Massachusetts’ law prohibiting the possession and sale of some semiautomatic weapons commonly used in mass shootings is acceptable under a recent change to Second Amendment precedent from the US Supreme Court, a federal judge said Thursday.
Do you really want courts reinterpreting established law on a whim for the sake of “modernism”?
That’s precisely what originalism does for the sake conservative political goals. Established law gives originalism its rhetorical force—“We’re just interpreting the law as it was intended to be!”—but makes little sense in any other period of American history. For example, somehow the Supreme Court of the mid and late 1960s justified the federal government’s interference in state affairs. But the modern Supreme Court, armed with its interpretations based on the original interpretation of the Constitution, find it suspect and support dismantling it?
The Constitution was supposed to be a living document, to evolve over time. There’s no justification for trying to not only roll back modern gains, but then freeze the law at the founding forever into the future.
That’s not to say that courts should reconsider “established law on a whim for the sake of “modernism””. There should be strong legal justifications for doing that as there were during the mid-late 1960s.
Also, I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “fashy”. I get you mean fascist, but…how is interpretation of the law fascist? Fascists are largely unconcerned with the law, and if they are, it’s in the service of power, not modernism. That’s why I’d argue that the Supreme Court justices, as conservative as they are, aren’t fascists specifically, though they might enable it by abdicating their judicial duties. Even Thomas, the corrupt motherfucker he is, cares about the law for more than power…he really just hates everything.
The Constitution was supposed to be a living document, to evolve over time. There’s no justification for trying to not only roll back modern gains, but then freeze the law at the founding forever into the future.
That’s why there’s a process for changing it built right in. That process does not include the judiciary taking on the role of the legislative branch.
how is interpretation of the law fascist?
You’re not suggesting interpretation of the law. You’re suggesting reinterpretation of the law. Changing it without changing it, implying that the actual words mean nothing, or whatever a judge decides they mean this week.
Fascists are largely unconcerned with the law, and if they are, it’s in the service of power, not modernism
Fascists love the law, it’s one of their most powerful weapons. Luckily for them, they’re never targeted by it, they simply interpret it in a way that it can be used against their enemies.
That’s precisely what originalism does for the sake conservative political goals. Established law gives originalism its rhetorical force—“We’re just interpreting the law as it was intended to be!”—but makes little sense in any other period of American history. For example, somehow the Supreme Court of the mid and late 1960s justified the federal government’s interference in state affairs. But the modern Supreme Court, armed with its interpretations based on the original interpretation of the Constitution, find it suspect and support dismantling it?
The Constitution was supposed to be a living document, to evolve over time. There’s no justification for trying to not only roll back modern gains, but then freeze the law at the founding forever into the future.
That’s not to say that courts should reconsider “established law on a whim for the sake of “modernism””. There should be strong legal justifications for doing that as there were during the mid-late 1960s.
Also, I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “fashy”. I get you mean fascist, but…how is interpretation of the law fascist? Fascists are largely unconcerned with the law, and if they are, it’s in the service of power, not modernism. That’s why I’d argue that the Supreme Court justices, as conservative as they are, aren’t fascists specifically, though they might enable it by abdicating their judicial duties. Even Thomas, the corrupt motherfucker he is, cares about the law for more than power…he really just hates everything.
That’s why there’s a process for changing it built right in. That process does not include the judiciary taking on the role of the legislative branch.
You’re not suggesting interpretation of the law. You’re suggesting reinterpretation of the law. Changing it without changing it, implying that the actual words mean nothing, or whatever a judge decides they mean this week.
Fascists love the law, it’s one of their most powerful weapons. Luckily for them, they’re never targeted by it, they simply interpret it in a way that it can be used against their enemies.