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.
is acceptable under a recent change to Second Amendment precedent from the US Supreme Court,
When Originalism backfires spectacularly!
This presents an interesting dilemma for conservative SCOTUS justices. How are they going to uphold a (stupid) adherence to original interpretations of laws and modern conservative judicial goals?
I’m pretty sure they’ll just do whatever they want and make up a justification afterwards. Originalism is just Calvinball minus the intellectual honesty.
Nah, this judge based the ruling on the principle that the banned weapons were unsuitable for self defense use. SCOTUS will just say that the 2nd Amendment says nothing about self-defense and that it clearly intended that every American should be entitled to own weapons of war so that they can be part of that well-regulated militia that they imagine exists. To celebrate, they will then overturn all laws banning the ownership of full machine guns, artillery, and missiles.
P.S. I’m really just being absurd here but I cannot honestly say I would be surprised if it turned out I was right.
You expect they intend to apply their interpretations consistently. They do not.
Justice Scalia, the OG textualist, based on nothing in any statute or the Constitution, extended governmental sovereign immunity in tort to defense contractors.
When they claim to be adherents of any consistent interpretation of the Constitution, they are lying, and they know they are lying. The only consistency in conservative “jurisprudence” is handouts to corporations and police, churches and baseball.
There is no reason to assume they’re operating in good faith. Duplicity is a core feature of the modern day “conservative” party, whatever the fuck that means.
Do you really want courts reinterpreting established law on a whim for the sake of “modernism”? That sounds fashy to me, really stupid easy to abuse. If you don’t like the Constitution, change it. It has instructions on how to do that.
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.
When Originalism backfires spectacularly!
This presents an interesting dilemma for conservative SCOTUS justices. How are they going to uphold a (stupid) adherence to original interpretations of laws and modern conservative judicial goals?
I’m pretty sure they’ll just do whatever they want and make up a justification afterwards. Originalism is just Calvinball minus the intellectual honesty.
Nah, this judge based the ruling on the principle that the banned weapons were unsuitable for self defense use. SCOTUS will just say that the 2nd Amendment says nothing about self-defense and that it clearly intended that every American should be entitled to own weapons of war so that they can be part of that well-regulated militia that they imagine exists. To celebrate, they will then overturn all laws banning the ownership of full machine guns, artillery, and missiles.
P.S. I’m really just being absurd here but I cannot honestly say I would be surprised if it turned out I was right.
You expect they intend to apply their interpretations consistently. They do not.
Justice Scalia, the OG textualist, based on nothing in any statute or the Constitution, extended governmental sovereign immunity in tort to defense contractors.
When they claim to be adherents of any consistent interpretation of the Constitution, they are lying, and they know they are lying. The only consistency in conservative “jurisprudence” is handouts to corporations and police, churches and baseball.
There is no reason to assume they’re operating in good faith. Duplicity is a core feature of the modern day “conservative” party, whatever the fuck that means.
political climate
They’ll do whatever they’ve been
bribedlobbied to do.Consistency and respect of precedents is not required for the position.
Do you really want courts reinterpreting established law on a whim for the sake of “modernism”? That sounds fashy to me, really stupid easy to abuse. If you don’t like the Constitution, change it. It has instructions on how to do that.
Let me stop you right there. There would sooner be a civil war than an amendment to the Constitution.
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.
Let me stop you right there. There would sooner be a civil war than an amendment to the Constitution.