 100 years from now? Who knows....our ancestors might have something to say about our "morality".
I appreciate you selectively pulling out quotes from some involved with the formation of the Constitution....but you and I both know I can find quotes from slave owners who signed the very same documents suggesting something very different. And if it were so well settled, why did it take another 100 years and a bloody ass Civil War for this view of Constitution to become the law of the land...even after it was ratified by ALL the states? Because that wasn't what they meant when they signed and ratified it. They knew that it wasn't the end of the story. I'm grateful they allowed in space to breathe...but those words on paper wouldn't have meant anything had the South found a way to win the war. My guess is no one would care what those words said at all, at this point, had the war gone that way. If you want to be a textualist..fine...but just don't argue founders' intent. Because a lot of those founders intended something very effing different.
I don't do that. I'll just ask if you can explain the inherent logical inconsistency. I argue with people for a living. I can disagree with someone deeply and still like/love them. Go Rockets.
That's from Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson. Harlan of course was nominated by a Republican president who lost the popular vote and won the electoral college. Is the intent of the founders arguments just a giant charade? This was 99% of the Heller v. DC oral arguments. If the constitution is a living document I fail to see the point of amendments as it can be changed by 9 people without bothering with consent of states. 9 people without accountability to the electorate. "It can mean whatever we want it to mean" is very scary.
Yes. The ability to amend the Constitution is "the space to breathe." They serve no other purpose. The "founders" in aggregate (regardless of their personal opinions) created the Constitution. It is a document created not by 1 man but by many including some that today might be described as "conflicted" at a minimum and "evil" at the most. As in all things man made, it has its imperfections. The founders realized this AND they realized the power of time on culture and ....thus created the power of amendment. Otherwise, the intent of the Constitution seems clear which is why they are so specific about so many topics. The rest, they left to the states to decide.
About 50% of the people who signed the Constitution owned slaves. Were literal slave owners. I pray to God it doesn't mean what they thought.
Yeah...and so a lot of people had to die because of it. I said earlier, I love the Constitution. Or at least what I believe it is. I don't believe it's a document frozen in time. If it was, I wouldn't want to fight for it.
You don't like the people who wrote the constitution. You therefore reject textualism because you don't want the writers intent to matter, therefore it can mean whatever we (you) want it to mean. If this is the situation, the constitution's text is pointless and the court is our royalty.
This point is conveniently over looked. The sensibilities and morals of men 250 years ago do not necessarily apply neatly and conveniently today. There is no doubt that James Madison questioned authority and why we live under the rules we live under. I pray that in another 250 years that those on the Supreme Court are questioning and debating the logic or rulings made by the current Court.
Actually the 13th & 14th Amendments were cited in Plessy vs the state of Louisiana (Judge John Howard Ferguson). The 13th and 14th Amendments were indeed written and ratified by men who so strongly believed in black men being treated as equals that they risked loosing the country due to the Civil War and secession of the south. The 14th Ammendment states: “ ...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...” @Bandwagoner is 100% correct, Plessy vs Furguson was not a textual decision. Seperate but equal pretty clearly abridges the privileges of a specific group based on color. It was a decision based in political and racist bias. Overturning that decision was correct and appropriate.
@MadMax is acting as if the 13th and 14th Amendments were part of the original Bill of Rights. He is misinformed since those Amendments were written by the men that risked everything freeing the slaves, 75 years after the Bill of Rights.
An outstanding post, Max. Crash and the others with similar views should read it, and then read it again. I like Crash, but when he ventures down here, he seems to lose his way. He isn't the only member who's posts I value elsewhere at ClutchFans, but find inexplicable here. Go figure. My father saw combat in the Pacific defending that document. My uncle was a young Marine lieutenant who fought his way out of the Chosin Reservoir during the Korean War, along with several thousand other Marines, and some guys from the Army, as well. What were they doing? Defending that document, the Constitution of the United States, something trump keeps pissing on. Guess what? They were both Democrats.
It is the responsibility of the legislative branch to react to changing times not the Judicial Branch.
Continued respect for @Deckard The constitution should evolve but that is the job of the legislative branch not the Judicial branch. We may disagree on this but you continue to have my respect.
You can keep parroting this, but in practice it means nothing. When you have new issues that arise as time goes on (which has happened for over 200 years) , they do not always neatly fit into the Constitution. All that happens is that the Originalists strain and stretch to find any basis for their opinion in the Constitution.
The Legislative Branch of the Government has every right to make laws that are not covered by the constitution at any time. If they make a law that is challenged in the Supreme Court and it is not found to be in violation of the constitution then it remains a law. Simple as that. The Constitution can and should evolve over time as the Legislative Branch legislates those changes.
