Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
So you’re doing exactly what I said I originalist do make it up to fit what you want it to fit
You’re a few more examples of why is a lazy position
1. Originalism reduces the likelihood the judiciary will create law, a duty of the legislative branch. [History shows that originalist judges can be as activist as non-originalist judges]
2. Non-originalism leads to judges using their own personal values as opposed to the law. [Yet, originalist judges apply their personal opinions about the intent of the framers.]
3. Originalism allows voters to amend their Constitution when necessary to change the law. [An extremely difficult, time consuming task, that forces the population to suffer bad law for an extended time]
4. Originalism strengthens the Constitution as a binding contract. [Circular thinking. It’s a binding contract only if the citizens agree on the original intent.]
5. Originalism forces lawmakers to avoid creating bad laws, rather than leaving them to the courts to amend. [Good hypothesis; bad reality. It has done no such thing.]
The correct name for originalism is ”The Historian’s Fallacy” – “a logical fallacy that occurs when one assumes decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.”
Such as an arm is is an arm is a arm .. the only people contesting the meaning of armed are the 2a fanatics .any weapon any time or place with out restrictions or limitations.. and this new interpretation is less than 35 years old ? Go figure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
you want judges making laws? that’s not why they exist. that’s why legislatures exist.