Posted by clubsodaandsalt on June 27, 2008
I’ve always thought that the terms “originalist” and “strict constructionist” are — pardon me — bullshit. It’s all just a game of interpretation, and it’s just a cover for conservative justices to come to the conclusions they like. I say they should just have the balls to admit that they take their retrograde moralist conservative worldview and apply it to their judgments. Liberal justices clearly do it all the time, but at least they’re honest about it.
Anyway, I was just thinking about this now because of this ridiculous 2nd amendment ruling yesterday. Someone needs to explain to me how a “strict constructionist” or an “originalist” or whatever the would-be sex police who currently run our court are calling themselves these days can read an individual right to own a handgun into the second amendment. Unless we’re at the NRA museum, where they replace the amendment’s preface with an ellipsis, I just don’t see it. I’m left to conclude that Scalia sees the document as living and breathing too.
One hopes that the media sees this as well, and will start calling Republicans on their “activist judges” nonsense. This is one of the most baldly “activist” rulings to come down in ages. Who will be the first to ask John McCain what he thinks of “activist judges” who read their own views into the Constitution? I’m not holding my breath.
In other news, sorry for the lack of posting. I’m traveling and have also gotten quite busy. Must try harder. In related news, a Trinidad and Tobago passport is a massive pain in the ass if you want to go anywhere.