well that can't be helped; people claiming to interpret it textually but in bad faith? you can't prove what is going on in their minds. We have to assume judges judge in good faith, or at least the majority do.

either way I've been listening to this without realizing it the entire time

and I didn't find anything remotely objectionable

I don’t think it’s in bad faith. I just think people don’t think about their biases enough and pretend they are unbiased

@aiva, you just advanced to level 3!

again, this can't be helped

I agree @realz

I don't mind if a leftist judge leans left on his rulings as long as he is doing a good faith interpretation; sure his biases might make him take left leaning choices on ambiguities

his/her

the biases can't be helped

There are 9 justices, I imagine one can figure out how to check the other's bias. I think the odds of em all having similar biases is pretty low

We could also ask the question of whether bias is even desirable

(I don't think anyone thinks that Roe v Wade was a good faith interpretation)

@Elzam that’s why you need diversity of opinions. So they can check and challenge each other

I have heard that even RGB didn't like Roe V Wade

she thought it should have been an amendment

(or a federal law)

Well as far as the courts concerned, I don't want a diversity of opinion on what the constitution is.

Are things assumed to be a privilege until legislated as a right? Does a right have to be granted as an amendment?

Old but still relivent https://youtu.be/46qpyvD-IPk

@WatchingYouDaily, you just advanced to level 4!

Well what is a right? Does right mean you're entitled to it as supplied through taxpayer funding.

well I am saying what if the SC decides that FoS means you need to be able to speak and not being healthy doesn't enable speech or somesuch nonsese

(there are probably better amendments to use for this)

Though iirc it's 10 that says the rights are extended to the people

It's 9 not 10

I am not sure what you mean by this; are privilege and right a dichotomy ?

If so, pretty much, yes.

> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So just because it's not a right as written doesn't mean it does not exist. Doesn't mean it does exist either though

Btw this is the amendment used to defend Roe v Wade iirc

Is there anything in the constitution not allowing the banning of remote controlled cars

not explicitly enough

in practice the answer is no.

Very well

the federal government can ban remote controlled cars

The constitution can always be changed as you may know alcohol was banned for a time. Right now, I do not believe anything would be used for that

he asked it the constitution can _stop_ the banning of X

the answer for most things is no

the federal government (via congress and senate) can and does ban a lot of things

illicit drugs for example