Message from @realz
Discord ID: 781759453875404800
she was assuming RGB would be replaced by Clinton
it wouldn't be a change at all
she is talking about activist vs textualist/originalist
And I don't think there's a deeper meaning to choosing scalia. ACB could have just as easily chosen RGB as well. She simply chose not to
she is a fan of scalia
obviously
I don't see the issue
Any decision that checks legislation could be viewed as activism, but isn't that the point of the court? To be a check to ensure balance?
That checks legislation on what grounds
that isn't what activism is
activism is where you put your morals first and interpret second
That's the key issue when it comes to allegations of judicial activism. On what grounds
activism is where the court determines that somewhere in the constitution is buried the idea of a guaranteed right to abortion, which the states cannot override
In Brown v Board of Education, the law as legislated was for segregation. This is cited as an example of Judicial Activism, but if segregation is unconstitutional, why is this activism?
that is a case of more ambiguity I think
it really depends if separate can be equal
and that is up to interpretation
Are you guys familiar with Torres vs Madrid? Uncivil Law and Rekieta covered the oral arguments the other day. They are still deciding what is seizure .. That’s why I’m not sure that originalists/textualist interpretation is fully possible.
I don't mind the judges making such judgement calls (hopefully based on evidence)
nope
this isn't the "judicial activism" that is where people are at odds
I'm way out of my league on this one.. I know that even the church wrestled with this for centuries. Back then, they determined that a person didn't become a person until their soul entered the body. They determined that this happened at the quickening. The first time a mother felt the baby move.
an example of future judicial activism would be if somehow the SC decided that "healthcare was a constitutional right" and came up with some crazy interpretation to support this
I am not making a position on abortion, but anyone who ever read the constitution knows sure as hell it isn't a constitutional right
@realz I’m not for activism either. Just think people use the concept of originalism too much to back whatever they want to say. I just wish they were honest
Originalism doesn't back whatever you want to say it backs what someone else said when they wrote the law
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 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)