Skip to main content

View Diary: Scalia is a Fraud, Undeserving of Moral Respect (69 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't mind original intent, or texturalism . . . (4+ / 0-)

    as long as the view is consistent.  As the world evolves, we always have the amendment process--though, yeah, its hard to imagine much happening in this political environment.

    What is a problem is when original intent or original meaning is selectively applied, or state's rights is selectively applied.  

    Either form of originalism is valid philosophy.  But the end justifies the means approach that tends to favor a more plutocratic philosophy--always supporting the business approach over the worker, the environment, or the consumer--is not.  Using texturalism if it suits an end and then ignoring it if it doesn't, is rank politics not worthy of any court. let alone one appointed for life.

    •  "Intent" should rely not only on the text of the (0+ / 0-)

      Constitution [which "originalists" and "textualists" profess to do exclusively -- which, of course, they don't (corporations aren't people, my friends)], but also the writings of the Framers, their notes from the convention and outside the convention, and their actions when they were in office.  When you do that you see a very expansive and activist role for the federal government emerge, not a cramped, slave-to-the-states version.  

      And one should consider the historical context.  Google up the Articles of Confederation, and contrast that to the original Constitution even without the Bill of Rights.  

      Is it courageous to propose tax cuts but not identify a single tax expenditure to rein in? Is it courageous to target your deepest cuts on the poorest Americans, who vote in lower numbers and provide little in campaign contributions?

      by caul on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 04:44:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site