Conservative movement from Originalism to "Good Constitutionalism"

fat-shaming. reported.

 

The heart of the conservative legal movement is still with FedSoc, which in its mantra is like the opposite of Good Constitutionalism. Now, does everyone in FedSoc pure in intent? No, but I think many of the judges they created are. Doesn't mean I agree with the decisions produced by all the FedSoc judges, but there are actually a lot of decent ones out there.

 

Abortion isn't about religion as much as it's about life. I'm not for abortion bans but I really don't think that should be included in a criticism of conservative hypocrisy whereas gay marriage is strictly about values for instance

Abortion is about religion for a lot of people but people believe they are protecting an unborn's right to life

Not looking for an abortion debate

 

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/202...-progressives-conservatives-constitution.html

Adrian Vermeule would like to transform the United States into an authoritarian, Catholic theocracy. In an essay for TheAtlantic, the esteemed Harvard Law School professor implores his fellow conservatives to abandon the “political expedient” of originalism, the legal doctrine that compels judges to interpret the words of our nation’s founding document on the basis of their intended meaning at the time that they were written. Instead, Vermeule argues that right-wing jurists should reinterpret the U.S. Constitution as a charter demanding the subjugation of infidels to “rulers” who share all of Adrian Vermeule’s views on God and good government.

…

 

Just like how our sprawling national debt has become uncontrollable and untenable to correct, a similar bipartisan shift has solidified to take over the government's sprawling top-down powers.

Libertarianism was the first core principle to go during Trump's takeover of the Tea Party and their Koch funded Washington think tanks (luxurious for a Grassroots (Bowel) Movement, eh?).

It had to go. At its core is elevating the game of Winners and Losers and punishing the Other Side as him, Jared and McConnell have made repeatedly clear with mentions of Red States vs Blue.

This seems obvious, except maybe for the rubes who still believe in Libertarianism or wishing "a Smaller Government would...would jush leave widdle ol me awone."

Nah, it's both parties who are absolutely certain in knowing what's right for You.

 

From the politico article last month:

"After all, skepticism about the right to abortion was part of the impetus for the founding of the society, back in 1982. Popular outrage on the right over Roe v. Wade was what gave the upstart group founded by law students the sustained political support that propelled it to national prominence, connecting high-minded legal theorists to religious voters who had never heard the term originalism. And within the society’s ranks, a belief that Roe was wrongly decided was the glue that held two of the group’s major factions together: It provided common ground between conservative activists hungering to see their views enshrined in law and people who believed simply that unelected judges should leave major decisions to politicians. "

A student club that became mainstream because it serves conservative views well. 40 years later, Dobb is here, Trumpism happens, and FedSoc members are the majority of the SC... what's next? The political landscape has changed, and both the old and younger members are wondering that now they have power, why limit themselves to an old theory that is just no longer as useful and can limit their power (judicial constraint). Would they stick to that old principle or "progress" toward exercising their power, to a new theory, to enact more of their views? I think the answer is already here - next up is a Christain nation. The decision on ISL will give us a clue if it's another 40 years or already here.

 

You're mixing a lot of things together that deserve separate discussion. Trumpism is not FedSoc. Two FedSoc judges (of the 3 judge appeals panel) correctly rejected everything that crazy Florida judge did. The bigger issue is that the ending of the 60 vote threshold has dramatically changed the judicial landscape.

 

No, Trumpism is not FedSoc. Trumpism is how the political landscape has changed. FedSoc came to being from a very different political landscape. I'm saying there is pressure on FedSoc to change to match up better with the current political landscape. Something else can also emerge and take its place as the eventually dominant legal philosophy of the right.