Quote:
Originally Posted by xian  ok... let's go Aaron
why is the legal theory that underlies the opinions of Breyer and Ginsberg (which has adopted the "evolving standards of decency" standard) superior to those (insert striong og commiekos slanderous adjectives here) supierior to the Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Scalia strict adherence to strict constructionsism?
I'd posit that when one relies on the text of the constitution one is doing one's job as a Justice. I'd posit further that when one relies on their standard of decency they've usurped a legislative role and abandonded a duty to interpret and apply law.
What do you think?
btw - do you think this drivel has any merit? If so lwet me know so I can point out how stupid the comment is.... sentence by sentence. It doesn't even rise to the level of decent satire Aaron... it rises to the level of pubescent propaganda and i know you're smarter than that.
[/i]
|
So strict constructionism equals taking a shit on the constitution...hmm...That's probably why i don't like it.
Ps, their legal decisions are flawed too...
