You're missing a key point in TJ's quote, which is changing laws and constitution. Nowhere did he say we should start reinterpreting laws to mean something different. If you dont like the 2nd amendment, then change the amendment. Don't try to reinterpret it into something else that isn't written there.
That’s false. The 14th Amendment written and ratified by the legislative house ensured that the constitution applied to all persons, not just white persons. Amending the constitution in the legislative branch is the proper way to amend the constitution, not by having biased judges legislating from behind the bench.
I think this discussion is about more than just the 2nd amendment. Though the 2nd amendment is one that almost everyone agrees as limitations. It just depends on where we draw the limitations.
I wish they would go back to electing good judges versus judges with a political leaning. Judges are getting appointed because they having rulings that align with the political party in power. This would be the best time to pick a judge who wasn't about a right-wing agenda but rather someone who had no allegiance to either party and simply did they best job they could
Everyone says this every time their favored political party loses power. I have always found "good" judges are ones who rule by what you think is right. A good judge will defer to states rights over legislating from the bench.
The winner of the most disingenuous poll of the year award goes to crash1492. Just curious, has anyone even voted in this poll? I mean, other than the folks who do not understand that the Constitution is a living document that has been subject to interpretation since Marbury v Madison.
"Legislating from the bench" is code language by right wingers to mean making rulings they don't like. It has no meaning. I wish we could have a modern day Oliver Wendall Holmes.
The 14th Amendment was ratified about 100 years after the Constitution itself was signed off on. Even after it was ratified, how long before women could vote? They still were not considered to be persons...and they wouldn't be for decades later. I don't think it should be beyond reason that the court could have determined that "persons" also included women...but you can't get there if your sole criteria is legislative history and the intent of the authors at the time it was written.
I am assuming you are referring to the current right wingers legislating from the bench? The problem is that we are dealing with an ancient flawed Constitution that makes it nearly impossible to amend in this day with billionaires buying policiticans who then appoint the right wingers on the S.Ct. who have found it "Constitutional" for the billionaires to buy politicians who appoint them and their fellow ideolgues , gerrymander, voter suppress etc. See the book ;Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America" for a good analysis of how right wing money has hacked oursystem by exploiting the flaws in our ancient Constitution.
an assessment of Justice Kavanaugh's record so far: JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, THE NEW ANTHONY KENNEDY? It’s way too early to answer this question in the affirmative. However, it’s not a ridiculous question. Reportedly, Kavanaugh has been in the majority more often than any other Justice so far this term. This suggests that Kavanaugh, not Chief Justice Roberts, is at the ideological center of the Court — the place where Kennedy resided after Justice O’Connor retired. It doesn’t mean that Kavanaugh is as centrist as Justice Kennedy was, but it’s a sign that President Trump did not succeed in nominating a strong conservative jurist to replace Kennedy. Yesterday, for example, Kavanaugh voted with the four liberal Justices to allow an antitrust case against Apple to proceed. He wrote the majority opinion. The Chief Justice dissented, along with Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. (I haven’t read the full opinions and express no view as to whether the case was correctly decided). I’ve heard that Kavanaugh has been telling people he wants to “lay low” for a year, given his rancorous confirmation fight. If so, we may see a more aggressively conservative Kavanaugh next Term and thereafter. The theory has some plausibility as an explanation for Kavanaugh’s reluctance to vote in favor of taking up highly controversial cases this term. That’s a viable “laying low” strategy, one that’s reasonably calculated (if indeed Kavanaugh is thinking this way) to keep the new Justice out of the harshest of spotlights. However, it’s not a plausible explanation for Kavanaugh’s votes in cases the Court actually decides. It would be unconscionable for Kavanaugh to decide cases based on personal motives, and I don’t believe for a minute that he has done so. So Kavanaugh’s votes are a good reflection of what he believes about the law and how he analyzes difficult issues. Although the sample is not that large, his votes, as I said, suggest that he’s less conservative than we were led to believe. I never believed he was that strong a conservative. I thought he would be somewhere between the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Alito on the ideological spectrum. Now, I fear he may be somewhere between the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/05/justice-kavanaugh-the-new-anthony-kennedy.php?
