Judge Roberts backlash

I said that your position was perfectly understandable, and in return I get a lot of grief. Serves me right, I guess. I should know better by now. Instead of working yourself into a lather of self-righteousness, however, you might be better advised to read carefully what I wrote.

I hasten to add that's just a suggestion. God forbid I should be accused of patronizing you.

But doesn't he (Thomas) mirror Scalia in about every opinion?

Thomas is actually much more of a constitutional absolutist than Scalia, and they have very different views concerning precedent (Scalia will follow well-established precedent even if he thinks it was decided wrongly, Thomas won't). They usually end up voting the same way, but they don't always share the same reasons for their votes.

If all you're interested in is counting votes, that's a perfectly understandable position to take. If you're interested in understanding those votes, however, you do need to dig a little deeper.

What does the level of my (or anyone's) understanding about the reasoning the justices exercise have to do with the effects their decisions have?

I thinkthe left has also begun reying upon the results that come from the "Kennedy Court" . We owe Kennedy the same slack as voting principles and definitions as we do Roberts. I have to say that Roberts did give us all omething over which we can reflect .

Quote:

What does the level of my (or anyone's) understanding about the reasoning the justices exercise have to do with the effects their decisions have?

I found them fascinating and compelling. Go back and read the NYT takes on all their votes and see if you couldnt make a great story from each position.

Also, (gads) Im beginning to doubt Sotamayors capacity at abstract thought every bit as much as I know about Thomas's

The constitution is supposed to be a living document; the SCOTUS exists to interpret it. Scalia and Thomas are blights.

Quote:

The constitution is supposed to be a living document; the SCOTUS exists to interpret it. Scalia and Thomas are blights.

The SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the constitution, according to precedent, new information, and their own opinions and legal expertise.
But yet you attack Scalia and Thomas for doing just that.

Is it because they are conservative, or because you have a better education, or because you just dont like them being on the bench?

In practical application, Constitutional absolutism makes about as much sense as fundamentalist Christianity to me.

The constitution is supposed to be a living document; the SCOTUS exists to interpret it. Scalia and Thomas are blights.

As "constitutional originalists", they only stick to that when it suits them. They argue that some things can't change even if technology does and then argue the opposite on other things.

snood wrote:

In practical application, Constitutional absolutism makes about as much sense as fundamentalist Christianity to me.

Why? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land because you, the people, have enacted it through your elected representatives. If an early Supreme-Court decision includes a mistake in interpreting the constitution, it will still be a mistake no matter how many generations you keep perpetuating it through the policy of Stare Decisis. The opposite of what you say is true: Stare-Decisis absolutism makes about as much sense as the Catholic Church's doctrine of papal infallibility. Indeed, it makes exactly as much sense.

Snood wrote:

The constitution is supposed to be a living document; the SCOTUS exists to interpret it. Scalia and Thomas are blights.

The constitution derives its legitimacy from you, the people. It's a living constitution because (a repeatedly-affirmed supermajority of) the people can change it by amendment. That's how the US constitution is very different from the Bible, and how the viewpoint you call "constitutional absolutism" is very different from fundamentalist Christianity.

In practical application, Constitutional absolutism makes about as much sense as fundamentalist Christianity to me.

Why? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land because you, the people, have enacted it through your elected representatives. If an early Supreme-Court decision includes a mistake in interpreting the constitution, it will still be a mistake no matter how many generations you keep perpetuating it through the policy of Stare Decisis.

The opposite of what you say is true: Stare-Decisis absolutism makes about as much sense as the Catholic Church's doctrine of papal infallibility. Indeed, it makes exactly as much sense.

The constitution is supposed to be a living document; the SCOTUS exists to interpret it. Scalia and Thomas are blights.

The constitution derives its legitimacy from you, the people.

It's a living constitution because (a repeatedly-affirmed supermajority of) the people can change it by amendment.

That's how the US constitution is very different from the Bible, and how the viewpoint you call "constitutional absolutism" is very different from fundamentalist Christianity.