It used to be that most conservative judges were what are known as "constructionists" in that their judicial philosophy as regards the Constitution and its amendments tries to put themselves into the heads of the framers, or those responsible for the writing of later amendments, to try and determine what their "original intent" was as regards the meaning and to make decisions that do not stray from that irrespective of how much the world has moved on. They were also firm believers in state decisis.
That no longer seems to be the case; at least with the conservative, or perhaps one should say, right-wing, justices on the US Supreme Court. They recently overturned precedent in the decision to allow bans on certain late term abortions to stand and it would now appear that they are seriously considering overturning the McCain-Feingold Reform Act which regulates political campaigns. If they do it will be on the basis that they equate the unlimited spending of money as free speech. I defy anyone to go into the Federalist Papers and related documents and show me something to prove that framers clearly had that intent.
Go on. I dare ya!
That no longer seems to be the case; at least with the conservative, or perhaps one should say, right-wing, justices on the US Supreme Court. They recently overturned precedent in the decision to allow bans on certain late term abortions to stand and it would now appear that they are seriously considering overturning the McCain-Feingold Reform Act which regulates political campaigns. If they do it will be on the basis that they equate the unlimited spending of money as free speech. I defy anyone to go into the Federalist Papers and related documents and show me something to prove that framers clearly had that intent.
Go on. I dare ya!
No comments:
Post a Comment