Justices must live in the present (barf alert)

On Tuesday, President Obama formally announced his choice of Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court. The nomination, which should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with Obama’s centrist politics, has quickly produced a range of feelings within the political community. While many on the left have celebrated Obama’s choice of a Puerto Rican woman to the high court, righties have pegged the pick as the triumph of identity politics over merit. In many ways, such a debate is moot, as the Democratic advantage makes Sotomayor a virtual lock to be the court’s next associate justice.

Getting lost in our conversations about politics and identity is an equally important discussion about the fundamental role of the judiciary branch. Currently, courts are filled with jurists whose dogged fundamentalism undermines the true spirit of the Constitution. By operating as “constitutional originalists” and “statutory textualists,” judges have been become allies to some of the most anti-democratic and anti-humanist policies in recent memory. Perhaps the most telling example is Justice Antonin Scalia’s narrow reading of the constitutional amendments related to cruel and unusual punishment and due process. By arguing that “enhanced interrogation techniques” (conservative slang for torture) do not violate the Eighth Amendment, Scalia willfully ignores the obvious need to link the original text to the contemporary context. In many ways, this will be the real test for Sotomayor. Will she understand the Constitution as a living document to be read through the lens of empathy and critical analysis? Or will she flip the script as soon as she is confirmed? The answer to this question will determine whether or not the president made the right choice.

Translation: Never mind the actual written words and original meaning of the Constitution, we know better.

These idiots do not realize that they are bowling in a nitroglycerin factory. Millions of us swore to defend that Constitution he derides as silly putty to be molded by radical activists.

Currently, courts are filled with jurists whose dogged fundamentalism undermines the true spirit of the Constitution. By operating as “constitutional originalists” and “statutory textualists,” judges have been become allies to some of the most anti-democratic and anti-humanist policies in recent memory.

Either it means what it says, or it means nothing.

I never swore my oath to defend a meaningless "nothing".

Of course, way back then, our schools rigorously taught us Article by Article, Section by Section, Clause by Clause, Amendment (and just a tad fewer than now) by Amendment, just exactly what that document said, why it said it, and what the Founders meant by it, and WHY they included it. AND we had to not only pass the tests on each part, but also had to pass a statewide comprehensive test of the entire document to graduate eigth grade,, and enter high school.

Oh, and 2A was taught to us as a final guardian of our other rights against a possible future tyrannical government.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.