Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial.
-- Clarence Thomas
1 comment:
As much as I agree with Justice Thomas, he is far too flippant in his dismissal of other viewpoints. Judicial activism is practiced and preached by his colleagues on the bench and cannot be easily thrown aside by a wave of the hand. Perhaps there was greater explanation in his speech but this issue is important enough that a person of his intellect should offer up more than a simple "you're wrong."
Personally, I believe Chief Justice Roberts is on the right track. The Court should seek to provide the minimal input required. As the least representative and accountable branch, the Court should leave as much to the people's representatives in Congress and the White House as possible. The Court should only act when Congress clearly over steps its bounds. The Court should also leave State decisions to to the States as much as possible.
Post a Comment