Quote:In answering a question about the Supreme Court in a presidential debate with Trump, Hillary Clinton characteristically subordinated law to a grab bag of progressive policy objectives. “I feel that at this point in our country’s history, it is important that we not reverse marriage equality, that we not reverse Roe v. Wade, that we stand up against Citizens United, we stand up for the rights of people in the workplace.” In contrast, Trump provided a general legal standard based on a principle: “Interpret the Constitution the way the Founders wanted it interpreted.” This is a rough but handy description of originalism.

But however much money they spend, judicial progressives face an existential difficulty: the Left has no philosophy of jurisprudence to compete with originalism.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/philos...15961.html

FIXED IN TIME

In the last quoted sentence, you could put a period after "jurisprudence" and drop the rest.

(06-13-2018 01:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In the last quoted sentence, you could put a period after "jurisprudence" and drop the rest.

This.

People like Hillary Clinton simply start out with a list of stuff that they like, and claim that the Constitution requires all levels of government to allow it. Then there’s another list of stuff they don’t like, and they claim the Constitution forbids it. They may dress it up with fancy words and phrases they picked up from watching PBS, but really their analysis doesn’t go any deeper than that.

(06-13-2018 01:39 PM)green Wrote:  

Quote:In answering a question about the Supreme Court in a presidential debate with Trump, Hillary Clinton characteristically subordinated law to a grab bag of progressive policy objectives. “I feel that at this point in our country’s history, it is important that we not reverse marriage equality, that we not reverse Roe v. Wade, that we stand up against Citizens United, we stand up for the rights of people in the workplace.” In contrast, Trump provided a general legal standard based on a principle: “Interpret the Constitution the way the Founders wanted it interpreted.” This is a rough but handy description of originalism.

But however much money they spend, judicial progressives face an existential difficulty: the Left has no philosophy of jurisprudence to compete with originalism.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/philos...15961.html

FIXED IN TIME

If Original Intent is NOT the foundation of our Constitution then we have no Constitution.