Skip to main content

The Irony of Conservative Supreme Court Justices who follow “Constitutionalism”

Conservative justices of the Supreme Court believe in “strict Constitutionalism.”  

They do not believe in the exercise of judgment in the interpretation of laws built on precedence.  They follow only what the original framers of our Constitution wrote with strict interpretation.  

By ignoring judicial precedence these Constitutionalist Justices make far reaching radical decisions in their review of cases before the Supreme Court.

One example is the Citizens United case.  

But the very power these Justices exercise “Judicial Review” is itself interpretive and not specifically given in our Constitution.  

And therein is the dichotomy.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I had no idea that UIDs were near 600,000 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bluedust, Kevskos, Lujane

    Jack, as a newbie it would be good if this were the first paragraph and then you provided more information and analysis in the rest of the diary.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 06:22:29 PM PDT

    •  newbie (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Thanks for your comment.  I am a newbie.  I just started and learning my way around.

      Your point is well taken.  This is only a taste of an argument, a thought to ponder, rather than a concise thesis.  

      It looks like it more created a discussion rather than draw any conclusion in and of itself.

      so noted...

      I still like the dichotomy.  

  •  It's not judicial review (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kevskos, Agathena, Lujane

    when you're interpreting the constitution as originally intended.

    As interpreted divined from god by Antonin Scalia during their daily chats...

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 06:25:48 PM PDT

    •  judicial Review (0+ / 0-)

      Judicial Review is a power not specifically given by the US Constitution.  Nice try.  

      Interpretation is a far reaching term that can include superstitions created by someone walking under a ladder and "interpreting" the resultant bad luck for 7 years to be created by walking under the ladder.  This kind of "interpretation" is more accurately called "superstition."

      I suspect Antonin Scalia is more a believer in "superstition" than Judicial Law and that is why he fails to see the conflicts of his own beliefs.

  •  John Marshall broadened the power of the Supreme (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nowhere Man, Lujane

    Court beyond the "strict" constructionists' Constitutional interpretations through his ruling in Marbury v. Madison.  While state courts were already using the principle of judicial review, Marshall established this power on the federal level.  He avoided a political fight with Jefferson/Madison AND increased the powers of the Supreme Court...a win-win for conservative, nationalist forces.

    Robber Baron "ReTHUGisms": John D. Rockefeller -"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets"; Jay Gould -"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

    by ranton on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 06:39:36 PM PDT

  •  It's not that they care about the Constitution (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lujane, marina, Fireshadow

    - that's a tactic they use in order to move the country to the far right. Their arguments are conclusion based, conclusions that will forward the right wing agenda.

    ❧To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 07:31:55 PM PDT

  •  Think smarter than FOUNDERs, they want to REFRAME (0+ / 0-)

    the RATS on the SCOTUS are not originalists, or constitutionalists. They are in fact REFRAMERS just as the GOP/TPARTY reframes to personal/political agenda. THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE AND DEMOCRACY FOR those "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights".  The SCOTUS gave CORPORATIONS (Paper DOLLS) personhood. They endowed them with rights, not earned or lived or ever imagined by FOUNDERS. Corporations are SCOTUS creations and the SCOTUS is rewriting the consitution to make the righs of their creations superior to those given life by the ultimate CREATOR.

    An EGG is not a person, A corporation is not a person!

    by CarmanK on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 08:52:40 PM PDT

  •  The supreme authority on the Constitution (0+ / 0-)

    is none other than George Washington who was the President of the Constitutional Convention. Shortly after the Framers sent the proposed Constitution to the states for their consideration, Washington wrote this letter to his nephew, Bushrod: (emphasis in the original)

    The warmest friends to, and the best supporters of, the Constitution, do not contend that it is free from imperfections; but these were not to be avoided, and they are convinced if evils are likely to flow from them, that the remedy must come thereafter; because, in the present moment it is not to be obtained. And as there is a Constitutional door open for it, I think the people (for it is with them to judge) can, as they will have the aid of experience on their side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which shall be found necessary, as ourselves; for I do not conceive that we are more inspired—have more wisdom—or possess more virtue than those who will come after us.  
    The Constitution is a living document and We the People have every right to change it, or interpret it, as we see fit.

    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

    by hestal on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:42:52 AM PDT

  •  Judicial Review and dichotomy (0+ / 0-)

    Wow, such a lively discussion this has generated.

    My post was not a deep analysis but just the expression of a dichotomy.

    There is a lot of directions one could go in discussing constructionists and constitutionalism.

    My point was much simpler than all that.  

    By not adding powers that were not specifically expressed and defined in our original Constitution,  Judicial Review doesn't exist and therefore those who go back and re-interpret precedence setting decisions and ignore them are themselves heretics to what they believe.  

    I like the word dichotomy....  :)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site