The US Constitution: How Should It Be Interpreted?

Any student of law that reads Bush v Gore and concludes it was a valid legal reasoning needs to ask for a refund from their law school.

 

Further, if there is anyone here who think that the Bush v. Gore decision was reasonable and based on legally valid reasoning then let me know and we can debate it.

 

Well, the outcome itself is legally defensible, the decision itself will go down in history as one of the most poorly written legally indefensible decisions in USSC history.

 

Those who argue that the constitution has been shredded by the SC should have been up in arms over this decision.

Definitely one of the most bizarre to come out of the supreme court. They should've stayed out of it.

Peace,

V-03

 

Singularity, I am willing to debate the topic. If you think Bush v Gore was indefensible on an objective, originalist reading of the Equal Protection Clause, then let's hear your reasons.

If Jabbadabbado is correct, and a fixed, objective construction of the constitution, by the judicial branch, is impossible, then there is no point having a constitution at all. However, I do not believe that to be the case, provided 'originalism' (as opposed to the 'living constitution') is re-established as judicial orthodoxy.

As Justice Scalia remarked in Casey--"Texts and traditions are facts to be studied, not convictions to demonstrate about." To my mind, the purpose of the judicial branch is to objectively study the laws, and rigidly apply them, thus providing a government of laws rather than of men. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court now considers its role to be that of a super-legislature, and over the years has engaged in a process of systematically eliminating checks on its own power.

And that comes back to the issue of the judicial appointments process. A Supreme Court that does the work of lawyers should be occupied by elite lawyers on life terms. But a Court that does the work of legislators should be constituted politically. Anyone who thinks that the Supreme Court should 'update' the constitution as time passes should be prepared to give reasons why that body should not now be elected, considering the important social and moral decisions that it will be making.

 

Let me finish dispensing with my other debate and then we can debate Bush v. Gore.