Quote:
Originally posted by Captain
Apologies if my attempt at a joke strikes anyone this way.
But I think Clarence Thomas, ironically, would agree that to call an intellectual light weight anything other than an intellectual light weight because he is black would be the height of racism.
The man adheres to an original intent kind of jurisprudence that is difficult to reconcile with the real world; it is an ivory tower way of reading the constitution that disregards the fundamental changes, such as the development of the widespread use of corporations that has been much discussed on this board over the last week or two, that requires the development of judicial thinking. Indeed, in my mind it is a virtual rejection of the very legal tradition of English common law that the founders were focused on preserving.
|
Calling it intellectual is generous. Its not intellectual at all; its political gimickry masked as a valid school of legal thinking. The Right figured out sometime ago that, since the Constitution was old, by necessity, it would not contain many of the rights progressives sought in present day society. The Right figured “Fuck, We can use the Constitution as a sword. But wait... we first have to address our critics who will make the logical argument that the Constitution was meant to adapt to times. The left and middle will offer really strong arguments - I mean, shit... the Founding Fathers were all progressive.” The Right sat down and created of whole cloth, not unlike Intelligent Design, the school of legal thought known as originalism, traditionalism, etc... as a cover to push its political agenda via the judiciary branch.
The problem with this “originalism” is that the Right is frequently hoist on its own petard. In those cases, it suddenly shifts, and finds all sorts of regulations in the Constitution barring behaviors it dislikes and allowing things it favors.
Of course the document was never intended to be read restrictively. Rehnquist was actually, IMO, a very good judge. He balanced the idiot literalists against the idiot progressives (who tend to find all sorts of entitlements in the Constitution). Notice how neither side had anything really good to say about him when he died? Thats the sign of a good judge, IMO.
