Is the swingman retiring?

[treee]

(03-12-2018, 11:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: Again, I'm just dicussing to discuss...but I found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

A better way to say it is that originalists say the constitution must be upheld the way it is written.  Not what the words could mean or what they would mean at any other given time OTHER than when they were written.



Which, to me, is silly.

Times changes...society changes.

Certain terms hold their meaning.  Certain thoughts do not.

And certainly the SC (including Scalia) has had more than few decisions that went against decades of consistent decisions.  That sound like interpretation...not originalism.

The whole point of the judicial branch is to interpret the law. And interpretation requires contextualization. And the context of law changes a lot over the course of a few centuries. If you're still interpreting the constitution from the perspective of someone in the 1700s, then you're not doing your job. The whole point is to be able to perceive the intention of the lawn as it was written and 'translate' it, so to speak, into something that is applicable to the current situation. To do otherwise would be making choices with insufficient information. Sure, it does require good faith to be done correctly, but that is why these judges are supposed to be so thoroughly vetted.