Textualism doesnt really matter once communism is already written in. As I said, once the law is bad, only judicial activism can save you from the bad laws.
United States The Supreme Court says no to LGBT discrimination
- Thread starter Tzeentchean Perspective
- Start date
Textualism doesnt really matter once communism is already written in. As I said, once the law is bad, only judicial activism can save you from the bad laws.
And thinking like this is how you end up with Roe v Wade. Once you accept judicial activism of one side, you lose all credibility to complain about it from the other side, and the Supreme Court just becomes a legislature. Worse (for you), it becomes a legislature that will not agree with you, because republicans are shit at finding conservative ideologue justices; half the time they turn into liberals. What you can find are textualists and originalists, who actual care what the law means.
So from both a moral perspective and a practical perspective, abandoning textualism/originalism as principles is stupid.
some times to get what you want you have to take the L on a few issues.
It sucks but its like chess in order to win the game your going to lose pieces.
Its being realistic about the situation, and the republicans are now in a lose lose: if the law if taken fully seriously, it mandates a totalitarian state, taken less swriously, it allows any odd thing to be implemented.
Plus, it seems wierd to try and reject.judicial activism when thats the 2 century old president.
Textualism at this point simply means honestly implementing leftist precident, and will serve as absolutely no check on the left inventing new precident out of whole cloth, which the republicans republicans will dutifully enforce.
Plus, it seems wierd to try and reject.judicial activism when thats the 2 century old president.
Textualism at this point simply means honestly implementing leftist precident, and will serve as absolutely no check on the left inventing new precident out of whole cloth, which the republicans republicans will dutifully enforce.
No prob, just got confused there!
This law isn't going to lead to totalitarianism. It's anti-discrimination parts are limited to a list of traits, and has a huge carve out for religious liberty, and a second carve out in the RFRA.
No, judicial review, not activism, is a 2 century year old precedent (I assume you are referring to Marbury v Madison). There is a difference between judicial activism (which is a judge deciding law based on personal beliefs, then sometimes BS'ing a legal explanation), judicial review (which is where a judge finds that a particular law/executive order is unconstitutional/violates the law, ), and legal interpretation (which is where a judge interprets the law, hopefully according to what is written). Roe v. Wade and Qualified Immunity are examples of Judicial Activism, where the law was made up of whole cloth. Legal interpretation was what was just done.
No, it doesn't. If the left adopted textualism, this would be a step in the right direction. Textualism is inherently constraining on a judge, as it restricts the possible conclusions a judge can arrive at. Without it, a judge is free to rule however they wish, without regard for the written law. The stricter the textualist a judge is, the less BS they can put into legal force. The greater the textualism (or originalism), the less room the judge has to be an activist.
It's judicial activism. He makes up that from whole cloth that black people cannot be citizens.