Malleability != static

Hm?

Alright @Timcast . I have a criticism of the video about the Ford memo. It has nothing to do with your reporting on the memo. My main issue is with what you percieve to be the ability to deny or whatever a supreme Court nominee based on you disliking the opinion of that particular nominee on whether you thought a ruling was too restrictive.

The problem with the process, even with Merrick Garland, was the obvious politicization of the nomination. I'm not going to bother with a chicken/egg argument here. The point is that the "advise and consent" role is SUPPOSED to be a review of the record of the judge and their ability to be fair minded, unbiased in their ruling, and if they are reading the law.

Now I've no doubt people could argue all day about whether or not Congress has ever really held to that purpose or if they even SHOULD be held to it. The point stands, the judciary is ideally only supposed to interpret law. The only real question is what you think is correct in terms of the way in which a judge interprets said law.

For example, you might think that judge kavanaugh was rather opposed (I guess) to the 4th amendment. To that I would say he isn't opposed or in favor of it. He is extremely narrow in his interpretation. The question I would ask in my own mind would be "Why is this judge particularly narrow in the 4th as oppose to the 2nd?"

To this question I look to the text. The 4th amendment is very broad for when it was written. However, in the digital age, it's actually pretty narrow. Whereas the 2nd (if you hold to the idea it does account for individual ownership) is incredibly broad. Anyway, this is my interpretation at least of what I see. Admittedly, I am a often heavily partisan person so take that for what it's worth.

Addendum: Arguably, this lack of following the rules that were setup for the process of making and changing amendments is extremely unfortunate.

Civics knowledge is pretty low these days. I had only half a year of civics taught all through grade school (California).

Most the rest I learned on my own.

I didn't do any significant amount of it until freshman college.

Course I dropped out after sophomore year

I got a college degree and civics was not a requirement. (Also California)

Wasn't a requirement for me either

I did it because I wanted to learn about U Govt and constitution

Probably motivated by military service

It's when I learned that the term "Bill of Rights" is wildly inaccurate

My USG teacher said "It is a bill of negative rights of government" which is wildly more restrictive than a bill which specified rights could possibly be

Restrictive of government that is

Which is supposed to be upheld by the people

Ideally yes

But people have it backwards now and are waiting for the government to give them their rights back

Well I'd argue it's a problem that unfortunately started with the civil Rights act of '64

Cuz if you want to get super technical about it, the bill of rights doesn't actually apply to individuals

It applies to states.

Which then applies to individuals

More accurately I've seen it described as a deal between the fed and states

I'm still working through the federalist papers. Something I wish I'd done a long time ago

I actually bought a nice bound hard copy version of the Federalist papers a few month ago and have yet to start reading it.

Also rightly or wrongly. I believe the declaration of independence is the philosophical founding document of the country and the Constitution is the nut and bolts of how gov is supposed to work.

As a side note, I heard a fun argument that I liked from Larry Elder. It was: If the government needed an amendment to ban alcohol, why don't they need an amendment for other drugs? He might not be the origin of that idea, but that's who I heard it from.

The declaration of Independence is, imo, at best a ideological ideal but only insofar as the most famous of the sentences. The rest really is just a listing of grievances

Inspiring to be sure, but relatively simple in it's inspiration

@grant I believe this was the argument back before alcohol. I want to say with opium back when it was smoked in pipes at opium dens/bars/whatever.

I'd imagine though Larry Elder simply understands that there isn't any kind of explicit permission for government to make those laws. Those fall under the concept of unenumerated rights

One day Tim Will become a constitutional constructionist. I'm willing to bet on it

Then he'll be a libertarian

Before you even know it

Just wait. One day I believe he will see the superiority of constitutional constructionism. (Literalism)

My issue with @Timcast report on the Kavenah stuff is Tim comes out as a sexist.
"I believe her more than him" so you beleive her based on the fact she is a woman Tim, thats textbook sexism. you should wieght them equally if you are not sexist.

I get he is trying to be compassionate however its actual sexism.

Another prediction. (Though it's already happening). The Democrats start looking for specific statements to try and push the narrative that there is a conspiracy and Kavanaugh is lying. Specifically, they'll look to accuse him of perjury which serves the dual purpose of making him look bad and sets up for later impeachment or criminal proceedings if he were to be nominated.

The specific statements will be borderline. Stuff like dodges or guilt by association issues.

They're ruthless.

I still think this played terribly for the Democrats with anyone right of Bernie Sanders

They are already doing that Pratel

They are trying to paint him as "angry"