Things Trump Is Doing Right

[Eric the Green]

(04-11-2017, 01:54 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(04-11-2017, 01:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Your hopes as stated here concern "judicial activism." From my point of view, and my protestations, the question is not so much about judicial activism, but about what sort of actions are taken. The justification matters less than the justice. Granted that the constitution is a guarantee of justice, but the Court is there to interpret it to meet the needs of the people, which the constitution was written by "we the people" to serve, and to form a more-perfect union.

I disagree.  The court's role is to insure the law is executed properly.  It's role is not to figure out what utopia is like, and try to make it so.

Yes, I am a Green liberal. So I disagree with originalism, but also disagree with utopianism. The law is intended to protect a higher ethical law, which is unwritten. The Court must interpret the written law in order to uphold the unwritten law. Social evolution and change did not stop in 1787; therefore the Constitution must be interpreted to fit the needs of the time. These days, in fact, the "originalists" interpret the constitution to "legislate the Republican agenda," which is always to turn the clock back to a nation under the authority of a wealthy white male elite, as it was in 1787. 

The most common utopian of today is a libertarian originalist, who thinks we can turn the clock back to the "enumerated powers" in order to shrink government in such a way that it cannot meet the needs of the people, and would not operate in the public interest. Gorsuch, Alito, Scalia and Thomas fit this mold.

Utopia does not exist; what is needed is justices who know and understand both the law and the needs of today's society. And of course, the Constitution was not entirely written in 1787, because the framers installed an amendment process; recognizing that society and its needs changes.

Congress can try to "figure out what utopia is like, and try to make it so." The Court must see to it that this law does not violate the Constitution, and take account of precedent. (It is not to see that the laws are executed properly; that's the role of the executive branch). Liberals understand that the Constitution itself is flexible enough to allow for progress toward utopia. Conservatives think that such things as civil rights and social programs did not exist in 1787, so they should not exist now. They think the Constitution is rigid enough to impose their restrictive goals upon us.

Considering whom the utopians ARE today, however, it's a question which side is the "liberal" side (or "neo-liberal"), and which the rigid one.