Quote of the Day
One problem with the court’s approach is that it is formalist, pedantic—soulless. It wrongly suggests that the court should give the words in a statute a form-over- substance significance that focuses on dictionaries, and historic word usage while ignoring the basic right at stake or the basic evil a law aims at ending. In the abortion case, an anti-abortion court could have turned the decision on weighing a life or potential life protected by the Constitution against the liberty of a woman to control her own body—another right protected by the Constitution. Rather than methodically marching to the foregone conclusion that women had no rights historically, the court could have overturned Roe simply by restriking the balance of rights in favor of a life or potential life that might be lost in abortion. Rather than spending their time fixated on the interior life of a gun, the court in Cargill could have considered what the law was obviously aimed at limiting—guns that mindlessly spew multitudes of bullets and threaten public safety. Laws have values in them—life, liberty, public safety, etc., and when the court ignores them in favor of games with words, it undermines respect for the institution.
Thomas G. Moukawsher
Former Connecticut complex litigation judge and a former co-chair of the American Bar Association Committee on Employee Benefits.
June 25, 2024
Bump-Stock Ruling Reveals a Supreme Court Obsessed With Word Play | Opinion (msn.com)
I dropped my jaw in amazement reading this. He thinks judges should weigh the pros and cons and examine how they feel about the topic to decide the case? Really? That is the job of the legislators when making the laws. If he were to have it his way we would end up with bump stocks being legal or illegal depending upon which judge was assigned to our case. Abortion doctors and the women who employed their services would be sent to jail or on their way, again, depending on what judge they were assigned or perhaps even the mood of the judge that day.
Word mean things and the law depends on the precise meaning of the words used to create those law. If not, then the result will be injustice and chaos. You just won’t know what is an ordinary everyday activity and what a multiple year felony.
This guy is a former judge! Well, maybe this is the reason he is a former judge. He has crap for brains.
It would be nice to think the judge is “former” because of this thinking, but I consider that highly unlikely. In fact, this sort of thinking is annoyingly common among judges, all the way up to the Supreme Court.
This is why they come up with weaselphrases like “living constitution”.
That is what leftists want to push, feeling over rule-of-law-as-written.
That is literally Satanic: “the whole of the law is do as thou will.”
Part of the reason there are so many Talmudic Jews as lawyers is there entire religion largely centers around finding “loopholes” in their holy text and exploiting them. Look up “Chicken swinging jews.” They don’t want the law to mean what it say, because like Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum they want the words to mean whatever they want at the moment, but they do want their opponents to be straight-jacketed by the the written word.
Please note that communism is Jewish in origin, as is modern leftism.
Rolf, might there be a communist parasitic brain-worm out there?
Kind of like butt-sex parasites?
Has to be something keeps these folks away from logic.
Often their logic is pretty solid. The problem stems from starting with at least one completely ridiculous premise. For example, “your sins can be transferred to an another (even an animal), and the other creature can die for your sins” in the case of kapparot. A religion that makes you study intense legalism will tend to produce good lawyers. Not good people, not honest lawyers, not socially beneficial to most people in the long run, but excellent at getting the guilty out of trouble on technicalities. That sort of behavior tends to be extremely corrosive to the public wheal.
FWIW, there is a line of argument that it is IS a parasite, transferred by blood exposure (such as during trad methods of circumcision) that causes a lot of their behaviors; related to that, a line of reasoning for that is why the Jewish docs are so dead-set against the widespread treating of medical things with ivermectin.
It’s not just rule-of-law-as-written that today’s leftists want to override with feelings. They also take feeling over mathematics, biology, thermodynamics, and reality. They see no contradiction in forcing us to switch to electric cars while they are closing fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, because they “feel” they should be able to come home from work and plug their battery-powered car in to recharge from solar power overnight!
Good comments all!
And I would suggest a lot of this got started with the SCOTUS judge that said; “The constitution says what I say it says”. And he didn’t get hanged for it.
This is the elitest culture that has been brewing under the surface of our country for a 100 years now. It now feels powerful enough to spit it in our face.
That and the internet has allowed us to see more of the real world around us. To hear and see the true nature of those that would and do lord over us.
Our forefathers warned us of the petty tyrant’s true nature. Now we can see it for ourselves.
History doesn’t always repeat itself. But it often rhymes.
“Gentlemen we have met the enemy….. They are the most ignorant of clowns.”
I think you are referring to Potter Stewart who said “I can’t define pornography but I know it when I see it.” He should have been impeached and removed for that but, of course, wasn’t. Probably the start of the problem.
This is a good example of my problem with the demise of Chevron. We have simply replaced an unaccountable bureaucracy with an even more unaccountable judiciary prone to doing random things.
The problem is MUCH older. If you haven’t, each of you should download from the Mises institute and read St. George Tucker’s book about the Constitution. He wrote it in 1803, and even back then could list a whole bunch of very familiar abuses.
The basic problem is that politicians, in all three (or more) branches, almost unanimously despise the Constitution. Most of them are slick about hiding that fact, but it’s very clear when you look at their actions rather than their words. It’s probably gotten worse starting around the days of TR and Wilson, but respect for the plain English words of the Constitution has never really been a thing.
Agreed, But, if SCOTUS had a backbone they would just nullify any rule or law that isn’t clearly and plainly written.
You and I would have no problem embarrassing the crap out of Merrick Garland for trying get us to buy that 390+ pages of bureaucratic BS, somehow clarifies 3 paragraphs wrote by congress?
If it ain’t like, “thou shalt not steal” or my personal favorite, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
It gets tossed.
Separate but equal, congress, sux it.
Seems to me the real problem is the oldest problem. Boredom.
Ego just can’t handle the simple. Even though simple grants the most power.
I mean, how much more fun could a guy have in life than being able to bitch-slap egotistical lawyers 40 hours a week? And get a good wage for doing it?
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, Supreme Court Justice, once said that he did not want a jurisprudence that depended on what the judge had for breakfast that morning.
This judge’s “reasoning” is based on the state of his digestion that day, which is no way to apply a constitution in a constitutional republic.
Holmes big mistake was supposedly shouting “Get down you fool” when the Confederates were shooting in the general direction of Lincoln. Lincoln did the first lasting damage to the Founders republic by abolishing the states as meaningful actors. He also created precedents for things that came back later to bite us like income tax and the draft. Although he didn’t invent it, he was an enthusiastic participant the the Whig policy of “internal improvements” even after he switched parties. We would call this corporate welfare or pork barrel politics.
An interesting comment about our “leaders” and how they view reality, and can “create reality” with enough word-spells from high-status people. https://gab.com/jim7z/posts/112703452996595698
Why don’t people see it? Why don’t they oppose it? As comrade Yuri Bezmenov reminds us: here https://www.bitchute.com/video/s1nPYDj7KBEQ/ (go to 1:41:30 , or about five min earlier for the setup) and he was saying this a couple of decades ago about demoralization)