Why do Justices interpret the laws differently? Why will two judges reading the same law and the same precedents come up with different conclusions and interpretations?
Politicians write laws while baring even the most ill-conceived ideologies for all to see. Appellate court jurists, and particularly the Supreme Court Justices, are now openly flaunting their ideologies (one might even say their biases) regardless of the fact that it has traditionally been considered gauche for a jurist to air out his or her brain laundry in public. It seems as though we have dropped all pretenses of rational objectivity. If you do not agree with the right wing you are a liberal “judicial activists” and if you do agree with the right wing you are a “Judicial reactionary.”
The “original intent” judges worship an intent they imagine to be true because they want it to be true, and they piously twist all evidence of the intent of our founding fathers to suit their own purposes in much the same manner as a cult leader twists scripture. Liberal judges are far more open about their pragmatism than reactionary judges are about their use of dogma. Liberal judges talk about fairness and equity; whereas reactionary judges want you to believe that the law is carved in stone. For all their hypocritical twisting and turning, however, the one intent of our founding fathers that is immutable to the reactionaries is that all power should be vested in property owning white males (more specifically they believe that the men of means should rule). This is why it is so important for a Democrat to appoint the justice to replace Scalia. It is high time to change the corporate court into the people's court!
No comments:
Post a Comment