The whole argument is fundamentally a silly one.
Here’s the more important point.
Every case which comes before the supreme court is dependent on multiple inputs:
The Constitution
Evidence
Case Law
Every decision any justice or panel of judges makes in every case before them affects the body of case law. While the Constitution remains static unless amended by formal process, its understanding, and the manner in which it applies to the body of law is shifted by every single case, every single decision. It is impossible for the body of law under which we try cases to remain static, unless one ignores the concept of precedent.
Conservatives may choose to say that they want the Constitution to be understood only explicitly as written, but that is not in fact the case. They simply want the reading of the Constitution to be according to their philosophical ideals, just as Progressives do.
I would love to see a strict constructionist lawyer present a case before the Supreme Court solely on the basis of what the Constitution has to say with no other precedents. I suspect they would not get very far.
And to those who have scoffed at 138 pages being used to write the decision in the Prop 8 case - piffle. You would sniff snidely, if 3 pages were produced for the decision, that obviously there is no validity to the decision because it was not thorough. What would be a correct number of pages for the decision to take 12? 36? 1? It is a argument from authority, just as saying ‘well it’s obvious that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman is’. It bears no LOGICAL merit. It may make sense to you but no more so than a similar sentence does to a different person.
The whole argument is fundamentally a silly one. Here’s the more important point. Every case which comes before the supreme court is dependent on multiple inputs:
The Constitution Evidence Case LawEvery decision any justice or panel of judges makes in every case before them affects the body of case law. While the Constitution remains static unless amended by formal process, its understanding, and the manner in which it applies to the body of law is shifted by every single case, every single decision. It is impossible for the body of law under which we try cases to remain static, unless one ignores the concept of precedent.
Conservatives may choose to say that they want the Constitution to be understood only explicitly as written, but that is not in fact the case. They simply want the reading of the Constitution to be according to their philosophical ideals, just as Progressives do.
I would love to see a strict constructionist lawyer present a case before the Supreme Court solely on the basis of what the Constitution has to say with no other precedents. I suspect they would not get very far.
And to those who have scoffed at 138 pages being used to write the decision in the Prop 8 case - piffle. You would sniff snidely, if 3 pages were produced for the decision, that obviously there is no validity to the decision because it was not thorough. What would be a correct number of pages for the decision to take 12? 36? 1? It is a argument from authority, just as saying ‘well it’s obvious that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman is’. It bears no LOGICAL merit. It may make sense to you but no more so than a similar sentence does to a different person.