It's interesting to me that if progressive judges vote to expand or maintain people's rights, they're activists. If they're reactionaries and vote to restrict or remove people's already protected rights, they're just interpreting the Constitution.
There is way more judicial activism on the part of these reactionaries than there is by prog…
It's interesting to me that if progressive judges vote to expand or maintain people's rights, they're activists. If they're reactionaries and vote to restrict or remove people's already protected rights, they're just interpreting the Constitution.
There is way more judicial activism on the part of these reactionaries than there is by progressives. This especially true when progressive judges are interpreting the language of the Constitution to expand rights to more classes who were barred, not shrink them.
Susan, thanks for sharing this. Thorough and thought provoking for sure. I still have to chew over that proposal some more but there is a lot to like in it, and if nothing else, it's a sound springboard to an eventual solution.
The problem I find for our case is not so much the politically ideological differences in legal interpretation. It's the introduction of an individual's personal religious interpretation or indoctrination to our bench. In many of the examples cited, whether the island nation's or European courts, the differences were generally ideological or concerned empowerment of nationalities or ethnicities. None seemed to contain the wrinkle that our own nation seems to have alone: a distinctly papal influence in interpreting our Constitution.
I like the nonpartisan board of selectors idea as a means to possibly counter that, with further assurances in confirmation swearing in that the interpretation of the law will deal with secular law only, and not invoke religion of any type in legal rulings. Our country was founded with separation of church and state for a reason, and this should and must be maintained. It's meant to be a democratic republic, not a theocracy and I say that as someone trying, and mostly failing, to live as a person of faith.
It's that influence on the Court that worries me most, even though half my family was Catholic. But one must remember that Dobbs allowed states to pass abortion laws, but not to pass UNCONSTITUTIONAL abortion laws. The "life begins at conception" idea is a particular belief of a particular part of Christianity. Laws that incorporate it into their structure are denying the rights of those who don't share their beliefs. Other interpretations include "first breath" (a lot of Jews) and Viability (a lot of other Christians, not to mention the non-religious or other religions.)
There are a bunch of cases right now challenging that idea of a law based on a particular religious perspective. And I fear that if and when those wend their way upward, we will get some mendacious reasoning that says "that's Just Fine."
Exactly this. I'm not Catholic but even if I was, or if the justices ruled in a restrictive way that happened to align with my own beliefs, someone injecting religion into interpreting secular laws isn't right. If I choose to live a certain way or follow a particular doctrine, I should be free to follow that, so long as I don't restrict anyone else or harm anyone else in doing so. If others choose not to live according to those same precepts, that is also their right and they shouldn't be forced to do so by our judiciary. It is unacceptable, even if their rulings by some miracle also fit my own personal worldview.
I've felt for a long time now that if your way of life appeals to others, they will choose it for themselves, especially if it's as good as you may believe it is. It's not up to us to coerce others to choose to live in ways we deem proper or worthy. We should only hold ourselves to the standards we accept for ourselves and obey the land's laws, while leaving others to do the same for themselves.
Freedom means just that: to do as you wish, so long as you're not harming or infringing on someone else's ability to do the same. My $.02, losing value all the time with inflation.
Thanks Susan. I did see that and replied. You might see the reply in your activity folder on your own Substack profile. Appreciate your comment and you taking the time to read that piece.
ah. I took a nap and missed it. That's the way the world everywhere, not just Substack, seems to work now--take a day off and it takes two days to catch up on the stuff that hit the fan while you were away from the computer.
It's interesting to me that if progressive judges vote to expand or maintain people's rights, they're activists. If they're reactionaries and vote to restrict or remove people's already protected rights, they're just interpreting the Constitution.
There is way more judicial activism on the part of these reactionaries than there is by progressives. This especially true when progressive judges are interpreting the language of the Constitution to expand rights to more classes who were barred, not shrink them.
Check out the following substack--it gives interesting figures about public opinion and Brown v the Board
https://substack.com/inbox/post/133629070
Susan, thanks for sharing this. Thorough and thought provoking for sure. I still have to chew over that proposal some more but there is a lot to like in it, and if nothing else, it's a sound springboard to an eventual solution.
The problem I find for our case is not so much the politically ideological differences in legal interpretation. It's the introduction of an individual's personal religious interpretation or indoctrination to our bench. In many of the examples cited, whether the island nation's or European courts, the differences were generally ideological or concerned empowerment of nationalities or ethnicities. None seemed to contain the wrinkle that our own nation seems to have alone: a distinctly papal influence in interpreting our Constitution.
I like the nonpartisan board of selectors idea as a means to possibly counter that, with further assurances in confirmation swearing in that the interpretation of the law will deal with secular law only, and not invoke religion of any type in legal rulings. Our country was founded with separation of church and state for a reason, and this should and must be maintained. It's meant to be a democratic republic, not a theocracy and I say that as someone trying, and mostly failing, to live as a person of faith.
It's that influence on the Court that worries me most, even though half my family was Catholic. But one must remember that Dobbs allowed states to pass abortion laws, but not to pass UNCONSTITUTIONAL abortion laws. The "life begins at conception" idea is a particular belief of a particular part of Christianity. Laws that incorporate it into their structure are denying the rights of those who don't share their beliefs. Other interpretations include "first breath" (a lot of Jews) and Viability (a lot of other Christians, not to mention the non-religious or other religions.)
There are a bunch of cases right now challenging that idea of a law based on a particular religious perspective. And I fear that if and when those wend their way upward, we will get some mendacious reasoning that says "that's Just Fine."
Exactly this. I'm not Catholic but even if I was, or if the justices ruled in a restrictive way that happened to align with my own beliefs, someone injecting religion into interpreting secular laws isn't right. If I choose to live a certain way or follow a particular doctrine, I should be free to follow that, so long as I don't restrict anyone else or harm anyone else in doing so. If others choose not to live according to those same precepts, that is also their right and they shouldn't be forced to do so by our judiciary. It is unacceptable, even if their rulings by some miracle also fit my own personal worldview.
I've felt for a long time now that if your way of life appeals to others, they will choose it for themselves, especially if it's as good as you may believe it is. It's not up to us to coerce others to choose to live in ways we deem proper or worthy. We should only hold ourselves to the standards we accept for ourselves and obey the land's laws, while leaving others to do the same for themselves.
Freedom means just that: to do as you wish, so long as you're not harming or infringing on someone else's ability to do the same. My $.02, losing value all the time with inflation.
yup. See my comment on your own substack, the recent post about lies.
Thanks Susan. I did see that and replied. You might see the reply in your activity folder on your own Substack profile. Appreciate your comment and you taking the time to read that piece.
ah. I took a nap and missed it. That's the way the world everywhere, not just Substack, seems to work now--take a day off and it takes two days to catch up on the stuff that hit the fan while you were away from the computer.