Is the swingman retiring?

[*michaelsean*]

(03-12-2018, 02:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Lots of discussion here about interpretations of the Constitution. Most of you know my position (I was even called out by name, lol). I just want to make it clear that whether you are a textualist, an originalist, an aspirationalist, a structuralist, whatever, it is an interpretation and it is subjective. Some people like to pretend that a moderate court is best, some like a split court (I among them). Some want to politicize it and make it lean one way or the other. Whatever your view, whatever the views of a Justice, it's all subjective. Personally, I like a split court with a wide range of views. It leads to some of the most intellectual discussions about our laws.

I also think the use of the term "judicial activism" is utter bullshit. So much legislation has been passed, and even amendments have been ratified, that have not taken effect until the courts rule that the executive must actually uphold the law. The term is only used by people ignorant of and/or unhappy with the court. People that cry judicial activism over Windsor or Roe keep their traps shut about Heller or even Bush v. Gore, and vice versa. I don't take anyone seriously in any discussion about SCOTUS when they use the term with any sincerity based on what has happened to this date in our courts.

That last bit was just me ranting because I have been dealing with morons all morning.

I still take heart from learning that Scalia and Ginsberg were the best of friends.  If you are conservative, do you think Scalia would hang out with a wacko nut job?  If you are liberal do you think Ginsberg would hang out with an evil racist person who hates poor people or whatever was thought of Scalia?