Justice Scalia and his ignorant lackey, Clarence Thomas, are pushing for application of the U.S. Constitution to be in terms of the so-called intent of the original framers, not as supposedly "reinterpreted" to meet modern (and originally unanticipated) problems. John Roberts apparently takes that approach, also.
Kevin Drum discussed that this morning when he took on Dahlia Lithwick's complaint that no one has bothered to explain the concept of "The Living Constitution." I think that Kevin's view that no one has presented a view to counter "Originalism" is correct. The Wall Street Journal has a preview of Justice Breyer's anticipated book explaining how the Supreme Court should function.
The ever-shy(*) Armando over at Kos takes on the issue in his way. Among other things, he points out that Dahlia Lithwick has overlooked his previous discussion "On Constitutional Interpretation: Originalism v. A Living Constitution?" and goes on to explain that "Originalism" should actually be called "blind textualism."
Between Lithwick, Drum and Armando, I think that there is a strong case to be made that "Original Intent" or "Originalism" is a lie designed to support the right-wing retreat from the modern world towards their aristocratic view of the joys of the 19th and even the 18th century.
(*)Insider joke here.
No comments:
Post a Comment