Monday, June 30, 2008
Letters, I get letters
Reader Nate writes:
But the real idiot on this Court is Kennedy. Stevens is a consistent libtard, like Ginsberg. Kennedy can't make up his mind.
He's with the majority on Heller, striking down the DC gun ban on strict constructionist analysis of the text and historical meaning of the Second Amendment.
He's with the majority on Kennedy v. Louisana, striking down Louisana's death penalty for adults who rape a child under 12 years old, on an "emerging standards of decency" analysis of the Eighth Amendment.
Look, how do you know what a contract means? Does it mean what the people who wrote it intended it to mean? Or does it mean what the lawyers in court, reviewing it years later, think it should have meant?
Is your mortgage lender stuck with accepting 5% interest for 30 years, or can they raise the rate if they decide they don't like the deal anymore? Should your contract be strictly construed according to the understanding of the parties at the time they had a meeting of the minds, or should the deal be open to renegotiation at any time, in light of changing circumstances, like it or not?
Kennedy seems to say Yes both ways. Yes, the Second Amendment means what the framers intended 225 years ago; and Yes, the Eighth Amendment bans whatever we feel like calling "cruel and unusual" today. That's a huge problem for ordinary people hoping for guidance. If the law doesn't mean what it said when they wrote it, how can I know I'm following it?
Not worried about death penalties or guns? Okay, how about financial regulations? Oh, you thought you were in compliance? Ha, wrongo, we've reinterpreted it all and you're now a crook - you forfeit everything and go to jail, under an "emerging standards" theory that you should have known we would have adopted.
That's why appointing Strict Constructionist judges is critical. For Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito - thank you, Bushs I and II.
Comments:
"Strict Constructionist judges is critical"
Do you really think Heller fits under your category.
I thought Scalia did a good job of interpreting the amendment to get his preferred reading of it. Regardless of if I agree or not, they parsed every word but somehow I think they did not give the "free" in free state any special parsing..So did he "Strict Construct" or did he get his preferred reading?
Post a Comment
Do you really think Heller fits under your category.
I thought Scalia did a good job of interpreting the amendment to get his preferred reading of it. Regardless of if I agree or not, they parsed every word but somehow I think they did not give the "free" in free state any special parsing..So did he "Strict Construct" or did he get his preferred reading?
