Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
|
In the opinion of the writer (don't even want to use "author").
Much of the philosophy underpinning the U.S. Constitution and our criminal and civil law in this country is based on the "morality" of the Anglo-Saxon-Christian principles embraced by the early founders of the current government system we have.
Attempting to "relabel" people based on some flawed perception of reality is ridiculous at best. Liberals do that shit all the time!
And BTW that is the fundamental conflict we have with Sharia Law!
The customary description of Scalia (and Gorsuch) is they are "strict constructionists," which means they interpret the Constitution the way it is written (while applying the philosophies of the time in which it was crafted to do the interpretation) as OPPOSED to expanding the meaning of the words used in the original document to "accommodate" their political and philosophical beliefs at the time they make the decision. "Strict constructionists" explore the "legislative" history and philosophy to determine the "intent" of the words employed when crafted and "passed." Some expansions to unforeseen factual scenarios are addressed to meet the changing times, but you will often see "strict constructionists" refer to Congress or State legislatures for crafting laws as opposed to them doing so with their decisions. That's a more "democratic" method.
Neil Gorsuch, not an originalist?
